THE STUPID REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT

[emprworm]

Should I point out that, under Bush, Texas had the highest rate of electric chair deaths and (iirc) shootings, in all of the USA, by quite a big lead?

[danielsh]

You didn't even begin to refute his point. It's possible to murder someone without a gun, and you conceded that Texas might just have the highest rate of electric chair deaths.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ, read the statistics before you post them.

[HasimirFenring]

Umm.....  No offense, but comparing bush to Lincoln is the stupidest thing I've even heard (well, after the things bush said, that is).  Under Lincoln, the Union was ATTACKED by the south.  He simply defended it (and no one give me that crap trying to relate 9/11 to Saddam...no one here believes it [i hope]).  I'll concede the parallel once he is killed by an angry Iraqi.

[emprworm]

You didn't even begin to refute his point. It's possible to murder someone without a gun, and you conceded that Texas might just have the highest rate of electric chair deaths.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ, read the statistics before you post them.

until he provides statistical evidence, his imaginary point is fully refuted.  His claim is comepletely baseless.  Show me the proof, or shut up, as I always say.  I back up what I say with evidence.  Something you do not, thus your bias exposed like a naked beast.

[danielsh]

No, it isn't. Had you said, "Your point is baseless without evidence," you would have been entirely correct. But you didn't say that. Here's how I read the exchange:

filecore:

[...] under Bush, Texas had the highest rate of electric chair deaths [...]

emprworm:

[A]nd it [California] rarely executes anyone.

The two statements have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

filecore:

[...] and (iirc) shootings, in all of the USA, by quite a big lead?

emprworm:

[C]alifornia has more murders per 100,000 people than [T]exas.

Again, you did not address his point. Had you said "more shootings per 100,000 people" then you would have rebutted his point. Indeed, had you said, "You have not shown me statistical evidence to substantiate your claims," then you would have rebutted his point. But you didn't. Instead, you just cited statistics that are entirely meaningless in this context to prove a point that is now as baseless as filecore's.

[VigilVirus]

Wolfwiz, who are we to dictate what sort of government other countries should have? Spreading democracy is equivalent to spreading christianity.

From all the things that Saddam did to come to power and such, I'd say he's a lot smarter than Bush. Was Hitler not smart for example?

[emprworm]

No, it isn't. Had you said, "Your point is baseless without evidence," you would have been entirely correct. But you didn't say that. Here's how I read the exchange:

filecore:

emprworm:

The two statements have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

filecore:

emprworm:

Again, you did not address his point. Had you said "more shootings per 100,000 people" then you would have rebutted his point. Indeed, had you said, "You have not shown me statistical evidence to substantiate your claims," then you would have rebutted his point. But you didn't. Instead, you just cited statistics that are entirely meaningless in this context to prove a point that is now as baseless as filecore's.

wake up teenager.  He said "4 or 5 times higher death RATES than all other states

if you even taken 12 grade math, you would have learned the word "statistics".  When you say the word "RATE" then no longer are you referring to a static number, but a percentage.  Learn math before you talk with me.  Now, true, I assumed that when he said "death rates" he was talking about 'murders'.  Maybe he was talking about natural and accidental deaths?  But then no one gets the 'electric chair' for that.  So the assumption on my part was valid.  You are just beating a semantical dead horse.  Why?  Because you are atheist, and you dont like me, so you will use the ole' poisoning the well fallacy whenever you can open wide your mouth.  But I really dont care.  I called him on his baseless nonsense.  Texas doesn't even have the highest amount of capital punishments.  (perhaps it has the most electric chair executions?  I would still like to see evidence of that assertion)  It is a liberal myth that Texas executes the most people in the U.S.  Its kind of like when Canadians say people in the US think that all of Canada is covered in snow.  Its just nonsense, yet so many people think it.

[Wolf]

I will not talk about my personal feelings on the subject, but, as I understand the current administration, spreading democracy is not like spreading christianity. We are not forcing people to accept a system of beliefs, we are removing a leader who ruled without the mandate of his people and have those people select a new leader to whom they will give their mandate. You see, democracy is the practice through which the people decide their government. We should allow them to choose whatever government they wish; a republic, a federation, a theocracy, whatever. And that government will rule with the mandate of the people by virtue of the fact that the people chose it to rule. Now, if they chose someone who we felt was not "democratic" enough, and had him removed, then we would be spreading democracy like christianity, but if we let the Iraqi people choose for themselves who they want to be ruled by -- a practice we call democracy -- then that would be all right. You see, there is a very slight difference between enforcing a government on people and have those people choose their own government. By removing Saddam, who the people pretty much unanimously hated, since the pro-Saddam terrorists are mostly foreigners and target Iraqis anyway, the Iraqi people have the chance to choose for themselves who they want to rule.

Anyway, that's how I understand it. With regard to Bush, Saddam, or Hitler being smart, all I have to say is this;

"No, the argument that some dictators are good cannot be allowed as an objection to the Iraqi war if we are to consider ourselves democratic individuals who value freedom and liberty for all. "

If you're telling me that we should have left Saddam Hussein in power because he was a good dictator (I read an article in a New York newspaper today that Saddam had ignored his economic infastructure for the last 12 years, something that you can find pretty much on any UN or other international news service if you disbelieve my words) that argument still doesn't hold water, because you then have no right to yell at President Bush, because Bush is a fine dictator when compared to Saddam; he hasn't done nearly as much damage to his economy as Saddam did.

BUT EVEN THEN; "No, the argument that some dictators are good cannot be allowed as an objection to the Iraqi war if we are to consider ourselves democratic individuals who value freedom and liberty for all. "

[danielsh]

wake up teenager.

[Wolf]

Possibly. However, I do see a distinction between simply colonizing the nation and actually providing them with democratic rule that we respect. If we respect their democratic process, no matter who they elect, then I think we have done at least one thing right. The sad part is, if we respect their democracy while they elect another dictator for it, America will probably be held accountable for "putting" him in power, even though we probably wouldn't have had anything to do with that.

Is this manifest destiny? Not at all, I think it is flawed to compare this to manifest destiny, which seeks to establish empire. I believe the United States has already achieved this, and Iraq is simply the maintaining of such an empire. There is a distinction, one you would do well to draw. Why ignore the UN? Because they had the power to do so. And if Iraq is a better place to live at the end of the process, so much the better.