A sad commentary on the current state of affairs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

"I feel bad for leading America into a war with multiple objectives, only to find out that concern over the chief objective was subsequently mitigated or ameliorated by circumstances that cannot be discerned with a degree of specificity satisfactory to my political enemies"

---

I'd give him a round of applause if he could say that three times. Really fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Withcheese

I'd give him a round of applause if he could say that three times. Really fast.

---

If he could say it once I would be impressed. :ph34r:

J2
The point being a MISTAKE was made. It matters not if it wasn't intentional. The buck stops with him, this isn't a responsibilty forced upon him...he actively applied to have the responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

If he could say it once I would be impressed. :ph34r:

---

I'm working on that; give me some time.

He keeps tripping on ameliorate, much as he does on new-kew-ler.

It keeps coming out "amercuthiolate", best I can tell.

He has assured me that he would like to say it, almost as much as he wishes that he could say it. :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Withcheese

I'd give him a round of applause if he could say that three times. Really fast.

---

i'd give him applause if he could actually pronounce all of that.

edit: j2 obviously has less distractions so can post faster today and beat me to it :angry: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

J2 ...this isn't a responsibilty forced upon him...

---

Just so, but...

In his capacity as Chief Executive, it is difficult to force anything on him, besides which, when was the last time you heard a President (especially one holding majorities in both houses, as well as every other politically relevent card) apologize for anything?

I honestly can't remember if Slick Willie apologized for banging interns with a cigar, but if he did, the last I remember before that was Nixon, and if any President ever owed an apology for screwing up, it was Carter.

If it is not a matter of serious and sincere political expedience, no apology is ever forthcoming.

I say this not necessarily as a statement of belief with regard to Bush, but as strict political reality.

ALL presidents play the percentages, and there is no percentage in handing out apologies willy (sorry)-nilly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Appendum:

I also recall a thread stating that any "weapon" can be described as WMD, and thats why they were using that phrase... a rifle can be a "WMD" if you kill enough people with it.

Cant find that thread either though, and i like that one.. :(

The correct term is NBC.

---

We all know what WMD means. One bomb, one small specimen, clandestine delivery, millions killed.

That whole thread was specious and I know the one you are talking about.

Bush admits there are no WMD, so he did NOT distort the description of a "conventional weapon" to label it as anything other than what it was. Even the old warhead that was found to contain "sarin" or something was dismissed as a non-issue and from a long ago war. The missles that flew beyond the allowed range were also dismissed.

Had he stated we found WMD and presented these items, than you might of had something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

You asked for posts by members, so i gave a few threads...

For me? I said i could not recall.. however this was in one of those threads.. posted 15th Feb, 2003..



That good enough for you?

---

When you go on to state that the whole world knew there were no WMD except those in the US, I take exception to that.

I would think such common knowledge would show up on protest signs and at least one person here would have had the balls to start a thread "I predict no WMD".

Maybe there was more doubt back than our retrospective vision now sees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Just so, but...

In his capacity as Chief Executive, it is difficult to force anything on him, besides which, when was the last time you heard a President (especially one holding majorities in both houses, as well as every other politically relevent card) apologize for anything?

---

I find that interesting considering the thread was started to point out the lack of honor these days.... surely this man of "values" would set an example

Quote:

---

I honestly can't remember if Slick Willie apologized for banging interns with a cigar,

---

Why should he?

the ONLY person he owed an applogy to was hillary

Quote:

---

but if he did, the last I remember before that was Nixon, and if any President ever owed an apology for screwing up, it was Carter.

If it is not a matter of serious and sincere political expedience, no apology is ever forthcoming.

I say this not necessarily as a statement of belief with regard to Bush, but as strict political reality.

ALL presidents play the percentages, and there is no percentage in handing out apologies willy (sorry)-nilly.

---

please clarify this for me.

You start a thread mourning loss of honor, then you justify the lack of honor by using precedents. :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

It's spelt Presidents.

---

no it's not

precedent
1.
1. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
2. Law. A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent.
2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The President followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

You start a thread mourning loss of honor, then you justify the lack of honor by using precedents. :unsure:

---

I started a thread mourning loss of honor?

After gallivanting around the entire galactic periphery of irrelevence, you choose now to remind me that I have gone astray?

Surely you joust.

Who justified what?

I just stated one of the principles of leadership.

That it has been exercised since time immemorial is exactly on point, and recalling Presidents who have apologized when they saw no recourse does not disprove the tenet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

no it's not

precedent
1.
1. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
2. Law. A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent.
2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The President followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet.

---

I think you've been had, vid.:whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I think you've been had, vid.:whistling

---

you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

you think?

---

You could always ask, if you're not sure...:huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You could always ask, if you're not sure...:huh:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr jp fugley

It's been said before, people will judge by what they read.

---

I have only what is in front of me :)

Looks like Vidcc has been spared the hook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Looks like Vidcc has been spared the hook.

---

For the nonce...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

It's spelt Presidents.

---

Spelt is wheat :dry: :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

One of the most intriguing characters in American history is Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy. Stephens was a shriveled little man and a notorious hypochondriac, though nevertheless a brilliant lawyer and an outstanding orator. After the war, he was elected governor of Georgia and got into a dispute with another individual.

---

Vice president of the confederacy?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but this is the same confederacy that made the bulk of their money by, what shall we call it...unorthodox employment of labour, to facilitate for maximal profits in production of raw materials for textile manufacture?

Someone who'd condone those kinds of goings on might be called a lot of things, a paragon of honour doesn't strike me as being the first on the list, tho'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Vice president of the confederacy?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but this is the same confederacy that made the bulk of their money by, what shall we call it...unorthodox employment of labour, to facilitate for maximal profits in production of raw materials for textile manufacture?

Someone who'd condone those kinds of goings on might be called a lot of things, a paragon of honour doesn't strike me as being the first on the list, tho'.

---

:lol:

I like this version of his little knife-fight story better:

Quote:

---

In 1848 he had a personal encounter with Judge Cone, of Greensboro, which illustrated the physical courage for which he had been noted from youth--the courage that comes, not from principle or duty, but from utter indifference to consequences. The difficulty grew out of a quarrel on the Clayton compromise of 1848. Cone cut Stephens terribly with a knife and cried : "Now, ---you, retract, or I'll cut your throat." The bleeding, almost dying Stephens said : "Never !--cut," and grasped the swiftly descending knife-blade in his right hand. That hand never again wrote plainly. Few of the witnesses of the affair, which occurred on the piazza of Thompson's hotel, Atlanta, expected him to recover.

---

Source

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chebus

the courage that comes, not from principle or duty, but from utter indifference to consequences.

---

They've still got it, I reckon. :01:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Spelt is wheat :dry: :wink:

---

Spelled is pedantic. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Vice president of the confederacy?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but this is the same confederacy that made the bulk of their money by, what shall we call it...unorthodox employment of labour, to facilitate for maximal profits in production of raw materials for textile manufacture?

Someone who'd condone those kinds of goings on might be called a lot of things, a paragon of honour doesn't strike me as being the first on the list, tho'.

---

The Confederacy's blueprint for "Honor" was correct; though they were not possessed of that particular version of enlightenment which allowed them to question slavery.

Remember your historical context, SnnY.

Our framers had slaves, too.

The nuts and bolts of "honor" are the same, it's just more inclusive, yes?

I don't really want to get into this argument, but for someone to take someone else as a slave simply on the belief that they are inferior, or animals, isn't honourable any way you look at it. (The same is also true for many other civilizations as well, like ancient Rome and Greece.)

How they could do that to anyone else, to a thinking and talking individual, will always baffle me.

The fact that they could do it, makes me think that cheese's version of that particular display of courage is more accurate. That it would be the kind of courage that comes from not thinking things through, or the kind of honour that comes from being mule-headed rather than enlightened. Willing themselves not to see what they didn't want to.

Honour without compassion is pretty hollow.

This is just an opinion mind you, and not in any way to be concieved as an attack on yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

I don't really want to get into this argument, but for someone to take someone else as a slave simply on the belief that they are inferior, or animals, isn't honourable any way you look at it. (The same is also true for many other civilizations as well, like ancient Rome and Greece.)

How they could do that to anyone else, to a thinking and talking individual, will always baffle me.

The fact that they could do it, makes me think that cheese's version of that particular display of courage is more accurate. That it would be the kind of courage that comes from not thinking things through, or the kind of honour that comes from being mule-headed rather than enlightened. Willing themselves not to see what they didn't want to.

Honour without compassion is pretty hollow.

This is just an opinion mind you, and not in any way to be concieved as an attack on yourself.

---

I understand your point perfectly, SnnY, but if I might persuade you to think of historical mores in toto, you would, I think, have to conclude that many attitudes/beliefs which existed previously would be considered outrageous by current standards; for example, the outdated belief that Christians are, to this very day, looking to launch a new crusade in order to persecute minority religions or "pagans".

Odd, isn't it, that many make excuses for jihad, which is not much more than a crusade?

This is not to even sniff around the edges of excusing the horror of slavery, but think, in more modern terms, of the Holocaust, etc.

It would be difficult to argue that slavery is worse than "purification", don't you think?

Yet "purification" is, even today, more abided and prevalent than slavery.

All of the building blocks civilization is built upon have cracks in them.

Modern society is built on misery, this is probably true for every society in the world.
I'm not arguing with anything of what you just said.

But that doesn't make that man more honourable from my point of view.

Any idiot can have "honour" in the context of his own society, but the truly great people in history have broken free of whatever warped framework surrounded their society.

Those I truly admire, and would deem honourable, are those who have shown compassion when they didn't have to, those who have fought such as the laws that allowed for slavery, and those who have refused to follow insane religious strictures.

Refusing to give in to someone with an advantage and thus avoiding to break your word doesn't qualify as honourable in itself, I feel. Or rather, it's not honourable enough to be upheld as evidence of how much greater people once were. I think there are plenty of people in the world who'd rather die than break their word, but I'm not sure that's a good thing.

I wonder how Kamikaze pilots are viewed by the members of the board?

They were prepared to die for what they believed in. It may be argued that this was because they were brainwashed however isn't everyone to the level of the culture they exist in?



I guess this may be a case of it depending on whic side of the fence it is viewed from, but it would be interesting to find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Modern society is built on misery, this is probably true for every society in the world.
I'm not arguing with anything of what you just said.

But that doesn't make that man more honourable from my point of view.

Those I truly admire, and would deem honourable, are those who have shown compassion when they didn't have to, those who have fought such as the laws that allowed for slavery, and those who have refused to follow insane religious strictures.

---

Sad then, that we had no choice but to build on, and be informed by, what came before.

Would you mention an example or two of historical figures whose sense of honor you find notable?

Oscar Schindler, Raoul Wallenberg, many of the members of the Emancipation movement. And so forth.

They did the right thing, as far as I know.

Whether there was honour or not in that man, doesn't affect what your country is today, a nation should be measured by the people who live in it, not those who lived in it a century or more ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Oscar Schindler, Raoul Wallenberg, many of the members of the Emancipation movement. And so forth.

They did the right thing, as far as I know.

Whether there was honour or not in that man, doesn't affect what your country is today, a nation should be measured by the people who live in it, not those who lived in it a century or more ago.

---

Good choices, and quite rightfully.

My point is only that the idea of honor did not hatch fully formed; if we had no construct (however flawed) from which to work, we'd still be flailing about for even the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

However, many people argue that the sins of the Fathers are carried forward to their Sons. That seems harsh to me, unless of course the Sons continue the sins themselves.

---

Sounds like the Kennedys, to me.;)