THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Just received this from a friend in Australia.
****************
Headline from ABC News this morning:

"No justification for beheading: Bush"

Cripes! You mean to say the man paused for a moment to consider there MIGHT
be times when brutal murder is justified?!!!!!!!

This provides us with a remarkable insight into the workings of Bush's tiny brain and the charred morals that rest within it. Sure, the logic is subtle, but it goes something like this:

1. Man is murdered (horribly).
2. Was it justified? Lessee ...
3. Was he a good man (on our side)? Yes
4. No, it was not justified.

Only a morally twisted creep would pause at Step 2.

My great concern is that most people will see nothing strange in Bush's response.

0 Replies

President Bush, was there any justification for the beheading?

Bush: "No!"

But allegedly

cicerone imposter wrote:

that Bush said "No justification for beheading."

Cripes! You mean to say the man paused for a moment to consider there MIGHT be times when brutal murder is justified?!!!!!!!

CI, that alleged construction and interpretationn of Bush's alleged response is sick!

This provides us with a remarkable insight into the workings of tiny brain and the charred morals that rest within it of those who allegedly came up with that construction.

My great concern is that too many people will believe that alleged construction of Bush's alleged response is Bush's actual response and/or thinking.

0 Replies

Had to share this one just received from a friend.
********
Rumsfeld May Fire Bush -- Sources

Washington DC, May 6. -- Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure for the explosive Abu Ghraib scandal, may be forced to fire President George W. Bush, insider sources said today, under condition of anonymity. The revelation showed a unusual rift in the White House inner circle, between the President and his superiors.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Had to share this one just received from a friend.
********
Rumsfeld May Fire Bush -- Sources

Washington DC, May 6. -- Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure for the explosive Abu Ghraib scandal, may be forced to fire President George W. Bush, insider sources said today, under condition of anonymity. The revelation showed a unusual rift in the White House inner circle, between the President and his superiors.

This whole thing happened on the voters-2000-election watch. So in fairness, we should fire everyone who voted in that election, including but not limited to the voters who voted more than once, voted for deceased voters, were not lawfully registered, and the absentee military voters whose lawful votes were not counted.

However, currently under investigation is whether or not there is a God. Should it be proven that God does exist, then in fairness we should absolve all those voters of any blame and fire God. Crying or Very sad

I'm sure this will solve all our problems with those poor misunderstood and abused folks who for no reason of their own are blameless in their desire to murder and maim and/or their acts to murder and maim those we care about.

0 Replies

On subsequent reflection it has occurred to me that God may play some small but none-the-less necessary function in making this universe of ours work. If that turns out to be the case, before we act too quickly, before firing God we ought to cobble up some dedicated mechanism--perhaps computer controlled--to perform the necessary function.

This dedicated mechanism will also perform a second major function. It will continue to render all of us blameless for the consequences of our actions. We then might turn our attentions away from questions of who do we blame and what do we blame them for, to the question of how do we solve the problems we inherited from the God we fired.

0 Replies

In fact, as it is inappropriate to guide the governance of a pluralistic and secular polity on a superstitious basis, we are already politically godless. The responsibility is and always has been ours. To that extent, assigning blame is necessary, as solving the problem involves firing those responsible.

0 Replies

There must be a movie script in here somewhere.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

In fact, as it is inappropriate to guide the governance of a pluralistic and secular polity on a superstitious basis, we are already politically godless. The responsibility is and always has been ours. To that extent, assigning blame is necessary, as solving the problem involves firing those responsible.

Assigning blame once, twice, three times may be ok for determining who to inspire. But it aint worth a damn for deciding who to hire or even whether or not to fire.

We must define the problem we think must be solved. Then specify the kind of people and/or kind of resources that must be provided to solve that problem. Then hire that person or those persons most able and willing to manage solving the problem with the people and resources provided. If truly competent, the person hired will probably several times redefine the problem and/or respecify the persons and/or resources to learn how to solve the problem. Such competent person will undoubtedly wish to experiment several times to find the solution of the defined problem that is practically obtainable. Such interim experiments will be mistakenly viewed by many as failures and not viewed as the rational work of a true problem solver attempting to learn how to solve the actual problem. They will then demand that the new hire be fired and some one else hired. If competent, the newest new hire will attempt to go through the exact same process and, of course, be fired too.

Preoccupation with who to blame and what to blame them for precludes real problem solving by expanding the problem to include the blamers themselves. In blunt terms, blamers, cut your excrement: either help or get the hell out of the way. You are cluttering up the path to real solution with your obstructionist Buncombe Slop.

0 Replies

What a load of horsesh*t . . . so long as the fingers are not pointed, the crooks running the current governmental scam will do nothing. So long as they are not motivated by the fear of voter backlash, they will do whatever they please to whomever they please.

The ICRC reported this quite awhile ago to the administration, and nothing was done. It was not until Rummy and the Shrub thought this might dirty their skirts that any real response was forthcoming.

0 Replies

I suppose Rumsfeld and George W. aren't blamers themselves? Isn't that the real reason we are in this war?

0 Replies

What is most absurd about that crap that Ican posted is the assumption that this administration would want to do anything about the problem, would even consider it a problem, were there no public scrutiny. It also ludicrously assumes that Rummy would ever want to hire the most effective individual to clean up this mess. All that matters to these clowns right now is damage control.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

... we are already politically godless.

BS!

We are politically whatever we have said and continue to say we are:

Quote:

The Declaration of Independence
(Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776)
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

…

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Quote:

The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

...

The Bill of Rights (1791)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

0 Replies

The Declaration of Independence, of course, does not bind us at law. Nevertheless, neither creator, supreme judge of the world nor Divine providence are identified with any god. A good case could be made that the authors had god in mind, but as i've already noted, that document does not bind us at law.

The reference to the blessings of liberty is a non sequitur, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the phrase refers to a deity. Certainly the first amendment protects the free exercise of religion, at the same time as it prohibits the establishment thereof. It is evident on the face of it that invoking someone's god superstitions in government constitutes an establishment of religion, and is therefore prohibited.

I won't even give that one a "nice try," because it wasn't.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What a load of horsesh*t ...

Truth is impregnable. You can kick it, spit on it, defecate on it, or otherwise villify it, and it will still be truth.

The primary problem with the present administration is its fallibility, not its morality or ethics. It "screws up big time" and occassionally does the right thing, perhaps by accident or even once in a great while with informed insight.

The sexual abuse of some Iraqi prisoners is a crime morally equivalent to the outrage of sexual abuse of children. In the US, unfortunately, we incarcerate convicted child sexual abusers for less than their remaining lifetimes. What shall we do with jailers who sexually abuse adult prisoners?

In the US we either execute those who cut off the heads of innocent people or incarcerate them for life. After we catch them, what shall we do with those who cut off Dan Pearl's and Nick Berg's heads?

(While villifying truth you succeed only in villifying yourself or perhaps only villifying your ability to perceive truth.)

0 Replies

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

[James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785.]

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

[John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.]

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

[Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813.]

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."

[Benjamin Franklin, from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728.]

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

(While villifying truth you succeed only in villifying yourself or perhaps only villifying your ability to perceive truth.)

That will only wash if one accepts that you are somehow some fount of truth. Not only do i see no reason to consider you an oracle of truth, what you write convinces me that your beliefs are the antithesis of truth, being the products of self-delusion.

0 Replies

Quote:

Not only do i see no reason to consider you an oracle of truth, what you write convinces me that your beliefs are the antithesis of truth, being the products of self-delusion.

Elegantly put Setanta

0 Replies

Ta, Boss . . .

I'm sure our Tantor-like friend is not done, however . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The Declaration of Independence, of course, does not bind us at law.

True! But you did not first write:

Quote:

does not bind us at law

You first wrote:

Quote:

we are already politically godless

That statement is what I was disagreeing with.

Those statements do not refer to the same thing. The Declaration is a political document. The Constitution is a legal document. While you are at liberty to define and use your own personal jargon, unless you announce you are doing that and define the jargon you are using, you are not at liberty to command respect for what you post.

www.m-w.com
Main Entry: po·lit·i·cal
Pronunciation: p&-'li-ti-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin politicus
1 a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2 : of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3 : organized in governmental terms <political units>
4 : involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system <political prisoners>
- po·lit·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Main Entry: 1le·gal
Pronunciation: 'lE-g&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin legalis, from leg-, lex law
1 : of or relating to law
2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR <a corporation is a legal but not a real person> c : established by law; especially : STATUTORY
3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
4 : recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
6 : created by the constructions of the law <a legal fiction>
synonym see LAWFUL
- le·gal·ly /-g&-lE/ adverb[/quote]

Setanta wrote:

Nevertheless, neither creator, supreme judge of the world nor Divine providence are identified with any god.

Correct! These terms are not identified with "any god". They are identified with what the adopters of these words presumed to be the one God, or, if you like, the no more than one god.

www.m-w.com

Quote:

Main Entry: cre·a·tor
Pronunciation: krE-'A-t&r
Function: noun
: one that creates usually by bringing something new or original into being; especially capitalized : GOD 1

Main Entry: Supreme Being
Function: noun
: GOD 1

Main Entry: su·preme
Pronunciation: s&-'prEm, sü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin supremus, superlative of superus upper -- more at SUPERIOR
1 : highest in rank or authority <the supreme commander>
2 : highest in degree or quality <supreme endurance in war and in labour -- R. W. Emerson>
3 : ULTIMATE, FINAL <the supreme sacrifice>
- su·preme·ly adverb
- su·preme·ness noun

Main Entry: 2judge
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English juge, from Middle French, from Latin judex
: one who judges : as a : a public official authorized to decide questions brought before a court b often capitalized : a tribal hero exercising leadership among the Hebrews after the death of Joshua c : one appointed to decide in a contest or competition : UMPIRE d : one who gives an authoritative opinion e : CRITIC
- judge·ship /-"ship/ noun

Main Entry: 1di·vine
Pronunciation: d&-'vIn
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): di·vin·er; -est
Etymology: Middle English divin, from Middle French, from Latin divinus, from divus god -- more at DEITY
1 a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love> b : being a deity <the divine Savior> c : directed to a deity <divine worship>
2 a : supremely good : SUPERB <the pie was divine> b : HEAVENLY, GODLIKE
- di·vine·ly adverb

Main Entry: prov·i·dence
Pronunciation: 'prä-v&-d&n(t)s, -"den(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin providentia, from provident-, providens
1 a often capitalized : divine guidance or care b capitalized : God conceived as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny
2 : the quality or state of being provident

Setanta wrote:

The reference to the blessings of liberty is a non sequitur, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the phrase refers to a deity. Certainly the first amendment protects the free exercise of religion, at the same time as it prohibits the establishment thereof. It is evident on the face of it that invoking someone's god superstitions in government constitutes an establishment of religion, and is therefore prohibited.

I apologize for not making it clearer for you.

The Preamble of the Constitution is a declaration of purpose. The rest of the Constitution as amended is a statement of how that purpose shall be accomplished. The two statements go together to express the meaning I hoped to convey.

Quote:

We the people of the United States, in order to ... secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ... shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The establishment of a religion is not the same thing as the exercise of a religion, and certainly is not the same thing as the free exercise of a religion.

www.m-w.com
Main Entry: es·tab·lish
Pronunciation: is-'ta-blish
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English establissen, from Middle French establiss-, stem of establir, from Latin stabilire, from stabilis stable
1 : to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement
2 obsolete : SETTLE 7
3 a : to make firm or stable b : to introduce and cause to grow and multiply <establish grass on pasturelands>
4 a : to bring into existence : FOUND <established a republic> b : BRING ABOUT, EFFECT <established friendly relations>
5 a : to put on a firm basis : SET UP <establish his son in business> b : to put into a favorable position c : to gain full recognition or acceptance of <the role established her as a star>
6 : to make (a church) a national or state institution
7 : to put beyond doubt : PROVE <established my innocence>
- es·tab·lish·able /-sh&-b&l/ adjective
- es·tab·lish·er /-sh&r/ noun

Main Entry: 1ex·er·cise
Pronunciation: 'ek-s&r-"sIz
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French exercice, from Latin exercitium, from exercitare to train, exercise, frequentative of exercEre to train, occupy, from ex- + arcEre to enclose, hold off -- more at ARK
1 a : the act of bringing into play or realizing in action : USE b : the discharge of an official function or professional occupation c : the act or an instance of carrying out the terms of an agreement (as an option)
2 a : regular or repeated use of a faculty or bodily organ b : bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness
3 : something performed or practiced in order to develop, improve, or display a specific power or skill <arithmetic exercises>
4 : a performance having a strongly marked secondary or ulterior aspect <party politics has always been an exercise in compromise -- H. S. Ashmore>
5 a : a maneuver, operation, or drill carried out for training and discipline b plural : a program including speeches, announcements of awards and honors, and various traditional practices of secular or religious character <commencement exercises>[/quote]

{Note: The intentional distortion and/or corruption of the meaning of words for the purpose of persuasion is another page right out of "Mein Kampf."}

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

{Note: The distortion and/or corruption of the meaning of words for the purpose of persuasion is another page right out of "mein Kampf."}

Respect, respect, ican, that you could phrase with just one sentence something, even native German linguists and historians have difficulties to find out! You truely must have a great vocabulary of German, especially of the language at about 1920!

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know