|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Your Washington Post article is from 2005. I was discussing an event that happened in 2003. Nice try though. |
The Washington Post article was written in 2005 but the Iraq survey group is reporting on evidence of what was happening in 2003:
| Quote: |
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 26, 2005; Page A01
U.S. investigators hunting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have found no evidence that such material was moved to Syria for safekeeping before the war according to a final report of the investigation released yesterday. |
| Quote: |
| I still haven't seen any solid proof that Bush knew for a fact that there were no WMD's in Iraq as of 2003. But that's okay. |
I'm just curious, is this an article of religious faith to you? What is going to qualify as "solid evidence?" You're asking for proof of what someone knew at some point in the past? Nothing will pass your bar except if Bush himself gets up in front of Congress and everybody and says, "Hey, look everybody - we lied. We all knew there no WMDs, we knew it all the time. Started out as prank, but then it just sort of snowballed, and after a while it got harder and harder ..."
Seriously, what would convince you short of a full confession from these war criminals? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Your Washington Post article is from 2005. I was discussing an event that happened in 2003. Nice try though. |
The Washington Post article was written in 2005 but the Iraq survey group is reporting on evidence of what was happening in 2003:
| Quote: |
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 26, 2005; Page A01
U.S. investigators hunting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have found no evidence that such material was moved to Syria for safekeeping before the war according to a final report of the investigation released yesterday. |
| Quote: |
| I still haven't seen any solid proof that Bush knew for a fact that there were no WMD's in Iraq as of 2003. But that's okay. |
I'm just curious, is this an article of religious faith to you? What is going to qualify as "solid evidence?" You're asking for proof of what someone knew at some point in the past? Nothing will pass your bar except if Bush himself gets up in front of Congress and everybody and says, "Hey, look everybody - we lied. We all knew there no WMDs, we knew it all the time. Started out as prank, but then it just sort of snowballed, and after a while it got harder and harder ..."
Seriously, what would convince you short of a full confession from these war criminals? |
What would convince me?
A trial AND conviction. Not necessarily a confession. But a trial and conviction. Until then Bush is entitled to what everyone else is entitled to..a presumption of innocent until proven guilty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Seriously, what would convince you short of a full confession from these war criminals? |
What would convince me?
A trial AND conviction. Not necessarily a confession. But a trial and conviction. Until then Bush is entitled to what everyone else is entitled to..a presumption of innocent until proven guilty. |
It really IS a little like religious faith for you, then. I say that because ...
This is your initial post on this thread:
| Quote: |
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:10 pm
Regardless of the wet dreams on this thread, impeachment will not come to pass nor will a civil or criminal trial. [...]The powers that be will not permit this. |
Damn I'm probably lying or quoting you out of context or cherry-picking ... no, it's what you said: it's never going to happen, says TUM, becuase "The powers that be will not permit this." So, the very thing that is never going to happen is the ONLY thing that will convince you ...
'Tis wondrous and borderline mystical, somesuch belike transmigrating of the soul through the Bardol Todol ether, as the tibetans speak of, or the inherent paradixes of the tripartite yet singular godhead in catholicism ... or, then again, maybe it's just lame.
This link takes anyone who wants to look at your original post right there. If I'm quoting you out of context, go ahead and flame me - but I don't think so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow! That is pretty powerful. It is a pretty good bet to say Bush is going down, if not by impeachment before he leaves office, certainly in a trial afterwards.
Is there any mechanism to impeach a president after he leaves office? I'll settle for the murder conviction, but I'm just wondering.
As far as sentencing, even for George Bush, I still don't support the death penalty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Seriously, what would convince you short of a full confession from these war criminals? |
What would convince me?
A trial AND conviction. Not necessarily a confession. But a trial and conviction. Until then Bush is entitled to what everyone else is entitled to..a presumption of innocent until proven guilty. |
It really IS a little like religious faith for you, then. I say that because ...
This is your initial post on this thread:
| Quote: |
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:10 pm
Regardless of the wet dreams on this thread, impeachment will not come to pass nor will a civil or criminal trial. [...]The powers that be will not permit this. |
Damn I'm probably lying or quoting you out of context or cherry-picking ... no, it's what you said: it's never going to happen, says TUM, becuase "The powers that be will not permit this." So, the very thing that is never going to happen is the ONLY thing that will convince you ...
'Tis wondrous and borderline mystical, somesuch belike transmigrating of the soul through the Bardol Todol ether, as the tibetans speak of, or the inherent paradixes of the tripartite yet singular godhead in catholicism ... or, then again, maybe it's just lame.
This link takes anyone who wants to look at your original post right there. If I'm quoting you out of context, go ahead and flame me - but I don't think so. |
It's not a paradox at all. A trial and conviction WOULD convince me. However since I do not believe a trial and conviction will ever occur, I remain unconvinced. Seems fairly clear to me. A leads to B which leads to C.
A. A trial and conviction would convince me.
B. I do not believe a trial and conviction will take place.
C. Therefore I remain unconvinced of Bush's guilt.
Keep in mind that a cornerstone of Western law as it applies to the judicial system is innocent until proven guilty. If a trial and conviction never takes place, then Bush is by presumption innocent. Again I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even Bush doesn't use the 'innocent until proven guilty' you're giving him, not for those in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib at least.
________________________
begin quote:
Unfortunately for George Bush�and I don�t know how he could get around this at his trial�on October the 1st, six days earlier, the CIA sent George Bush its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a report from sixteen US intelligence agencies�Anyway, he was sent this report representing the consensus opinion of all sixteen US intelligence agencies on the issue of whether Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country.
And on page eight of this ninety-one-page report, page eight, it clearly and unequivocally says�and, by the way, what I�m about to tell you, to my knowledge, has never appeared in any national newspaper or magazine in America; it may have, but to my knowledge, I�ve never heard this said before in any of the major magazines or newspapers of America. Page nine�page eight, ninety-one-page report, clearly and unequivocally says that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country, that he would only be a threat if he feared that America was about to attack him. In other words, he would only be a threat if he was forced to fight in self-defense.
end quote.
VINCENT BUGLIOSI
Seems BUGLIOSI claims he has enough to convict Bush for the murder of 4000 US servicemen.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_renowned_attorney_vincent
_______________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Is there any mechanism to impeach a president after he leaves office? I'll settle for the murder conviction, but I'm just wondering.
|
As I understand it, impeachment is just political jargon for indictment of an officer of state while in office. Out of office, the person is subject to the regular laws just like anyone else.
I, for one, would be highly surprised to see any judicial steps taken against Bush/Cheyney after they leave office. I think most people are opposed to the idea of chasing former presidents and trying to punish them for mistakes made in office--too much like what South Korea did to Chun Do-Hwan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Seriously, what would convince you short of a full confession from these war criminals? |
What would convince me?
A trial AND conviction. Not necessarily a confession. But a trial and conviction. Until then Bush is entitled to what everyone else is entitled to..a presumption of innocent until proven guilty. |
It really IS a little like religious faith for you, then. I say that because ...
This is your initial post on this thread:
| Quote: |
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:10 pm
Regardless of the wet dreams on this thread, impeachment will not come to pass nor will a civil or criminal trial. [...]The powers that be will not permit this. |
Damn I'm probably lying or quoting you out of context or cherry-picking ... no, it's what you said: it's never going to happen, says TUM, becuase "The powers that be will not permit this." So, the very thing that is never going to happen is the ONLY thing that will convince you ...
 'Tis wondrous and borderline mystical, somesuch belike transmigrating of the soul through the Bardol Todol ether, as the tibetans speak of, or the inherent paradixes of the tripartite yet singular godhead in catholicism ... or, then again, maybe it's just lame. 
This link takes anyone who wants to look at your original post right there. If I'm quoting you out of context, go ahead and flame me - but I don't think so. |
It's not a paradox at all. A trial and conviction WOULD convince me. However since I do not believe a trial and conviction will ever occur, I remain unconvinced. Seems fairly clear to me. A leads to B which leads to C.
A. A trial and conviction would convince me.
B. I do not believe a trial and conviction will take place.
C. Therefore I remain unconvinced of Bush's guilt.
Keep in mind that a cornerstone of Western law as it applies to the judicial system is innocent until proven guilty. If a trial and conviction never takes place, then Bush is by presumption innocent. Again I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. |
I was being humourous about the religious paradox, and I'm sorry, I must have forgotten who I was talking to ... note to self: be SURE to use emoticons to mark ironic sections for our conservative friends. (There. I've edited them in above.)
First, it's not so much a paradox as it is a tautology, a logical fallacy that defines something by using itself to define itself. Dig?
A better way to diagram A, B, and C as youy've done above is thusly: A trial and impeachment will never happen because the powers that be will never allow it.
A trial and impeachment is the only way that will ever possibly convince TUM (short of a confession by conspirators) that lies were told by this president and his staff to bring the US into a needless and costly war that has no benefit to our country and has done great harm.
Because the first thing has been placed into the category of Impossible Things Will Never Happen, therefore it is also true that TUM will never, ever be convinced by any means of the fact that the Bush administration lied. Now, TUM, what I really and truly wish at this moment is that you had simply cut to the chase from the start and said clearly from the beginning that there is not any possible way in this universe that you will EVER be convinced.
It's absolutely your right to believe things that are impossible, or to refuse to believe things that are clearly shown to be true, or to continue believing things that have been shown to be false. You can do that in America, at least, as far as I'm soncerned you can do it here, too.
Just let me know when you're going to go all religious on me next time, so I don't waste a lot of energy showing you things everyone else already knows.
In any case, you've now chosen the fallback position of the legal defintion of guilt rather than the one that most of us work with. At this moment in history very few people really believe that O.J. Simpson is not the guy who killed his ex ... but yes, by the legal definition he IS innocent because he has been found to be so in a court of criminal law.
Ladies and Gentle, for your edification tonight I'd like to present ... The Urban Myth! Yes, friends and nighbors, it's true. Here is The Last Man Alive who STILL believes that Saddam Hussein had WMDs just prior to the US invasion of Baghdad, and yes, he just might also believe that O.J. Simpson is an innocent man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I, for one, would be highly surprised to see any judicial steps taken against Bush/Cheyney after they leave office. I think most people are opposed to the idea of chasing former presidents and trying to punish them for mistakes made in office-- |
You might just be surprised. The last time a president was 'chased' was in the 1970s - Nixon. Ford had to pardon Nixon before he was even tried.
There are many pissed off people - i.e. the parents and loved ones of those 4000 admitted to having died in Iraq - who just might like to 'chase' Bush for his 'mistakes' after he leaves office.
Bush knows this and may have been a factor in his purchase of the 99,000 acre Paraguay ranch that sits atop a large aquifer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zenas wrote: |
| Bush knows this and may have been a factor in his purchase of the 99,000 acre Paraguay ranch that sits atop a large aquifer. |
I wasn't convinced until you mentioned the aquifer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Seriously, what would convince you short of a full confession from these war criminals? |
What would convince me?
A trial AND conviction. Not necessarily a confession. But a trial and conviction. Until then Bush is entitled to what everyone else is entitled to..a presumption of innocent until proven guilty. |
It really IS a little like religious faith for you, then. I say that because ...
This is your initial post on this thread:
| Quote: |
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:10 pm
Regardless of the wet dreams on this thread, impeachment will not come to pass nor will a civil or criminal trial. [...]The powers that be will not permit this. |
Damn I'm probably lying or quoting you out of context or cherry-picking ... no, it's what you said: it's never going to happen, says TUM, becuase "The powers that be will not permit this." So, the very thing that is never going to happen is the ONLY thing that will convince you ...
'Tis wondrous and borderline mystical, somesuch belike transmigrating of the soul through the Bardol Todol ether, as the tibetans speak of, or the inherent paradixes of the tripartite yet singular godhead in catholicism ... or, then again, maybe it's just lame.
This link takes anyone who wants to look at your original post right there. If I'm quoting you out of context, go ahead and flame me - but I don't think so. |
It's not a paradox at all. A trial and conviction WOULD convince me. However since I do not believe a trial and conviction will ever occur, I remain unconvinced. Seems fairly clear to me. A leads to B which leads to C.
A. A trial and conviction would convince me.
B. I do not believe a trial and conviction will take place.
C. Therefore I remain unconvinced of Bush's guilt.
Keep in mind that a cornerstone of Western law as it applies to the judicial system is innocent until proven guilty. If a trial and conviction never takes place, then Bush is by presumption innocent. Again I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. |
I was being humourous about the religious paradox, and I'm sorry, I must have forgotten who I was talking to ... note to self: be SURE to use emoticons to mark ironic sections for our conservative friends. (There. I've edited them in above.)
First, it's not so much a paradox as it is a tautology, a logical fallacy that defines something by using itself to define itself. Dig?
A better way to diagram A, B, and C as youy've done above is thusly: A trial and impeachment will never happen because the powers that be will never allow it.
A trial and impeachment is the only way that will ever possibly convince TUM (short of a confession by conspirators) that lies were told by this president and his staff to bring the US into a needless and costly war that has no benefit to our country and has done great harm.
Because the first thing has been placed into the category of Impossible Things Will Never Happen, therefore it is also true that TUM will never, ever be convinced by any means of the fact that the Bush administration lied. Now, TUM, what I really and truly wish at this moment is that you had simply cut to the chase from the start and said clearly from the beginning that there is not any possible way in this universe that you will EVER be convinced.
I'm touched Mr. Bobster, I really am. I had no idea at all that you had such belief in my ability to predict the future accurately. That bought a tear to my eye...oh wait, it was just a drop of sweat.
It is true that I said a trial will never take place, and it is true that I said it is the only thing that will convince. However I am astute enough to realize that both statements only reflect my established OPINION, not established fact, which you seem to be confusing.
It's absolutely your right to believe things that are impossible, or to refuse to believe things that are clearly shown to be true, or to continue believing things that have been shown to be false. You can do that in America, at least, as far as I'm soncerned you can do it here, too.
Except the one thing I have asked for proof for has been completely ignored...oh well guess I'll keep believing what I do in the absence of any other opposing evidence. Funny how both TIME and The Economist have written articles saying much the same thing, that claims that Bush lied the nation into war with Iraq appear to be "nonsense" (The Economist's word regarding such claims, not mine)
Just let me know when you're going to go all religious on me next time, so I don't waste a lot of energy showing you things everyone else already knows.
In any case, you've now chosen the fallback position of the legal defintion of guilt rather than the one that most of us work with. At this moment in history very few people really believe that O.J. Simpson is not the guy who killed his ex ... but yes, by the legal definition he IS innocent because he has been found to be so in a court of criminal law.
But he was found responsible in civil court...can't really use that.
Ladies and Gentle, for your edification tonight I'd like to present ... The Urban Myth! Yes, friends and nighbors, it's true. Here is The Last Man Alive who STILL believes that Saddam Hussein had WMDs just prior to the US invasion of Baghdad, and yes, he just might also believe that O.J. Simpson is an innocent man. |
Not the last man alive, there are still plenty of people who believe those things...oh wait you're being sarcastic again...those emoticoms really help...please keep them in. Thanks.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zenas wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I, for one, would be highly surprised to see any judicial steps taken against Bush/Cheyney after they leave office. I think most people are opposed to the idea of chasing former presidents and trying to punish them for mistakes made in office-- |
You might just be surprised. The last time a president was 'chased' was in the 1970s - Nixon. Ford had to pardon Nixon before he was even tried.
There are many pissed off people - i.e. the parents and loved ones of those 4000 admitted to having died in Iraq - who just might like to 'chase' Bush for his 'mistakes' after he leaves office.
Bush knows this and may have been a factor in his purchase of the 99,000 acre Paraguay ranch that sits atop a large aquifer. |
The US and Paraguay do have an extradition treaty though...not quite sure where you are going with this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Arrow Ladies and Gentlemen, for your edification tonight I'd like to present ... The Urban Myth! Yes, friends and nighbors, it's true. Here is The Last Man Alive who STILL believes that Saddam Hussein had WMDs just prior to the US invasion of Baghdad, and yes, he just might also believe that O.J. Simpson is an innocent man. Exclamation
| Quote: |
| Not the last man alive, there are still plenty of people who believe those things. |
|
O.J. Simpson is legally innocent, according to the definition you cited. He stood trial and was found to be so by 12 good men and women who pronounced him "not guilty." Something tells me you don't entirely believe it, though ... I sort of wonder - if impeachment were voted in tomorrow and Bush were found guilty lying to the country to create enough fear to go to war, would you possibly opine that a mistake had been made somewhere? Something makes me suspect this ...
| Quote: |
| It is true that I said a trial will never take place, and it is true that I said it is the only thing that will convince. However I am astute enough to realize that both statements only reflect my OPINION, not established fact, which you seem to be confusing. |
The purpose of our syllogistic exercise, my good man, was to attempt to illustrate to you that these two opinions together make it impossible for you to believe ANY evidence anyone were to show you - and that the self-contradictions inherent in the two of them will also make any new evidence impervious to your opinion. My hat is off to you. You've found a perfect way to keep drinking that kool-aid until you die of old age.
Anyway, O.J. Simpson really IS legally innocent by the standards you want to apply to Geo W Bush and his cohorts. Can you please send me by pm the names of ANY people you know who actually believe he did not do the crime? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Quote: |
Arrow Ladies and Gentlemen, for your edification tonight I'd like to present ... The Urban Myth! Yes, friends and nighbors, it's true. Here is The Last Man Alive who STILL believes that Saddam Hussein had WMDs just prior to the US invasion of Baghdad, and yes, he just might also believe that O.J. Simpson is an innocent man. Exclamation
| Quote: |
| Not the last man alive, there are still plenty of people who believe those things. |
|
O.J. Simpson is legally innocent, according to the definition you cited. He stood trial and was found to be so by 12 good men and women who pronounced him "not guilty." Something tells me you don't entirely believe it, though ... I sort of wonder - if impeachment were voted in tomorrow and Bush were found guilty lying to the country to create enough fear to go to war, would you possibly opine that a mistake had been made somewhere? Something makes me suspect this ...
If Bush WERE tried and convicted, I will most certainly go on this message board and admit that I was mistaken about that
| Quote: |
| It is true that I said a trial will never take place, and it is true that I said it is the only thing that will convince. However I am astute enough to realize that both statements only reflect my OPINION, not established fact, which you seem to be confusing. |
The purpose of our syllogistic exercise, my good man, was to attempt to illustrate to you that these two opinions together make it impossible for you to believe ANY evidence anyone were to show you - and that the self-contradictions inherent in the two of them will also make any new evidence impervious to your opinion. My hat is off to you. You've found a perfect way to keep drinking that kool-aid until you die of old age.
Nope. My opinion was that there will NEVER be a trial and conviction. However if by some trick of chance or probability such a thing does come to pass I will disavow this opinon...nay even unto its third and fourth generations of opinions.
Anyway, O.J. Simpson really IS legally innocent by the standards you want to apply to Geo W Bush and his cohorts. Can you please send me by pm the names of ANY people you know who actually believe he did not do the crime? |
You could start with the names of the 12 people who accquitted him.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
