British Prime Minister Shows Absurdity Of Lefty Arguments

Coming back to the main theme here, I think, it is quite remarkable what Cherie Booth QC said:

"What the case makes clear is that the government, even in times when there is a threat to national security, must act strictly in accordance with the law."


(The QC, addressing an audience of 1,000 lawyers, civil servants and diplomats in Malaysia, said judges made rulings in a way that taught citizens and government about the "ethical responsibilities" of participating in a true democracy committed to "universal human rights standards".
She said courts should be "guardians of the weakest, poorest and most marginalised members of society against the hurly-burly of majoritarian politics". )

Oh, Brandon, Brandon, Brandon...it's so INCREDIBLY ironic that you tell my I'M missing the point. What I'm saying has been said to you about a hundred times by me and others here, and in every case, you have either willfully ignored it, or just haven't got the brain power to get it.

You ignore the point in others' posts, and then snidely act as if they have missed yours.

As I've said before, arguing with you is like arguing with a wind-up toy.

I give up. Keep posting idiocy if you want.

Peace (Oooh, the dreaded "P" word! Look out, Brandon, it's gonna getcha!)

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon,

I think you are confusing possibility with probability.

I'm pretty sure you know the difference; I can't decide if your prose is clumsy, or if it is an attempt at chicanery.

Here is an issue that I dare you to face head on. Please do not respond to some minor side issue. This is a thought experiment, a hypothetical. Hypothetically, you have it straight from God that there is a probability of .5 that country X, ruled by an evil dictator, is developing nuclear weapons and is within 3 years of success. You further have it from God that if country X is allowed to obtain these weapons, then probability will be .4 that Philadelphia will be nuked within the subsequent 2 years. What do you do? Please do not belabor minor imperfections in the way I've set this up. At its core is a meaningful question.

I suspect that most of you will try to argue that the question is somehow not valid. I don't think you dare to just answer the question.

"Thought experiments" are ridiculous. To answer your question, if I were receiving messages directly from god then I would check myself into a mental institution.

Sadly, Bush does believe that he receives messages from god. God help us.

Terror War Gets New Slogan
Topics: U.S. government | war/peace
Source: New York Times, July 26, 2005
"The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups," the New York Times reports. The administration's new spin emphasizes that the U.S. is waging a "global struggle against violent extremism" instead of a "global war on terror" and that the struggle is more than just a military campaign. The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club. "New opinion polls show that the American public is increasingly pessimistic about the mission in Iraq, with many doubting its link to the counterterrorism mission," the Times reports. "So, a new emphasis on reminding the public of the broader, long-term threat to the United States may allow the administration to put into broader perspective the daily mayhem in Iraq and the American casualties."

"In order to know who they are, where they are, what they're planning and be able to go get them before they get us, you need the best intelligence, best law-enforcement cooperation in the world," the Massachusetts senator said in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort," he said. "And we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight."

Marc Racicot, chairman of President Bush's re-election campaign, said Mr. Kerry's formula won't work.

"Serving terrorists with legal papers will not win this war. This is a pre-9/11 attitude that turns a blind eye to the threats that face our country," he said.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon,

I think you are confusing possibility with probability.

I'm pretty sure you know the difference; I can't decide if your prose is clumsy, or if it is an attempt at chicanery.

Here is an issue that I dare you to face head on. Please do not respond to some minor side issue. This is a thought experiment, a hypothetical. Hypothetically, you have it straight from God that there is a probability of .5 that country X, ruled by an evil dictator, is developing nuclear weapons and is within 3 years of success. You further have it from God that if country X is allowed to obtain these weapons, then probability will be .4 that Philadelphia will be nuked within the subsequent 2 years. What do you do? Please do not belabor minor imperfections in the way I've set this up. At its core is a meaningful question.

I suspect that most of you will try to argue that the question is somehow not valid. I don't think you dare to just answer the question.

"Thought experiments" are ridiculous. To answer your question, if I were receiving messages directly from god then I would check myself into a mental institution.

Sadly, Bush does believe that he receives messages from god. God help us.

1. I meant only "let us take it as given that," not that someone was actually receiving messages from God. Your literal mindedness is pathetic.
2. Lawyers and scientists both make it a common practice to evaluate hypothetical situations to try to work out general principles. Lawyers call such exercises "hypotheticals" and scientists call them "thought experiments." You are, in essence, saying that you refuse to look at the situation from a theoretical point of view. I'm not surprised. Your position is indefensible.
3. I was correct that you would run like a frightened rabbit from looking clearly at the logic of the class of situations of which the Iraq invasion was an example.
4. Not your style at all to face an opponent's logic head on and argue it point by point. The irrelevant gibe is more your style.

kickycan wrote:

Oh, Brandon, Brandon, Brandon...it's so INCREDIBLY ironic that you tell my I'M missing the point. What I'm saying has been said to you about a hundred times by me and others here, and in every case, you have either willfully ignored it, or just haven't got the brain power to get it.

You ignore the point in others' posts, and then snidely act as if they have missed yours.

As I've said before, arguing with you is like arguing with a wind-up toy.

I give up. Keep posting idiocy if you want.

Peace (Oooh, the dreaded "P" word! Look out, Brandon, it's gonna getcha!)

1. My practices and arguments globally here on this board have nothing to do with the fact that I was making one simple point in that post, which you seem constitutionally unable to grasp.
2. I am indeed afraid of a peace which enables some unpleasant dictator to perfect awful weapons which are then used to kill hundreds of thousands of people. A false peace, borne of wishful thinking can get more people killed than a war.

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon,

I think you are confusing possibility with probability.

I'm pretty sure you know the difference; I can't decide if your prose is clumsy, or if it is an attempt at chicanery.

Here is an issue that I dare you to face head on. Please do not respond to some minor side issue. This is a thought experiment, a hypothetical. Hypothetically, you have it straight from God that there is a probability of .5 that country X, ruled by an evil dictator, is developing nuclear weapons and is within 3 years of success. You further have it from God that if country X is allowed to obtain these weapons, then probability will be .4 that Philadelphia will be nuked within the subsequent 2 years. What do you do? Please do not belabor minor imperfections in the way I've set this up. At its core is a meaningful question.

I suspect that most of you will try to argue that the question is somehow not valid. I don't think you dare to just answer the question.

"Thought experiments" are ridiculous. To answer your question, if I were receiving messages directly from god then I would check myself into a mental institution.

Sadly, Bush does believe that he receives messages from god. God help us.

1. I meant only "let us take it as given that," not that someone was actually receiving messages from God. Your literal mindedness is pathetic.
2. Lawyers and scientists both make it a common practice to evaluate hypothetical situations to try to work out general principles. Lawyers call such exercises "hypotheticals" and scientists call them "thought experiments." You are, in essence, saying that you refuse to look at the situation from a theoretical point of view. I'm not surprised. Your position is indefensible.
3. I was correct that you would run like a frightened rabbit from looking clearly at the logic of the class of situations of which the Iraq invasion was an example.
4. Not your style at all to face an opponent's logic head on and argue it point by point. The irrelevant gibe is more your style.

Brandon, I have no intention of addressing your "thought experiment" as if it has any kind of relevance to how Bush decided to invade Iraq. Your self-serving scenario has nothing to do with the real world, and as such is meaningless in determining what one's real actions should be.

You ignore the threats that the U.S. is unable to address due to the investment of blood and treasure in Iraq. If one were investing, it would be the "opportunity cost" of having one's assets tied up.

When you show me some actual logic, I will be happy to address it point-by-point.

Until then, enjoy the gibes.

Brandon9000 wrote:

kickycan wrote:

Oh, Brandon, Brandon, Brandon...it's so INCREDIBLY ironic that you tell my I'M missing the point. What I'm saying has been said to you about a hundred times by me and others here, and in every case, you have either willfully ignored it, or just haven't got the brain power to get it.

You ignore the point in others' posts, and then snidely act as if they have missed yours.

As I've said before, arguing with you is like arguing with a wind-up toy.

I give up. Keep posting idiocy if you want.

Peace (Oooh, the dreaded "P" word! Look out, Brandon, it's gonna getcha!)

1. My practices and arguments globally here on this board have nothing to do with the fact that I was making one simple point in that post, which you seem constitutionally unable to grasp.
2. I am indeed afraid of a peace which enables some unpleasant dictator to perfect awful weapons which are then used to kill hundreds of thousands of people. A false peace, borne of wishful thinking can get more people killed than a war.

Again, you missed MY point.

Why do you hate peace so much?

I posed a simple, meaningful question specifically to you, which you decline to address. You can say that it's not a valid question, or that I have such and such personal demerits, but in the end, refusing to address your opponent's argument is simply a forfeit. I have noticed that you liberals seem to regard a simple, point by point debate as the technique of last resort - hardly a characteristic of people who are in the right. I cannot argue with someone who simply declines to address any argument of mine that he fears may show his position to be false.

It is simple to show that you are merely running from my viewpoint: specifically what is wrong with the hypothetical question I posed, or is that also an improper question?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Coming back to the main theme here, I think, it is quite remarkable what Cherie Booth QC said:

"What the case makes clear is that the government, even in times when there is a threat to national security, must act strictly in accordance with the law."


(The QC, addressing an audience of 1,000 lawyers, civil servants and diplomats in Malaysia, said judges made rulings in a way that taught citizens and government about the "ethical responsibilities" of participating in a true democracy committed to "universal human rights standards".
She said courts should be "guardians of the weakest, poorest and most marginalised members of society against the hurly-burly of majoritarian politics". )

An important point Walter - the rule of law is paramount even - perhaps especially - when there are threats to national security.

In stating in unequivical terms the nature of the threat and effort needed to combat it he should receive the highest honor from his country and Queen.

Tuesday 26th July 2005 (13h34) :
EXCLUSIVE: 85% BLAME BOMBS ON WAR IN IRAQ

By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent

AN overwhelming 85 per cent of people blame the Iraq invasion for the London bombings, a Daily Mirror/GMTV poll reveals today.

The survey is a hammer blow to Tony Blair, who insists Britain's role in the war had nothing to do with the 7/7 terror attacks.

His words were greeted with incredulity by critics who are convinced Muslim anger on Iraq has fuelled Islamic extremism. And now that view has been borne out by our YouGov poll

In all, 23 per cent said the war was the main reason for the London bombings. Another 62 per cent believe that while Iraq was not the principle cause, it did contribute to the reasons behind the atrocities.

rayban1 wrote:

In stating in unequivical terms the nature of the threat and effort needed to combat it he should receive the highest honor from his country and Queen.

I seriously hope, he won't get them so fast - this would mean, he isn't the UK's Prime Minster anymore. :wink:

I doubt that we ever will agree - but since I pay my monthly support for the UK's democratic socialist party, and since Tony leads this party ...

So you are a socialist as well?