Hameru wrote:Those of you who can compare Bush abd Saddam have a broken moral compass.
Straight out of the radical right playbook
Ad hominem fallacy. "Because radicals advocate it, it must be wrong."
While the original statement was ALSO bad form, your response to it invoked yet ANOTHER logical fallacy.
Your hatred of, Bush
Yes, I hate this fool
What's the point of this thread of argument? The personal feelings that someone has towards the individuals involved should have no bearing on this debate, which regards the Iraqi failure to disarm, and the consequences that we believe should result from it. This is just a giant red-herring.
America
No. I got a beef with the leadership and many (but not all) of the rightwingers, but not with the country itself
Although I'm glad to hear that you don't hate the country, this part of the thread is still meaningless.
Capitalism
Good, honest, regulated capitalism? Nope. Moderate capitalism WORKS, unlike communism and supply side nonsense.
Supply side capitalism also works, dumbass. Maybe you missed the economic success that the United States, and several other nations have enjoyed while employing supply-side economics. If you'll look at the legitimate complaints against supply-side economics, none of them actually have anything to do with economics. Moreover, show that moderated capitalism works in light of the PG&E problems, the skyrocketing electricity costs in the West Coast, and the MASSIVE problems with the telecommunications industry caused by the re-regulations that the Clinton administration promoted. All of those were caused by "moderate capitalism," yet all of those will, or have, created ENORMOUS problems for the companies and industries involved.
(take your pick) blinds you to truth.
Your blather and Ossus's lunatic ravings are enough to make a grown man cry.
Textbook ad hominem attack. Since you cannot debate my points, you ignore them. This is particularly amusing in wake of your rampant style-over-substance fallacies, in which you accused me of laughing at you (poor spelling and all), and then implied that it was bad form of me to do so.
I would hate to live in the world you envision, as your good intentions are surely the road to hell on earth.
Taken straight from the religious right playbook. At least we have good intentions. You guys make it crystal clear that you couldn't care less about someone other than yourselves.
Bullshit (and, ironically enough, taken straight out of the radical playbook). Moreover, this is yet ANOTHER ad hominem fallacy.
This man watches video tapes of people being tortured, before fucking his mistress.
Yet Bush is his moral equal.
Ok, Saddam is honest about his intentions. That just makes his evil easier to spot. We know Bush is an evil sack of shit that made fun of a woman whose death he authorized as governor, but he doesn't get on the podium and say "HEY WE KILL J00"
Nice self-contradiction. You claimed earlier that conservatives were evil because they made it "crystal clear [they] couldn't care less about" other people. Now you turn around and say "At least Saddam is honest about his evil intentions, making it okay." Last time I checked, George Bush was pretty conservative. Since you previously characterized conservatives as making their intentions "crystal clear," and now double back and claim that Saddam is honest about his intentions, I guess that you are lying once again.
Moreover, Saddam is hardly honest about his intentions. He claimed just SIX MONTHS prior to the Gulf War that he was not planning to invade Kuwait. He also claimed that Iraq had no WoMD. When WoMD were found in Iraq by UN weapons inspectors, he claimed that they were purely defensive, and that they had merely slipped through his disarmament program. When that was shown to be a lie by UN weapons inspectors, he claimed that it was a small WoMD program. When THAT was shown to be a lie, he evicted the UN weapons inspectors. He lied about not trying to develop nuclear weapons after the Israelis destroyed his nuclear facility during an air-raid (at a time in which we now KNOW he was developing nuclear weapons). He lied about not executing Kuwaiti citizens. He lied in saying that American and British pilots shot down during the Persian Gulf War were being treated in accordance with international law. He lied when he made his reports about the number of civilian casualties caused by the Gulf War (which his government now officially admits were "light"). He lied about all these things, yet you insist that "at least he is honest about his intentions." Saddam lied to his own people, even telling them at one point that they had WON the Gulf War.
Moreover, you equate being honest about killing people with being the moral equivalent of making jokes about someone that a JURY ordered to be put to death? Why are you so anti-democratic as to dismiss the death penalty? While you claim to be taking a liberal position, you are in fact ignoring democracy when it suits your taste, and ignoring facts when they do not suit your purposes, and even ignore your OWN FUCKING POINTS when they do not support your side. You are not only a cowardly and self-contradictory debater, but you are also a liar who is not honest about the FACTS of what is happening. I am afraid I must request that you cease your slanderous statements about me and ask that you concede this round of debates.
