Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:27 am

and to think i was going to take the day off from the e-playa.

since we are skirting the subject... how about a little discussion of Ethics

what are yours? can you define them? who taught you yours?

anyway, back to the US F1 Gran Prix

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:31 am

A definition of ethics I can agree with.

The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war. By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. The lines of distinction between metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?" and "what kind of beings have rights?"

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:51 am

Getting back to the real point of the matter here is that it takes BIG BALLS to take on bullies like Kenny boy and Dick and Bush.

Everyone in all businesses are basically sitting with their thumbs up their asses.....well with the exception of Michael Moore. Watch what happens this year with this dude. He has a war room ready to take on anyone that slanders his movie. Fully equipped with lawyers and all.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:55 am

And I'm not knockin anyone that likes thumbs up their asses. Ok!

Steven bradford · Post by **Steven bradford** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 3:53 pm

That's a relief.

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:01 pm

Thanks for the hostility, Burner. Don't know where it came from, but thanks. I was expressing my views on 'Politics', which is the struggle for power. In our courts, that power is best expressed in terms of 'money'. I shared my views on that.

I was expressing 'Irony'... an intelligent concept.

Guilt or innocence is a commodity in every 'complex' society, and a very flexible commodity at that.

As for experience with bloody death and mutilation, I am a Vietnam Veteran (1968-1970), but I don't talk about it. And as for OJ being showered with blood or not... dunno'. That must be the 'unintelligent' part of me. I guess it is obvious that every blood letting is exactly the same. That must be the 'unintelligent' part of me that doesn't see that.

Now, if you wish to include or exclude me based on an IQ test, great; bring it on. Otherwise, I'm here, listening, learning, paying attention. Live with it.

Sam

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:05 pm

No apology needed. I've gone over all of your postings and understand that you ment no harm.

Thanks for your input.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Hope my post was not to offensive.

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:18 pm

"Kenny Boy" is toast

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:32 pm

Burner wrote:

Hope my post was not to offensive.

Not at all... you arrogant fuck... oops... I mean... no... no... it's alright... no offense taken, asshole... aaaiiieee... sorry... my Tauret's is kicking up again... shitheel... sorry... sorry... damn... damn... damn...

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:33 pm

Simply Joel wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:I can't believe some people finally got the balls to indicte Ken Lay.
Four years it took. People are weak suckers. He's finally gonna get indicted for fraud. what was so hard about that.
or a legal leg to stand on?

In many high-profile cases legality issues are secondary to other influences. Those secondary influences can include media, political, economic... but all of these areas come under a single legal framework that is under the direct control of a single political entity. If you were an individual wanting to manipulate this system to whatever needs or end, you would target the single centralized area of power and influence first.

If you were in a position directly or indirectly related to that centralized legal system, then the task becomes much easier.

Virtually every aspect of Enron's major operations is and was, under government oversight and thus were closely related. And obviously, the executive branch is closely related to the judicial branch.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:40 pm

Ahhh,

fantastic spectabillis. Keep going I'm listening.

Steven bradford · Post by **Steven bradford** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:19 pm

It'll be great to have the Ken Lay trial going on during the election.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:31 pm

Steven bradford wrote:It'll be great to have the Ken Lay trial going on during the election.

I think it'll be unlikely according to samtzu, it should take about 12 months after the indictment if you measure it to the Jackson case.

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:34 pm

that's ok DVD, it keeps the bastard on edge.......

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:05 am

DVD Burner wrote:
Steven bradford wrote:It'll be great to have the Ken Lay trial going on during the election.
I think it'll be unlikely according to samtzu, it should take about 12 months after the indictment if you measure it to the Jackson case.

Thats not unrealistic, considering how entangled (much of it intentional) the Bernard Ebbers/Worldcom lawsuit is progressing. Ken Lay is smart, he knows how the system works. The two areas that he has limited influence is the public (whose influence is represented indirectly via sensationalist media) and those in isolated government positions who benefit from exposure in taking him to trial. Neither of which has any real interest in the concepts of justice.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:23 am

Simply Joel wrote:... how about a little discussion of Ethics
anyway, back to the US F1 Gran Prix

Or how about the F1 race, its much easier and far less subjective.

I still secretly wish someone would just T-bone Schumacher in turn one at the start and take him out early. He has taken all the excitement out of it for me. But Sato with Honda, man, the Japanese must be amped right now. Only recourse the US has at all is Jaguar (oh great) since Ferrari just took the last Ford based record out from under them. On our own turf even, damn, those Bridgestones must be the badass shit.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:56 am

DVD Burner Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 5:03 pm wrote:Also,

if Abu Ghraib prison is demolished, would that be destroying evidence?

Associated Press wrote:Abu Ghraib a crime scene, judge says

Baghdad, Iraq — A military judge on Monday declared the notorious Abu Ghraib prison a crime scene that cannot be demolished as U.S. President George W. Bush had offered. He also refused to move the trial of a soldier accused of abusing inmates.
Col. James Pohl issued the decisions at a hearing for Sergeant Javal S. Davis, one of seven soldiers charged in the case. Another, Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits, pleaded guilty last month and was sentenced to a year in prison.
Col. Pohl was also to hear motions Monday in the cases against two other defendants — Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr. and Staff Sgt. Ivan L. “Chip” Frederick II.
The judge turned down motions by Sgt. Davis' lawyers to move the trial out of Iraq and to order a new Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding.
Col. Pohl declared the prison a crime scene and said it could not be destroyed prior to a verdict. Mr. Bush had offered to dismantle the facility to help remove the stain of torture and abuse from the new Iraq; but Iraqi officials have declined, calling it a waste of resources. Saddam Hussein used Abu Ghraib to torture and murder his opponents.
Sgt. Davis' civilian lawyer, Paul Bergrin, won permission to seek testimony from the top U.S. general in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, and from the chief of the U.S. Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid.
But the judge turned down a request to seek testimony from higher-ranking witnesses, including Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Col. Pohl left open the possibility of calling other senior figures if the defence could show their testimony was relevant.
Lawyers for the soldiers have long maintained their clients were simply following orders to treat Iraqi detainees harshly and that the instructions came from the highest levels of the U.S. government.
Mr. Bergrin told reporters during a recess that he thought the hearing had gone well. He said lower-echelon troops at the prison had worked under intense pressure from their commanders and the CIA and had used nudity and other “Israeli methods” considered effective against Arab prisoners.
The hearings took place in the Baghdad Convention Center in the heavily guarded Green Zone, the nerve center of the American-run occupation of Iraq. U.S. authorities hope the proceedings will convince Iraqis that the United States does not tolerate abuses of civil liberties.
Sgt. Davis' military lawyer, Capt. Scott Dunn, failed to win an order to reopen the Article 32 investigation, which would have in effect dismissed the current charges. Dunn had argued that the military neglected to make a witness available during the Article 32 proceedings, which ended with a recommendation for court martial.
However, the judge granted a request by Mr. Bergrin to declassify all parts of an Army investigation report conducted by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba.
On May 19, Spec. Sivits became the first soldier convicted and sentenced in the scandal. Spec. Sivits pleaded guilty and received the maximum penalty of one year in prison, forfeiture of pay, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge.
The three defendants who appeared in court Monday face more serious charges and could receive long prison terms.
As the session began, Capt. Dunn said that while he understands security conditions in Iraq make it difficult to provide access to some witnesses, his client still has a right to confront his accusers. Capt. Dunn wanted to question an inmate at Abu Ghraib.
“We couldn't go to him. They wouldn't bring him to us. They said it was impossible to obtain any telephone testimony. We object to not obtaining his testimony at all,” Capt. Dunn said.
The Army has argued that a sharp rise in violence in April, including the siege of nearby Fallujah, made the area around Abu Ghraib too dangerous.
Mr. Bergrin said last week that he would argue for a dismissal of charges because of “improper command influence” extending to Mr. Bush.
Mr. Bergrin alleged that senior U.S. military officers sanctioned harsh treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and said he would seek evidence that Sgt. Davis was simply following orders.
Sgt. Frederick's civilian lawyer, Gary Myers, has said he will ask the judge for an investigator. Mr. Myers also said he would request a new Article 32 hearing because his client was not allowed to gather evidence or interrogate witnesses at his first session.
The seven soldiers charged in the case were from the 372nd Military Police Company, an Army Reserve unit from Cresaptown, Md. The abuse scandal broke in April when CBS' “60 Minutes II” aired photographs of hooded and naked prisoners. Since then other photographs showing sexual humiliation have surfaced, generating worldwide criticism of the United States and undercutting American moral authority abroad.
A separate hearing for another soldier charged in the scandal, Pfc. Lynndie England, 21, was scheduled for Tuesday at Fort Bragg, N.C., where she is now stationed.
The military has not decided whether to refer the cases against two others — Specialist Sabrina Harman and Pfc. Megan Ambuhl — to courts martial.
Coalition officials said the judge wanted to complete all three hearings Monday but that the proceedings could last for three days.
Spec. Graner, of Uniontown, Pa., has been accused of jumping on several detainees as they were piled on the floor. He is also charged with stomping the hands and bare feet of several prisoners and punching one inmate in the temple so hard that he lost consciousness.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/sto ... rnational/

Sucks being awsome all the time.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:58 am

also check the time that I post and when info I reference comes out.

I should'nt need to say that huh?

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 am

I don't need no stinkin laywer whatever thingie thing.....thingie......whatever.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:10 am

Ok,

Now next case to get on is this one:

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0

It can also be referenced to this:

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... hlight=911

But to keep it or Eplaya on the humorous side lets do this:

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... hlight=911

Happy happy happy.

I've said this once or twice before.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:11 am

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:24 am

And hey, I always can be wrong...........ha ha ha ha ha!

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:21 am

Damn,

where is Mr. K and Trey when you need them.

WE NEED YOU!

IMHO. of course.

P.S. not politically of course.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:12 am

where is Mr. K and Trey when you need them.

Consider the fact that with seven posts in a row each saying nothing that K, Trey and others have NO inclination to head over here to contribute to your online jerk fest.

Salient points, focused input, and posts based on experience inevitably get sidelined with each innane and vacuous reply that you dump on this board.

Ask yourself why they're not back here posting.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:05 am

Isotopia wrote:
where is Mr. K and Trey when you need them.
Consider the fact that with seven posts in a row each saying nothing that K, Trey and others have NO inclination to head over here to contribute to your online jerk fest.

Salient points, focused input, and posts based on experience inevitably get sidelined with each innane and vacuous reply that you dump on this board.

Ask yourself why they're not back here posting.

Did'nt you learn yet that Jealousy gets you no where?

I'll grant you though, the 7 posts are a bit much. It would have been easier with an edit function to compile into one post as was done in the old days.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:06 am

Darn, oh yeah. thanks Tancorix for stopping by.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:22 am

DVD Burner wrote:
Isotopia wrote:
where is Mr. K and Trey when you need them.
Consider the fact that with seven posts in a row each saying nothing that K, Trey and others have NO inclination to head over here to contribute to your online jerk fest.

Salient points, focused input, and posts based on experience inevitably get sidelined with each innane and vacuous reply that you dump on this board.

Ask yourself why they're not back here posting.
I'll grant you though, the 7 posts are a bit much. It would have been easier with an edit function to compile into one post as was done in the old days.

uh.... think before typing, and when that fails... don't type.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:35 am

uh.... think before typing, and when that fails...

Better yet, have something to say.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:03 pm

Isotopia wrote:
uh.... think before typing, and when that fails...
Better yet, have something to say.

"I'd pay a dollar for that!"

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:11 pm

Isotopia wrote: Better yet, have something to say.

Well I gotta tell ya, I've had more to say that sticks to thread theme than Iso but that's niether here nor there.

This is the politics thread is'nt it? Problem is, my thinking is always ahead at least by a few months. It would be nice if others did that.

Well there are a few that do on this thread....come to think of it, Iso you haven't posted on this thread before and it isn't even political.

Can you stick to thread theme please? Make a contribution.