Sickening, indeed.
However:
Leaving aside for a moment the issue of "playing God", the idea of characterizing Saddam's going to his death at the end of a rope as obscene is extremely small potatoes when laid against the fact that, for the same misbegotten reason, we have not (so far) been allowed to "enjoy" the video evidence from Saddam's own archive, which evidence was used to convict him.
It would seem that if this evidence was released for view by any and all, any voices previously inclined to rise in support of "fairness" to Saddam might be muted.
One might say we would be "sickened", no?
This bent to keep such evidence from review by other than judicial bodies deprives us of what we need to discern good from evil, moral from immoral...we have been deemed too fragile to deal with these things, but how are we to think correctly about any of it without access to the evidence?
Are we afraid we'd be stricken with bloodlust?
BTW-
It's the same dynamic that has the pro-abortion crowd screaming about showing an indecisive pregnant mother video of a baby in the womb, or, conversely, a partial-birth abortion, so that she might make an "informed" decision about her condition.
Last edited by j2k4; 12-31-2006 at 03:45 AM.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
I agree there was political mischief involved in the way it was handled. I think that the "trial" was a predetermined piece of theatrics. But I also think that he got what he deserved.
Even though I say good riddance, I don't see is why it's a reason for us to celebrate.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
It was silly. It's an immensely biased poll, and only you would require explanation.
Do you honestly think that the American people think that Bush is worse than Satan on a 25:1 basis?? It's just silly. They didn't even try to make the poll believable, yet they posted it anyways. And where was the poll taken anyhow? In the MSNBC break room? The Oscars? ACLU headquarters? It certainly wasn't an accurate depiction of the American peoples feelings, otherwise he would have a maximum approval rating of 4%.
It's just as silly Seedler's "Army Ranger". Silly, silly, silly.
yo
The question was "name your villain of 2006". they didn't offer those names and ask people to choose
I guess it is silly though because Bush also came first (13%) in the name the hero of 2006 in the same poll....Of course this was an
It was a random poll and they are open about the stats....but don't let that get in the way of claiming bias.
Last edited by vidcc; 12-30-2006 at 07:20 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
The poll just reported the answers given and the percentages.
If you think it bias or silly to ask "who was your villain of 2006" or "who was your hero of 2006", and not give a choice from a list of names, but let the person come up with their own answer, then please enlighten me as to how such a question could be polled in an unbiased and non silly way.
Now had you said "I don't agree with their choice" then you may have a reasonable opinion. But instead you decided that the poll was silly and bias
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Bookmarks