The Tide is Changing!

[Fairweather]

sexual_chocolate said:

I don't have time to address anything beyond your Chavez comment: He was elected, and his constitution obliges him to serve out his term. Why on earth would you have a problem with that? Are you saying that if enough people started rallying for Bush's ouster, he should simply step down? Don't be silly! There are constitutional guide-lines here, just as there are in Venezuela.

 

I was simply drawing the parallel between the Chavez situation- where business and unions are united in their efforts to recall this trojan horse president, and your call for Bush's impeachment. You seem to support the latter, but not the former. Hmmmm. Almost enough to make me think you are (once again) employing a double standard.

[sexual_chocolate]

Fairweather. This is getting silly.

I support Bush's impeachment because I believe him to be a dangerous man pursuing policies outside the scope of domestic and international law. If he was impeached, he would stand trial and the facts would come out in their entirety. The legality of this process is spelled out by our constitution. Is this much clear?

Chavez was elected president by a majority of Venezuelans, mainly the poor. He is simply standing by his commitments to his constituency, and many are having a problem with that. The calls for a re-election don't have legal backing! The Venezuelan constitution does not support Chavez' opposition! Chavez is in the right, completely, within the legal frame-work of Venezuela. Why do you have a hard time accepting this? Because you disagree with his policies? Get over it! He won the election, fair and square.

 

My support of Bush's impeachment and my support of the legitimacy of Chavez' presidency has no double-standard what-so-ever. Both positions are rooted in the legal frame-work of either country. Now if I was demanding that Bush step down, that would be silly, right? This is what Chavez' opposition is demanding in Venezuela.

[MtnGoat]

"Both positions are rooted in the legal frame-work of either country."

 

With respect to Venezuela, I don't know about that, with respect to here ,being upset the Supreme Court upheld the constitution hardly squares with that. The FL legislature laid out guidelines and timelines for contested elections prior to the election , Florida courts usurped the legislative role and wrote, and attempted to impose, new guidelines and timelines.

 

If Gore had really wanted all the votes counted using his newfound respect for all the votes (except those of military members, of course), and all the time the courts (illegally) granted him, he would have wanted *all* of FL recounted, not just the districts he thought he'd have an edge in, *and* the military votes he didn't want too. Geez.

[sexual_chocolate]

MtnGoat said:

"Both positions are rooted in the legal frame-work of either country."

 

With respect to Venezuela, I don't know about that, with respect to here ,being upset the Supreme Court upheld the constitution hardly squares with that. The FL legislature laid out guidelines and timelines for contested elections prior to the election , Florida courts usurped the legislative role and wrote, and attempted to impose, new guidelines and timelines.

 

If Gore had really wanted all the votes counted using his newfound respect for all the votes (except those of military members, of course), and all the time the courts (illegally) granted him, he would have wanted *all* of FL recounted, not just the districts he thought he'd have an edge in, *and* the military votes he didn't want too. Geez.

 

Let's not obfuscate. The topic wasn't Gore vs. Bush.

[Toast]

 

 

Fairweather said:

Did Clinton get, or even seek, UN approval for his boming adventure in Belgrade? Where were the protesters back then? Where was Sexual Chocolate and DFA? Where was their outrage?

 

C'mon dude, pull your head out of your ass. There's a bit of a difference between Clinton finally giving in to our collective conscience to stop genocide on that kind of magnitude and Dubya's fishing for any excuse to wage a war that nobody wants. I'm not sure there's ever a right war, but there's certainly are wrong ones. We're about to step into the middle of the latter.

 

 

By the way, there were protesters back then. They tended to be Republican voices whining about why we'd want to step into a fight where we had nothing to gain.

Edited February 17, 2003 by Toast

[Dru]

 

looks about same to me.

[iain]

google's getting a workout today

[chucK]

I've heard that people who don't have access to TV are much more likely to be addicted to the internet

[MtnGoat]

"There's a bit of a difference between Clinton finally giving in to our collective conscience to stop genocide on that kind of magnitude and Dubya's fishing for any excuse to wage a war that nobody wants."

 

There certainly is, a lack of explanations for why the same standards were not applied to Yugoslavia which are now held out as inviolable standards for war.

 

Where was the outcry from the left for proof the US was threatened? Where was the demand for UN backing of an action to bomb a country that had not bombed us? Where was all the concern about collateral damage, and concern over the lies used to start that action?

 

And the lies include the magnitude of the genocide. Why don't you tell us what numbers you are thinking consitute "that magnitude"?

 

Why didn't African genoncides of much larger scales demand US (non UN supported) intervention and massive bombing, if it's magnitude that drives the need for war?

 

"I'm not sure there's ever a right war, but there's certainly are wrong ones. We're about to step into the middle of the latter. "

 

Boy do you have it backward, Yugoslavia was the wrong war for the wrong reasons, and this is the correct one for the correct reasons.

 

"By the way, there were protesters back then. They tended to be Republican voices whining about why we'd want to step into a fight where we had nothing to gain. "

 

You mean they pointed out what lousy reasoning it is to go to war for no national interest? how terrible! The only time we should go to war is when we have no interests at stake, and we should not when we do? No wonder Dems and "progressives" have such a tough time convincing people they have a meaningful stance on defense, they support wars with people who present no US threat, and refuse to support them with those who do.