DO NOT VOTE JOHN McCain

[010101]

nor I can proof there aren't really leprechauns in Ireland, it is just sensible to know that there aren't

So I have to proof it is man made, but don't have to proof it is not because you deem it sensible? What a blessed life you must live if all things you deem sensible are true.

Sadam was a threat only to his own people, but we don't attack every dictator now do we?

[allonons]

It is really funny when I see euros theorising American politics and why our decisions were either bad or good based on what they think they know.

Euos need to grab thier nads and tell russia to take a walk, boot thier commie butts out of the great 8 and stand up for once ,just once in my lifetime befor I die please let me see europe stand up to something, anyhting,just once.

Europe has turned into a bunch of appeasers,I personally feel we should pull out of nato and rid ourselves from the farce which is the UN.

Europe is nothing but hot air with no intent on action of any kind,keep chit chatting about, woulda, coulda, shoulda,fact remains America does not need europe to fight any war "or take any action it deems fit at the time."

What democratic country in europe can you say that about ...none.

[VT2]

The UN serves a very important, highly specialized purpose in the international community.
No one, except maybe Bush, makes me laugh as much as it.

[freemehul]

Sadam was a threat only to his own people, but we don't attack every dictator now do we?

wrong!

fact remains America does not need europe to fight any war "or take any action it deems fit at the time."

wrong!

It is really funny when I see euros theorising American politics

what i really find laughable is someone not knowing the difference between the AIVD and the AVID

I've been to the U.S., I have relatives living in the U.S., I understand it's geography, where as most americans don't even get thaught in that subject anymore

fact is most europeans know the U.S. a whole lot better than most americans know Europe, hell some europeans know the U.S. better than some americans know it themselves

so first of all shut up if you want to blame me on theorizing and second of all shut up, because i'm not theorizing and third of all this is on a internet board so guess what shut up about

keep chit chatting about

I'm not chit chatting, i'm telling you how it is

you on the other hand are chit chatting bullcrap

Euos need to grab thier nads and tell russia to take a walk, boot thier commie butts out of the great 8 and stand up for once ,just once in my lifetime befor I die please let me see europe stand up to something, anyhting,just once.

ugh yeah, Europe has as many idiots as the U.S. has


people just don't seem to get that the only way to ensure your own safety and way of life is to fight evil regimes and not to appease them

I guess that is why so many americans want to vote for Obama, the same way Dutch and German politicians want to appease Putin.

Both ways are equally retarded. In that respect the U.S. and Europe are equally wrong, with equally flawed systems and equally dimwitted politicians and equally idiotic population.

The only difference is the context is different, with different results on various areas on either side, but ultimately with the same pisspoor endresult.

hell both sides suck if you really think about it, kind of makes you wonder if humanity and the free democratic world is really worth fighting for in the first place?

You know what maybe we should get it over with and handover all our nukes to Iran and watch the world go up in one big flash. If you're going to go anyway, you might aswell go out with a big bang. ;)

it basicly comes down to this allonons,

it does not matter what side you are on, it does not matter where you live, it does not matter what your political views are, what matters is that you need to be right.


and guess what you are wrong!

[TheGnu]

I was going to vote for John McCain, but since a random internet poster said not to, I changed my mind.

[010101]

wrong!

Could you eleborate on that? Do we attack every dictator or was Sadam not only a thread to his own people?

[freemehul]

Could you eleborate on that?

honestly are you really that dumb?

So I have to proof it is man made, but don't have to proof it is not because you deem it sensible? What a blessed life you must live if all things you deem sensible are true.

yes the burden of proof lies with you and that is indeed sensible

let me explain to you what the logical consequens is of what you are doing if you state the opposite as you say it is.

It means with regard to Saddam, that you place your trust in a man who has murdered prior to his ascend to power over those who have not murdered. Ergo you state that the integrity and honesty of a murderer is higher than that of any other person who isn't a murderer!

and that allonons is morally wrong.

Now with regard to the global warming issue, if I were to assume that you assume action is needed, it would be safe to state that you deem something like the Kyoto protocol as right. The logical consequens of that is planting pine trees in countries like nicaragua.

and that allonons is morally wrong.

[AFKain]

This is silly, do you ever apply any kind of logic or facts to back up your arguments?

First of all, there is nothing "morally wrong" with trusting one human being over another, you decide who you want to trust, there is no right and wrong and you don't burn in hell for making the wrong pick. Secondly whether one of the leaders behind the war in Iraq is morally superior to another on a personal level is totally irrelevant for anything other than our personal views on this leader. Thirdly your assumption that a man who has been found guilty of a crime would also be a liar is quite flawed and very narrow minded. I imagine you wouldn't be very suited for jury service.
And for the record I think it is quite naive to talk about honesty while comparing people like GWB and Saddam. By the way, I didn't just now support Saddam in case you would like to make that claim, nor do I think that anyone else in this thread has, I suppose assumptions like that get thrown in just to make your arguments a bit easier.

Now about global warming, I don't even know where to start. It looks like you just jotted down what you think and then end the paragraph by saying "if you think something else than this it is morally wrong". Don't get me wrong that's a very traditional way of doing it and it does kind of go hand in hand with the sort of values you seem to support but I still can't help that I find myself wondering where the facts are and who gets to decide what's wrong and right. I suppose a good idea might be for you to try to make an argument to convince us that saving the world is morally wrong, you know, to me it sounds like a good idea but hey, what do I know...

[freemehul]

afk you're twisting words

and that shows you are narrowminded

Secondly whether one of the leaders behind the war in Iraq is morally superior to another on a personal level is totally irrelevant

that is wrong in so many ways i don't even know where to begin with. If you are stating that, than you either value a murderer over a liar, or you say that both are equally bad. Either of which is a lie and that is what i meant with it being morally wrong, because duh lying is wrong.

Frankly I don't want to know which one it is with you, because both are bad.

the result is that you do indeed value Saddam over Bush, because there is no middle ground in what you are doing albeit with only one exception, you posing as a what is called a devil's advocate.

The thing is I don't think that's what you are doing, because I get the feeling you genuinely believe your own wrong is right. And make no mistake you are indeed wrong!

At best that makes you a sceptic of democracy, at worst it makes you a staunch supporter of tyranny. I say either way the latter is irrelevant, because bottomline that makes you not a democrat, because you are not prepared to stand up for democratic values. In some ways those values are prioritized and for example what that means is that yes lies are bad, but murder is far worse.

and who gets to decide what's wrong and right.

lol and this is why you are narrowminded, you think what is wrong or right lies in a loyality question and
that is not true

wrong or right lies in ones actions and inactions not ones allegiance to one and other

you see a true democrat and a truly good person knows ways to determine wether ones action is right or wrong. If you state those lies like you do, then you don't know how to do that. It is important that you do have that insight, because one can only act on what ones values are (permitted of course you act with true intent and I will not delve in that matter, because it is a sidetrack). Now loyality to a person or faction can be an action in itself, but pasiveness or non allegiance is also an action or rather an inaction.

I suppose a good idea might be for you to try to make an argument to convince us that saving the world is morally wrong

One cannot make a sound argument for that, only fallacies and you are indeed using such fallacies if you say you shouldn't vote for McCain. Because bottomline is that you are wrong in saying that countries like Iran are no threat and that global warming is man made. The result is that you are impassive at the first account, while that is not what you should you do and you act on the second account and again that is something you shouldn't do.


Let me describe what you are doing afk.

The situation is this. We have two walls, wall one is blue, wall two is not blue. What I am doing is stating that wall one is blue and wall two isn't blue. What you are doing is stating that both walls are red. You are simply wrong in saying that wall one is red and you are being presumptious in saying that wall two is red.

You are wrong the first time because you do not prioritize in the right way and you are wrong the second time because you are narrowminded (afterall the wall can be green for all you know it).

There is no way for me to argue why your view on this is wrong, because to me you are colorblind.

getting back to this:

and who gets to decide what's wrong and right.

you see this is a wrong question, you need to know what is wrong or right, not what to decide. Afterall the decision is made, or rather implemented when you act, or do not act. You're on the other hand are making the decision on the time you orientate, or perhaps earlier than that, namely when you observe.

Now from the statement you made (permitted it was made with true intent), I can say that you observe global warming as man made and that countries like Iran pose no threat. You fail at observation because you are simply wrong in assuming that it is man made and that it is no threat. You are wrong the first time because you mistake a fallacy for an argument, which is a logical flaw. You make that mistake in observation because you think the premisse is true, while in fact it is not true which is a flaw in your knowledge. You are wrong the second time you because you don't tie two more things together of what is on the wrong side, while in fact they are clearly related and the on the right side you are correlating two or more things together which are clearly not related that way. For the wrong side it is because you lack knowledge of it, for the right side it is because you genuinely seem or appear to believe that what is supposedly wrong about it is because you think your allegiance or non allegiance to it determines you being right or wrong.
I know the latter because of what you just did there, namely you twisting my words.

I can proof the latter part by this example.

Suppose I have two factions, one who in majority asseses the situation correctly and one who in majority does not. To clarify we will call the first one reps and the latter one dems. Now the situation is as follows, the majority follows party line, which means that not everyone does that.

For simplicity sake we'll narrow the ways to determine a member from each one of the factions is right down to two ways.

To clarify we call the first way the FM way and the second way the AFK way. The first way is to find out why one is wrong or right and then to pick one that is right. The second way is to find out who is of what faction and then to pick one of that faction. Sure there is the possibility that you can pick a good member, but you really aren't certain. The second way is narrowminded as such because the underlying assumption is that if the majority of the faction is deciding that way, then they must be right. This is wrong, 1. because you haven't determined wether that faction is right and 2. not every member in that faction follows partyline and 3. there is more than one faction.

and who gets to decide what's wrong and right.

the trouble with a retorical question is that the answer already lies within it, or rather those who pose the question think that is the answer

you are wrong AFK, because
1 you fail in observation
2 you do orientate, but you do not orientate on everything
3 you decide too early
4 the implications of this is that you do not act the first time where as you should act and you do act the second time where as you should not act

[freemehul]

I didn't just now support Saddam in case you would like to make that claim

you see that is wrong

your inactions would give him the support he needs, since ultimately not to have done anything would have kept him in office


the consequens of which is both logically and morally wrong


now no doubt you'll make a retorical fallacy to this, namely by posing something in the line of that it is wrong to go to war in iraq, because innocent civilians get killed in war.

I can counter that by saying it is worse not to, because Saddam has oppressed and killed his own people aswell as those outside of Iraq (and to allonons yes there are non-iraqi victims of saddam). The first part makes him an imoral menace, the second part makes him an inmoral bastard who is also a threat to us.

What that means is that getting rid of him is per saldo an improvement for the world. For the first part because on the short run it would mean less iraqis getting killed (yes Saddam has killed a whole lot more than with the Amercian coalition led invasion) and in the long run at least the potential for a better Iraq (and you are indeed either a sceptic of democracy or a favor of tyrants if you state the opposite). For the second part because it eliminates a threat, which he has shown to be because he invaded Kuwait.


You can try and fail, but it is better to have tried than not having tried at all. Because not trying at all is a certain failure.

[AFKain]

First of all I have to give you props for the nice cherry picking, I don't think I saw a single whole sentence in your quotes.

that is wrong in so many ways i don't even know where to begin with. If you are stating that, than you either value a murderer over a liar, or you say that both are equally bad. Either of which is a lie and that is what i meant with it being morally wrong, because duh lying is wrong.

Frankly I don't want to know which one it is with you, because both are bad.

the result is that you do indeed value Saddam over Bush, because there is no middle ground in what you are doing albeit with only one exception, you posing as a what is called a devil's advocate.

The thing is I don't think that's what you are doing, because I get the feeling you genuinely believe your own wrong is right. And make no mistake you are indeed wrong!

At best that makes you a sceptic of democracy, at worst it makes you a staunch supporter of tyranny. I say either way the latter is irrelevant, because bottomline that makes you not a democrat, because you are not prepared to stand up for democratic values. In some ways those values are prioritized and for example what that means is that yes lies are bad, but murder is far worse.

I wonder how this goes from me saying that your opinion on a person's moral is irrelevant to your opinion on that person's actions to me supporting tyranny, that's quite an amazing leap you manage. The fact that I agree with the values of say Mr Bush does not mean that any action he takes is right. Hence your opinion on the moral of a person is irrelevant to whether a war is right or wrong, what should be measured is the action in itself.

A simple example would be this:
Mr GWB says - let's nuke Russia they have oil I need.
Mr Saddam says - don't nuke Russia that will trigger world war 3.

Now in your opinion it would be morally wrong to agree with the second statement, is it possible that this example is radical enough that such a stance seems a bit weird to you?

It would be much easier to argue with you if you could stop assigning opinions to those that disagree with you. Please go find some post (in your case I suppose it should be part of a post) where I say that democracy is bad.

lol and this is why you are narrowminded, you think what is wrong or right lies in a loyality question and
that is not true

wrong or right lies in ones actions and inactions not ones allegiance to one and other

you see a true democrat and a truly good person knows ways to determine wether ones action is right or wrong. If you state those lies like you do, then you don't know how to do that. It is important that you do have that insight, because one can only act on what ones values are (permitted of course you act with true intent and I will not delve in that matter, because it is a sidetrack). Now loyality to a person or faction can be an action in itself, but pasiveness or non allegiance is also an action or rather an inaction.

This shows that you have at least strayed a bit from your initial position that everything that person X does is right (I hope, you're a bit difficult to understand). Now I wish to investigate this tool for determining right and wrong which all peace loving and righteous people apparently possess. Since you have the power to determine that somebody is morally wrong what is morally right must be universal. This would mean that in every case where there is a choice to be made there would be a right and wrong and those who are "truly good" would always make the same pick as you.

This means that as soon as anyone disagrees with you, you play the "if you don't agree with me you are morally wrong" card. Now as I said earlier this is indeed a very handy option but it is of course quite narrow minded and it is also wrong. You can't in every situation determine that something is right or wrong because you do not know all of the facts or all the reactions to your actions.

Take for example this experiment where you are given the choice of killing group A, group B or group C, if you do not choose one of them all will be killed. How do you determine what the "right" choice is and how do you know that all other "good" people would make the same choice?

One cannot make a sound argument for that, only fallacies and you are indeed using such fallacies if you say you shouldn't vote for McCain. Because bottomline is that you are wrong in saying that countries like Iran are no threat and that global warming is man made. The result is that you are impassive at the first account, while that is not what you should you do and you act on the second account and again that is something you shouldn't do.

I still await any kind of proof of your claims, you have to excuse me but I have a hard time taking your word over that of scientists who actually know what they are talking about.

Let me describe what you are doing afk.

The situation is this. We have two walls, wall one is blue, wall two is not blue. What I am doing is stating that wall one is blue and wall two isn't blue. What you are doing is stating that both walls are red. You are simply wrong in saying that wall one is red and you are being presumptious in saying that wall two is red.

You are wrong the first time because you do not prioritize in the right way and you are wrong the second time because you are narrowminded (afterall the wall can be green for all you know it).

There is no way for me to argue why your view on this is wrong, because to me you are colorblind.

This "walls analogy" is complete BS if I may be so frank. Somewhere in your translation from English to "wallish" it goes wrong. What you've been saying is that the actions of wall 1 are right because wall 2 is a murderer. In the second example you are stating that wall 2 is blue while I state that it is red, you do not in fact know the color of the wall nor do I but on my side I have the vast majority of all "color determining" scientists while on your side you have your own moral superiority and an as of yet unpublished list of experts who probably never will be revealed since they only exist in the minds of you and people of a similar nature.

Then there was some more ranting, the message being that I am wrong because you say so. And somewhere in there I was given an opinion on Iran which was a bit odd since this is the first time I mention Iran in here. Anyway, I chose to ignore all of that since it really made no sense and mostly seemed to consist of bs.

Suppose I have two factions, one who in majority asseses the situation correctly and one who in majority does not. To clarify we will call the first one reps and the latter one dems. Now the situation is as follows, the majority follows party line, which means that not everyone does that.

Let me just stop you right there, what we are arguing is how something is determined to be right or wrong. The fact that you think that republicans are right on more occasions than democrats does not (no matter how much you wish it would) make it so.

Now onto your "ways". By saying that someone would be morally wrong for disagreeing with Mr Bush you are in fact following the way which you discard. Anyway, it is amusing to see how you are putting words in my mouth, I can't wait to see what I will think or support next.

Then you ended with some kind of list that seems to have no value at all, mostly it looks like a repetition of the previously stated argument "you are wrong because you disagree with me".


And joy! There was another post!

your inactions would give him the support he needs, since ultimately not to have done anything would have kept him in office

Finally a logical argument. I'm afraid it is wrong though, all I was saying in my post was that it would not be morally wrong to take the word of one person over the word of another.

Not attacking Saddam would indeed be a sort of passive support, which is given to many other tyrants I might add. One would have to estimate the good and the bad effects of such an action or inaction to come to a conclusion whether it is wrong or right, one cannot just work under the assumption that anything person X says is correct.

What that means is that getting rid of him is per saldo an improvement for the world. For the first part because on the short run it would mean less iraqis getting killed (yes Saddam has killed a whole lot more than with the Amercian coalition led invasion) and in the long run at least the potential for a better Iraq (and you are indeed either a sceptic of democracy or a favor of tyrants if you state the opposite). For the second part because it eliminates a threat, which he has shown to be because he invaded Kuwait.

One does not have to be a skeptic of democracy to question the cost of the supposed democracy that Iraq has today. The monetary costs alone are immense and they could have done a lot more good both for US goodwill and for the world as aid rather than as weapons. Force is not the only way to create democracy.

[freemehul]

The fact that I agree with the values of say Mr Bush does not mean that any action he takes is right.

that can be incorrect, because actions have consequences

I still await any kind of proof of your claims, you have to excuse me but I have a hard time taking your word over that of scientists who actually know what they are talking about.

didn't mention before that the burden of proof lies with you?

Oh wait I did mention it
and you can't proof it.

and before you circle back to posting another source (which is an appeal to authority), please don't, because that simply does not work.

What you've been saying is that the actions of wall 1 are right because wall 2 is a murderer.

no i'm not saying that, please look again

Mr GWB says - let's nuke Russia they have oil I need.
Mr Saddam says - don't nuke Russia that will trigger world war 3.

first of all you missed the point and second this is logically incorrect, simply for the fact that none of premisses are right to begin with

look you're circling around the same issue, this is getting nowhere, because you just don't see it

I will only continue, if you can explain why that is incorrect, else it would be me talking to a brick wall (pardon the analogy here) and then this would be pointless to continue.

Basically it comes to a number of steps you'd have to take first (both are sidetracks, but they're sidetracks you'd have to take).

step 1 is what i just mentioned
step 2 is incredibly time consuming, it would mean going through all the supposed arguments of those in favor of man made global warming

Let me give it you straightforward that step 2 is so time consuming, that i'm not going to do that, because hell i'm too lazy for that.

step 3 would be going through why you are incorrect about there being no threat and then going through the possible strategies of how to combat it. This is time consuming, but not as bad as step 2. However you can only take step 3, if you at least see why you were incorrect at step 1, else there would be no point to continue.

[010101]

Sorry I don't feel the need to discus with someone so full of himself like freemehul. People like that like them selfs far to much. Have fun living in your self made reality. he wants everybody to explain them selfs but freemehul himself does not have to do that since he is so "sensible". He types a lot but but has no arguments just states his own believes as the ultimate truth.

[Swirvin' Birds]

Sadam was a threat only to his own people, but we don't attack every dictator now do we?

wrong!

No, that is RIGHT. You want me to back that statement up? Do I really need to waste my time with that? There are a lot of Dictators that we do not invade. I'll create a list for you if you want.

fact remains America does not need europe to fight any war "or take any action it deems fit at the time."

wrong!

So we need the Europeans to fight a war? Tell that to the Republicans.

what i really find laughable is someone not knowing the difference between the AIVD and the AVID

I've been to the U.S., I have relatives living in the U.S., I understand it's geography, where as most americans don't even get thaught in that subject anymore

fact is most europeans know the U.S. a whole lot better than most americans know Europe, hell some europeans know the U.S. better than some americans know it themselves

so first of all shut up if you want to blame me on theorizing and second of all shut up, because i'm not theorizing and third of all this is on a internet board so guess what shut up about

Want to try me on that one Freemehul? Your statement is purely false. You find me some 'dumb' Americans and I'll find you some 'dumb' Europeans.

One cannot make a sound argument for that, only fallacies and you are indeed using such fallacies if you say you shouldn't vote for McCain. Because bottomline is that you are wrong in saying that countries like Iran are no threat and that global warming is man made. The result is that you are impassive at the first account, while that is not what you should you do and you act on the second account and again that is something you shouldn't do.

Here is Carl Rove on McCain adds. About how the McCain ads have gone beyond the TRUTH.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...nt-truth-test/

And on the Global Warming part? How many Billions of tons of CO2 do we dump into the atmosphere each and every day? I CO2 a greenhouse gas? So it is NOT incorrect about Global Warming. CO2 is just the start. Even a few degrees of warming causes a increase in the amout of water vapor in the atmosphere. So yes, MAN does have a effect on global warming. Combine that with the severe deforestation of the planet and the problem is made worse. Once again a man made problem.

Because bottomline is that you are wrong in saying that countries like Iran are no threat and that global warming is man made.

No, that means you are wrong FM. I like how you always use Global Warming is man-made. That's not the question. The question is are we ACCELERATING Global Warming, not causing it.

And Iran has always been a Thorn in our side due to American foreign policies. And since you see to know so much about Iran I think you missed that they are a DEMOCRATIC country. Not a Dictatorship. As a matter of fact Iranians LOVE western culture. Great diplomacy calling them a part of the 'AXIS OF EVIL'.

And to your earlier question to me about Sadam not being a threat... no, he was no threat to anyone but his own people. There are OTHER ways of dealing with Foreign countries other than invade them. Maybe if we tried diplomacy a little more there wouldn't be terrorists wanting to bomb us.

FM is just like McCain, throw a few lies around and hope some stick.

[freemehul]

No, that is RIGHT. You want me to back that statement up?

i was referring to the threat, so that still makes you wrong

about Iran I think you missed that they are a DEMOCRATIC country

seriously you call Iran a democratic nation?

I'm done debating with you, you are evil, plain and simple if you state that

but has no arguments

i did use arguments, you have never used a single argument whatsoever and you mistake fallacies for genuine arguments, which you truly believe in

to a large amount your beliefsystem is based on lies, I really pity you

Sorry I don't feel the need

lol you don't feel the need because you can't reach my level, guess what i am indeed better at making good decisions than you are, if you can't even continue the discussion

I'll grant you one thing 010101, you do at least realize when you've been defeated



so what it comes down to that none are willing to try. Allonons perhaps or are we truly done?