2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 10.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by Diemen

No, but I'd like to see this evidence that we all just sit here and do nothing when someone is clearly out of line. I can think of a few instances where I and others have spoken up when a poster went over the top in their "critique" of the Bush administration.

Besides, I think the environment, reach and overall raison d'etre (ooh, damn my elitist ways!) of this small little corner of the internet are considerably different than a public and internationally televised rally held by a candidate seeking the highest office in the land. So I don't think your distraction comparison holds much weight.

Example: Whenever the occasional nut comes on and posts that 9/11 was a conspiracy orchestrated by President/Terrorist Bush, both the left and the right on FYM overwhelmingly argue against that person.

[yolland]

Originally Posted by diamond

i nominate dread.

... ?

[diamond]

as the best conservative debater.

[financeguy]

I am a conservative poster who thinks that Bush does indeed belong in the Hague.

Probably, however, this does not fit Strongbow's simplistic, manicheaist view of the world.

[diamond]

NB Crusader was schizz, what happened to him?

Who took him out?



<>

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Diemen

No, but I'd like to see this evidence that we all just sit here and do nothing when someone is clearly out of line. I can think of a few instances where I and others have spoken up when a poster went over the top in their "critique" of the Bush administration.

Besides, I think the environment, reach and overall raison d'etre (ooh, damn my elitist ways!) of this small little corner of the internet are considerably different than a public and internationally televised rally held by a candidate seeking the highest office in the land. So I don't think your distraction comparison holds much weight.

Actually in contrast to a rally, it can be much easier for people to say something that is thoughtful, objective, and not so heavily impacted by emotion.

I would say any point in the past where someone has stated something out of line about Bush and no one responded. There have been threads where literally every post was someone bashing the President without a single person taking the opposite side. Its much easier to notice these things when you come from the opposite side of the political fence.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

I would say any point in the past where someone has stated something out of line about Bush and no one responded. There have been threads where literally every post was someone bashing the President without a single person taking the opposite side. Its much easier to notice these things when you come from the opposite side of the political fence.

I can guarantee you that if someone came in here yelling "Kill President Bush! Off with his head! He's a terrorist!" and little else, you'd find nearly everyone here speaking up against it. And that person would either be severely reprimanded or tossed out if that's all s/he had to offer.

So I still believe your comparison isn't that apt. And there is a vast difference between someone bashing the president here (which is not always out of line, mind you) with little opposition and people yelling out "Off with his head!" or "Kill 'em!" or "Terrorist!" and the potential next President of the United States not saying a damn thing against it.

You can try and equivocate these things all you want, but they're not the same.

[diamond]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I can guarantee you that if someone came in here yelling "Kill President Bush! Off with his head! He's a terrorist!" and little else, you'd find nearly everyone here speaking up against it..

as they should, after all pres bush is a head of state.

if obama becomes a head of state, legally his status changes.

<>

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by diamond

as they should, after all pres bush is a head of state.

if obama becomes a head of state, legally his status changes.

<>

Do you realize what you're implying here?

Sure you don't want to rephrase anything?

[anitram]

Legally his status changes to what?

[Diemen]

To someone worth getting concerned about if he gets death threats, apparently.

[diamond]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Do you realize what you're implying here?

Sure you don't want to rephrase anything?

do i really need to explain it ?

i don't condone violence, or threats of violence against any public official-elected or not.

that said whether a head of state democrat or republican, if a threat is made againgst him -it is a federal offense.

i found it humorus how some act like when/if a person is threatening pres. bush with it was big of them to tell them that they wouldn't stand for it, when in fact it's a federal offense.

that should clarify matters.



<>

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I can guarantee you that if someone came in here yelling He's a terrorist!" and little else, you'd find nearly everyone here speaking up against it. And that person would either be severely reprimanded or tossed out if that's all s/he had to offer.

Well, someone on this page just mentioned that Bush belongs in court in the Hague, a place where war criminals guilty of genocide from the Bosnian war have been sent, yet, neither you nor anyone else has said anything at all.

[anitram]

Lots of people have gone to the Hague.

And very few of them were charged with genocide.

So nice try, but I don't think financeguy is a lunatic for making the statement that he did.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by anitram

Lots of people have gone to the Hague.

And very few of them were charged with genocide.

So nice try, but I don't think financeguy is a lunatic for making the statement that he did.

The point is that no one even question the idea. Do you really believe Bush should be locked up in the Hague for the rest of his life, because it appears that is why financeguy is suggesting?

[anitram]

I have absolutely no way of concluding what you just did based on the fact he said that Bush "belongs in the Hague."

Maybe he just wants an open trial, who knows. I'm not going to put words in his mouth.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by anitram

I have absolutely no way of concluding what you just did based on the fact he said that Bush "belongs in the Hague."

Maybe he just wants an open trial, who knows. I'm not going to put words in his mouth.

The phrase, "belongs in the Hague" has most often been used in the media when refering to war criminals guilty of genocide or gross human rights violations.

[anitram]

Oh.My.God.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

The phrase, "belongs in the Hague" has most often been used in the media when refering to war criminals guilty of genocide or gross human rights violations.

That depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by anitram

Oh.My.God.

Just google the phrase, Milsovic pops up on the first page. No, technically it does not mean they belong in prison for the rest of their life there, but its most often used to refer to people that do.