Kerry's vision for a Global Test

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned
So Kerry won't take action unless he knows beyond a shadow of doubt that we will be able to prove after the fact that we did it for legitimate reasons.? :roll:

Pssst. PM Cad. He has a number for someone he thinks can help with your reading impairment. (Even though she obviuosly hasn't helped Cad.)

Please answer the damn question.

I have -- several times -- as have others. If you don't want to read the answers, stop asking the "damn question". Slink back into Bushworld where your delicate sensibilities are never challenged by truth, honor, and common sense.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Does anyone want to know how Kerry will decide if an action meets his Global test? I do have the answer.

It is a concept, a personal standard of behavior, a commitment to act with honesty and integrity instead of deceipt and double-talk.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

So, If my countrymen fully understand why we are doing something and they have reached an agreement with an action, but the rest of the world decides that our reason is not legitimate, does it past Kerry's global test?

Bzzzt. Red herring.

Kerry never said we require the "world" to approve our actions. He never suggests we have to get anyone else's permission. As I said before, it is not a formal process or rule. It is a concept, a personal standard of behavior, a commitment to act with honesty and integrity instead of deceipt and double-talk. I'm not sure why this simple concept seems so foreign to some Bushies.

Kerry made a clear statement about pre-emption and qualified it upon two conditions. If we don't meet one, then we don,t act. That is what he said, in context.

Here are the Key words, Bow.


preempt

if

your people

and

the world .

Kerry never said we require the "world" to approve our actions. He never suggests we have to get anyone else's permission. As I said before, it is not a formal process or rule. It is a concept, a personal standard of behavior, a commitment to act with honesty and integrity instead of deceipt and double-talk. I'm not sure why this simple concept seems so foreign to some Bushies.

So, you are not going to address my statement? It is what Kerry said , in context.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned
So Kerry won't take action unless he knows beyond a shadow of doubt that we will be able to prove after the fact that we did it for legitimate reasons.? :roll:

Pssst. PM Cad. He has a number for someone he thinks can help with your reading impairment. (Even though she obviuosly hasn't helped Cad.)

Please answer the damn question.

I have -- several times -- as have others. If you don't want to read the answers, stop asking the "damn question". Slink back into Bushworld where your delicate sensibilities are never challenged by truth, honor, and common sense.

So Kerry won't take action unless he knows beyond a shadow of doubt that we will be able to prove after the fact that we did it for legitimate reasons.?



Yes or no?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Does anyone want to know how Kerry will decide if an action meets his Global test? I do have the answer.

It is a concept, a personal standard of behavior, a commitment to act with honesty and integrity instead of deceipt and double-talk.

No, it is a concept of being on both sides of the issue, because for Kerry

"ultimately- it depends on the outcome"

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Still waiting for you to address what Kerry really said ... IN CONTEXT.

I already have. Maybe Judy Hintz(Educational Resources - I can PM you her phone number if you wish - she's supposed to be good) could help you with that, since it's obvious you have issues with reading. Now again, please try thinking about the concept(vision) at issue here Bow. I know it's hard for the likes of you but hey - gaard atleast tried.

I won't be holding my breath...

CsG

She obviously hasn't helped you.


(And no you haven't addressed what Kerry said, IN CONTEXT. "Fine - don't address the issue - I didn't really expect anything less (sic) from the likes of you." You just keep yammering about your Coultereque perversion of what you wished he said.)

No she hasn't had to help me, but from the looks of it you could use her help.

I already have addressed kerry's platitude - now I'm trying to get into the concept of his little vision. It's really too bad you on the left have to resort to being his apologists instead of addressing the concept he puts forth. Now again, if (before or after) America "understands" or "agrees" but the world doesn't - does it pass this global test? What does that mean? How is it measured? etc.

It is a concept, a personal standard of behavior, a commitment to act with honesty and integrity instead of deceipt and double-talk.

As usual with you - I don't expect that you'll answer. Probably just more diversionary kerry apologisms or platitudes.

CsG

As usual with you - I don't expect that you'll read the answer.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Kerry made a clear statement about pre-emption and qualified it upon two conditions. If we don't meet one, then we don,t act. That is what he said, in context.

Here are the Key words, Bow.


preempt

if

your people

and

the world .

Kerry never said we require the "world" to approve our actions. He never suggests we have to get anyone else's permission. As I said before, it is not a formal process or rule. It is a concept, a personal standard of behavior, a commitment to act with honesty and integrity instead of deceipt and double-talk. I'm not sure why this simple concept seems so foreign to some Bushies.

So, you are not going to address my statement? It is what Kerry said , in context.

Here's one of the fundamental problems with the Bush worshipers. He just took seven words out of 121 from five different places in Kerry's quote, yet he has somehow deluded himself into believing they are in context. How disconnected from reality do you have to be to promote such absurd nonsense?

Maybe we could have a fun contest to show the most imaginative Ozoned "quote" -- in context, of course.

 

[Ozoned]

"Kerry's vision for a Global Test"

In context it is quite simple to understand. Kerry is a Liberal, and he is not willing to succeed or fail on his own terms, only on someone else's terms. The credit for success can be taken if the outcome is good and the blame for failure can be passed on if the outcome is bad. The man simply has no balls.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Kerry made a clear statement about pre-emption and qualified it upon two conditions. If we don't meet one, then we don,t act. That is what he said, in context.

Here are the Key words, Bow.


preempt

if

your people

and

the world .

Kerry never said we require the "world" to approve our actions. He never suggests we have to get anyone else's permission. As I said before, it is not a formal process or rule. It is a concept, a personal standard of behavior, a commitment to act with honesty and integrity instead of deceipt and double-talk. I'm not sure why this simple concept seems so foreign to some Bushies.

So, you are not going to address my statement? It is what Kerry said , in context.

Here's one of the fundamental problems with the Bush worshipers. He just took seven words out of 121 from five different places in Kerry's quote, yet he has somehow deluded himself into believing they are in context. How disconnected from reality do you have to be to promote such absurd nonsense?

Maybe we could have a fun contest to show the most imaginative Ozoned "quote" -- in context, of course.


In other words, No Ozoned, I am not going to address your statement:


"Kerry made a clear statement about pre-emption and qualified it upon two conditions. If we don't meet one, then we don,t act. That is what he said, in context. "

fixed that for you, Bow.

 

[dchakrab]

So Kerry won't take action unless he knows beyond a shadow of doubt that we will be able to prove after the fact that we did it for legitimate reasons.? :roll:

Kerry won't take action unless he thinks he can show the American people why the action was necessary. This seems perfectly reasonable to me. It means if he wants to invade Iraq, and he gives us "They have WMD's" as a reason, then he has to 1. convince us that this is a valid reason, and 2. admit he was incredibly wrong when it turns out they DON'T have WMD's.

Why are we arguing endlessly about the "process" of this test? All he's saying is that before a democractic nation takes action, the people of that democracy should be made aware of the reasons for such an action. This is what marks us as being distinct from a dictatorship, incidentally...how can we argue with this, and on what grounds?

Similarly, he's saying that it's important to be able to give the world a reason for our actions. He doesn't say we have to ask permission nicely, he doesn't say that we're going to cry if they don't like our answer. But it seems reasonable that we should be able to PROVIDE our reason, OUR justification for what we did, or what we plan to do. If our own reasons are unclear, on what basis are we invading another country at such cost?

This means that to pass the test, Bush could have said something like "We need Iraqi oil" to the American people and "I want to get rich" to the world. The resulting condemnation would still be well-deserved, but he'd at least have gotten a cookie for honesty. What Kerry's saying is that we went to war after misleading the American people and lying to the world, and this is wrong...and I agree, since it seems very much against the principles of democracy.

Note that Bush, also, follows the same global test. Otherwise, why would he bother telling the American people anything other than "I want to" and telling the world anything other than "I've decided to" ...? If you have such a problem with the test, condemn both candidates. Bush apparently thinks so highly of this test that he'll lie and deceive to "pass" it.

-Dave.

 

[conjur]

In the transaction of your foreign affairs we have endeavored to cultivate the friendship of all nations, and especially of those which we have the most important relations. We have done them justice on all occasions, favored where favor was lawful, and cherished mutual interests and intercourse on fair and equal terms. We are firmly convinced, and we act on that conviction, that with nations as with individuals our interests soundly calculated will ever be found inseparable from our moral duties, and history bears witness to the fact that a just nation is trusted on its word when recourse is had to armaments and wars to bridle others.

Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1805.

 

[wiin]

He said "the United Nations effort" not "a United Nations effort". Get your articles straight. He is referring to a very specific situation there.

Excuses, excuses and more excuses.

Never Apologize, Never Explain

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, I really don't care to debate this issue with you anymore as it's apparent that you and I will not see each other's view. The only reason I post now is because you made a claim about me and I respectfully ask that you to back it up.

Originally posted by: Gaard
Yeah, I'll participate. Just a sec, I'll be right back...

Been a pretty long "sec".

But yeah, it's quite apparent that we won't see eye to eye on this issue but atleast you attempted to sorta address the concept's issues.

CsG

You're a fvcking joke CAD. Heated debates, personal attacks, name calling....it's all part of ATP&N whether we like it or not, and we're all guilty of it. Telling lies about fellow members goes beyond what's acceptable, even for P&N...and even for you. I've been polite asking for you to either prove your claim or retract it (both in this thread and thru PMs). You refuse to do either. As far as I'm concerned you're the lowest member on these forums.

I don't like being called names, but I've come to expect it here in P&N. I don't like the cowardly tactics of some of the post-and-run trolls we have in here, but I've come to expect it here in P&N. What crosses the line is lying about another P&N member. I honestly don't believe you intentionally lied about me, I think you probably believed what you posted...but are too stubborn to admit you were wrong. Unfortunately CAD, to me, this isn't something that can be shrugged off because you don't have the character to admit a mistake.

It's sad. It really is. You have to play this roll of being 100% right all the time. Of being a step above us other P&N members. Of being, in your mind, correct in anything and everything you do or say. It goes beyond pathetic that you can't even come out and retract an untruth that you stated about me...probably out of fear of showing the rest of us that you're not correct 100% of the time. Here's a little food for thought, my pathetic friend; telling a lie about another member is far more heinous than showing a little ch!nk in your armor.

 

[Ozoned]

If we would have found vast stockpiles of wmd in Iraq, would the invasion of Iraq have passed the global test ?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
If we would have found vast stockpiles of wmd in Iraq, would the invasion of Iraq have passed the global test ?

Probably, because if there really had been "vast stockpiles of wmd in Iraq" we would have had a lot more solid evidence that would have been a lot more likely to convince our allies and a larger majority of the American people.

I'll assume your asking about the unlikely event that we would have had our small amount of evidence coupled with being totally right...that wouldn't make any difference in passing a test of any kind. Bush STILL failed to convince a large number of people, and that would have been the same no matter what we found.

It doesn't matter if the result was good, you can have a good result through a stupid plan...happens all the time in my experience. Does that mean you plan was good because it happened to produce good results? No, it means we're all happy the results are good...but you should proabably try a better plan next time.

Just to head off any "So you think Kerry doesn't care if we had found WMDs or not?" kind of responses, I'll say it again. A stupid approach coupled with good results is still a stupid approach. We're all happy about good results, but that doesn't mean we should keep trying a stupid approach because it happened to work once. I think Kerry and everyone else would have been happy if we found actual WMDs, but that wouldn't have changed the fact that Bush didn't pass the "global test", and he probably should have.

Besides...there ARE no wmds in Iraq...certainly not "huge stockpiles"...so it's hard to say what might have happened.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, I really don't care to debate this issue with you anymore as it's apparent that you and I will not see each other's view. The only reason I post now is because you made a claim about me and I respectfully ask that you to back it up.

Originally posted by: Gaard
Yeah, I'll participate. Just a sec, I'll be right back...

Been a pretty long "sec".

But yeah, it's quite apparent that we won't see eye to eye on this issue but atleast you attempted to sorta address the concept's issues.

CsG

You're a fvcking joke CAD. Heated debates, personal attacks, name calling....it's all part of ATP&N whether we like it or not, and we're all guilty of it. Telling lies about fellow members goes beyond what's acceptable, even for P&N...and even for you. I've been polite asking for you to either prove your claim or retract it (both in this thread and thru PMs). You refuse to do either. As far as I'm concerned you're the lowest member on these forums.

I don't like being called names, but I've come to expect it here in P&N. I don't like the cowardly tactics of some of the post-and-run trolls we have in here, but I've come to expect it here in P&N. What crosses the line is lying about another P&N member. I honestly don't believe you intentionally lied about me, I think you probably believed what you posted...but are too stubborn to admit you were wrong. Unfortunately CAD, to me, this isn't something that can be shrugged off because you don't have the character to admit a mistake.

It's sad. It really is. You have to play this roll of being 100% right all the time. Of being a step above us other P&N members. Of being, in your mind, correct in anything and everything you do or say. It goes beyond pathetic that you can't even come out and retract an untruth that you stated about me...probably out of fear of showing the rest of us that you're not correct 100% of the time. Here's a little food for thought, my pathetic friend; telling a lie about another member is far more heinous than showing a little ch!nk in your armor.

Awww... poor gaard. Caught "overstating" things and then tries to whine to me about it when I call him on it. *sniffle* No, I didn't tell a lie gaard - I showed where your statement was incorrect. You did infact not respond, even after you promised to. Oh well, I see you've decided to take your little tantrum public so here it is folks. You have gaard posting:

Originally posted by: Gaard
Yeah, I'll participate. Just a sec, I'll be right back...

And then never coming back and participating in the thread(which just happed to be a poll with question thread.)
Then he has the nerve to say in this thread(formating changed to show who said what):

Originally posted by: CsG
Can you answer my questions?

Originally posted by: Gaard
Unlike you CAD, I always have.

So anyway gaard, It looks like from the evidence I've already presented - it was YOU who was wrong. But ofcourse you are too stubborn and lack the character to admit you were wrong about what you said and got called on.
So anyway - your little tantrum has been fully noted and is on display for all to see. I sure hope you feel better now.:roll: Pathetic...

Oh and just for a little icing...
Gonna answer it?

CsG

 

[dchakrab]

Interesting. No one appears to have responded to a point I made:

If Kerry is at fault for this "global test" idea, then Bush is far more at fault. Bush not only believes in the Global Test, he believes in deceiving the American public to "pass" it. The first part of the test, convincing the nation for the reasons we are acting pre-emptively, Bush "passed" (barely) by being certain Iraq had WMD's and had proven links to Al Quaida. At the second examination, Bush not only appears to have failed miserably, but also to have been caught cheating on round I. If the global test is such a bad idea, then how can we not condemn Bush, when it's important enough to him for him to lie about it?

-Dave.

 

[assemblage]

That's true he will subordinate control to the UN as well as underfund.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
If we would have found vast stockpiles of wmd in Iraq, would the invasion of Iraq have passed the global test ?

Definately!

 

[RyanM]

"If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

If you do NOT agree with that statement, and believe that unilateral action under false pretenses is something we should be engaging in, DIE IN A FIRE. YOU'RE A F*CKTARD.

That is all.

 

[TBone77]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Uh huh.

I also saw a draft of the global test, it was multiple choice. You guys are grasping at straws now huh? I guess when you have four years of failure, you might as well scour the net for quotes to take out of context and them post here.

Careful... conjur will accuse you of diversion...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, I really don't care to debate this issue with you anymore as it's apparent that you and I will not see each other's view. The only reason I post now is because you made a claim about me and I respectfully ask that you to back it up.

Originally posted by: Gaard
Yeah, I'll participate. Just a sec, I'll be right back...

Been a pretty long "sec".

But yeah, it's quite apparent that we won't see eye to eye on this issue but atleast you attempted to sorta address the concept's issues.

CsG

You're a fvcking joke CAD. Heated debates, personal attacks, name calling....it's all part of ATP&N whether we like it or not, and we're all guilty of it. Telling lies about fellow members goes beyond what's acceptable, even for P&N...and even for you. I've been polite asking for you to either prove your claim or retract it (both in this thread and thru PMs). You refuse to do either. As far as I'm concerned you're the lowest member on these forums.

I don't like being called names, but I've come to expect it here in P&N. I don't like the cowardly tactics of some of the post-and-run trolls we have in here, but I've come to expect it here in P&N. What crosses the line is lying about another P&N member. I honestly don't believe you intentionally lied about me, I think you probably believed what you posted...but are too stubborn to admit you were wrong. Unfortunately CAD, to me, this isn't something that can be shrugged off because you don't have the character to admit a mistake.

It's sad. It really is. You have to play this roll of being 100% right all the time. Of being a step above us other P&N members. Of being, in your mind, correct in anything and everything you do or say. It goes beyond pathetic that you can't even come out and retract an untruth that you stated about me...probably out of fear of showing the rest of us that you're not correct 100% of the time. Here's a little food for thought, my pathetic friend; telling a lie about another member is far more heinous than showing a little ch!nk in your armor.

Awww... poor gaard. Caught "overstating" things and then tries to whine to me about it when I call him on it. *sniffle* No, I didn't tell a lie gaard - I showed where your statement was incorrect. You did infact not respond, even after you promised to. Oh well, I see you've decided to take your little tantrum public so here it is folks. You have gaard posting:

Originally posted by: Gaard
Yeah, I'll participate. Just a sec, I'll be right back...

And then never coming back and participating in the thread(which just happed to be a poll with question thread.)
Then he has the nerve to say in this thread(formating changed to show who said what):

Originally posted by: CsG
Can you answer my questions?

Originally posted by: Gaard
Unlike you CAD, I always have.

So anyway gaard, It looks like from the evidence I've already presented - it was YOU who was wrong. But ofcourse you are too stubborn and lack the character to admit you were wrong about what you said and got called on.
So anyway - your little tantrum has been fully noted and is on display for all to see. I sure hope you feel better now.:roll: Pathetic...

Oh and just for a little icing...
Gonna answer it?

CsG

Sucks being 100% right all the time, huh CAD?



Now Gaard, about that apology......

 

[Gaard]

Someone bored again?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, I really don't care to debate this issue with you anymore as it's apparent that you and I will not see each other's view. The only reason I post now is because you made a claim about me and I respectfully ask that you to back it up.

Originally posted by: Gaard
Yeah, I'll participate. Just a sec, I'll be right back...

Been a pretty long "sec".

But yeah, it's quite apparent that we won't see eye to eye on this issue but atleast you attempted to sorta address the concept's issues.

CsG

You're a fvcking joke CAD. Heated debates, personal attacks, name calling....it's all part of ATP&N whether we like it or not, and we're all guilty of it. Telling lies about fellow members goes beyond what's acceptable, even for P&N...and even for you. I've been polite asking for you to either prove your claim or retract it (both in this thread and thru PMs). You refuse to do either. As far as I'm concerned you're the lowest member on these forums.

I don't like being called names, but I've come to expect it here in P&N. I don't like the cowardly tactics of some of the post-and-run trolls we have in here, but I've come to expect it here in P&N. What crosses the line is lying about another P&N member. I honestly don't believe you intentionally lied about me, I think you probably believed what you posted...but are too stubborn to admit you were wrong. Unfortunately CAD, to me, this isn't something that can be shrugged off because you don't have the character to admit a mistake.

It's sad. It really is. You have to play this roll of being 100% right all the time. Of being a step above us other P&N members. Of being, in your mind, correct in anything and everything you do or say. It goes beyond pathetic that you can't even come out and retract an untruth that you stated about me...probably out of fear of showing the rest of us that you're not correct 100% of the time. Here's a little food for thought, my pathetic friend; telling a lie about another member is far more heinous than showing a little ch!nk in your armor.

Awww... poor gaard. Caught "overstating" things and then tries to whine to me about it when I call him on it. *sniffle* No, I didn't tell a lie gaard - I showed where your statement was incorrect. You did infact not respond, even after you promised to. Oh well, I see you've decided to take your little tantrum public so here it is folks. You have gaard posting:

Originally posted by: Gaard
Yeah, I'll participate. Just a sec, I'll be right back...

And then never coming back and participating in the thread(which just happed to be a poll with question thread.)
Then he has the nerve to say in this thread(formating changed to show who said what):

Originally posted by: CsG
Can you answer my questions?

Originally posted by: Gaard
Unlike you CAD, I always have.

So anyway gaard, It looks like from the evidence I've already presented - it was YOU who was wrong. But ofcourse you are too stubborn and lack the character to admit you were wrong about what you said and got called on.
So anyway - your little tantrum has been fully noted and is on display for all to see. I sure hope you feel better now.:roll: Pathetic...

Oh and just for a little icing...
Gonna answer it?

CsG

Sucks being 100% right all the time, huh CAD?



Now Gaard, about that apology......

Buahahahaha!!!

Nah, I'm not 100% right all the time. Not even the Great CADkindaGUY was right 100% of the time.

CsG

 

[IAteYourMother]

The US can work with the UN w/o subordinating troops