Why has GWB not been sectioned?

[Pezzoni]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2204983.stm

Or whatever it's American equivilent is.

As most of us remember from a while back, one reason for him initiating war with Iraq was that 'God told him to'.
Now, imagine that you killed someone, and claimed 'God told me to', or 'My imaginary friend said it would be for the good of mankind' as your defence in court... You'd most likely end up in an asylum. Why has this not been the case here? (In fact, it's probably increased his popularity amoungst certain groups...)

This is why I don't think in the shower often

[1123581321]

The Congress is Republican controlled. They are pussies. Bush could rape a nun on the White House lawn, and this Congress would do nothing, while Fox News blames it on Clinton.

[Dalton]

His approval ratings, however, are down the shitter and the Democrats are starting to grow some balls.

[KHL]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2204983.stm

Or whatever it's American equivilent is.

As most of us remember from a while back, one reason for him initiating war with Iraq was that 'God told him to'.
Now, imagine that you killed someone, and claimed 'God told me to', or 'My imaginary friend said it would be for the good of mankind' as your defence in court... You'd most likely end up in an asylum. Why has this not been the case here? (In fact, it's probably increased his popularity amoungst certain groups...)

This is why I don't think in the shower often

I believe you are taking the quote too litterally. Many people consider their own insight or intuition to be God talking to, or influencing them. You know, that thing that makes you decide which fork in the road to take when you aren't sure which way is correct.

Its not as if he is a raving Schizophrenic...

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I believe you are taking the quote too litterally. Many people consider their own insight or intuition to be God talking to, or influencing them. You know, that thing that makes you decide which fork in the road to take when you aren't sure which way is correct.

Its not as if he is a raving Schizophrenic...

So if I kill a man and say God told me to I'm a loony, but if I'm President and order two thousand of America's finest men to die in a pointless war because God told me to then I get the benefit of the doubt where none is deserved all of a sudden?

You have a seriously fucked-up moral compass.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I believe you are taking the quote too litterally. Many people consider their own insight or intuition to be God talking to, or influencing them. You know, that thing that makes you decide which fork in the road to take when you aren't sure which way is correct.

Its not as if he is a raving Schizophrenic...

Believe it or not, I don't think there is a distinction there. Voices in your head telling you to do fucking stupid things does not justify squat, especially if that voice is the "benevolent" God in Christian lore.

[KHL]

I believe you are taking the quote too litterally. Many people consider their own insight or intuition to be God talking to, or influencing them. You know, that thing that makes you decide which fork in the road to take when you aren't sure which way is correct.

Its not as if he is a raving Schizophrenic...

So if I kill a man and say God told me to I'm a loony, but if I'm President and order two thousand of America's finest men to die in a pointless war because God told me to then I get the benefit of the doubt where none is deserved all of a sudden?

You have a seriously fucked-up moral compass.

You don't even merrit a response, but I will anyway.

First of all I never made any reference to the morality of his decisions.

I was merely trying to explain the quote. There is a stark contrast between someone actually hearing and having a conversation with "God" or some other entity and someone who feels they are being directed or influenced by God through their own intuition is something else entirely.

To answer your question, if you kill a man and you claim that the sole reason is that "God told me to" then yes you are insane. Likewise, If Bush were to suddenly order that we nuke Canada because "God told him to" he would also be insane.

However, taking God out of the equation, Bush had a logical case to be made for the invasion of Iraq. Maybe he felt that God "pushed him" in the direction of attacking Iraq, but again many people feel this way when they make choices from which the outcome is uncertain.

Depending on your point of view, he either he was mistaken on the WMDs, or he outright lied and only went in for Halliburton and the Oil. If the first scenario is true, then he is simply the victim of bad intelligence. And while the second scenario, if true, may make him immorral, it doesn't make him insane.

[FSTargetDrone]

For the first time I heard the word "impeachment," during today's McLaughlin Group on PBS. One of the panel (I believe it was Eleanor Clift of Newsweek magazine) who mentioned that if the Democrats got enough power, they may look into initiating impeachment hearings.

[KHL]

There is a stark contrast between someone actually hearing and having a conversation with "God" or some other entity and someone who feels they are being directed or influenced by God through their own intuition is something else entirely.

Ghetto edit...

What I meant to say was that there is a stark contrast between someone actually having a conversation with "God" or some other entity and someone who feels that they are being directed or influenced God through their own intuition.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

You don't even merrit a response, but I will anyway.

Why? Did I use Bad Words? You know you can be Shot on Sight for dismissing an argument because it contained profanity. Watch your ass.

First of all I never made any reference to the morality of his decisions.

No you didn't, but you were quite obviously defending those actions, which by definition implies that your morals or logic agree with his.

I was merely trying to explain the quote. There is a stark contrast between someone actually hearing and having a conversation with "God" or some other entity and someone who feels they are being directed or influenced by God through their own intuition is something else entirely.

No there isn't if the results are the same. Stop being a fucking semantics whore.

To answer your question, if you kill a man and you claim that the sole reason is that "God told me to" then yes you are insane. Likewise, If Bush were to suddenly order that we nuke Canada because "God told him to" he would also be insane.

Nice Red Herring. I never said 'nuke Canada', I said 'ordere two thousand troops to die in a pointless war'. Stop with the logical fallacies, asshole.

However, taking God out of the equation, Bush had a logical case to be made for the invasion of Iraq.

Yeah, his thirst for revenge for his dad. Oh, and the country had oodles of this black crap in the ground that you can make beaucoup beaucoup beaucoup money off of. Oil, they call it?

Maybe he felt that God "pushed him" in the direction of attacking Iraq, but again many people feel this way when they make choices from which the outcome is uncertain.

Somehow I doubt his motives.

Depending on your point of view, he either he was mistaken on the WMDs, or he outright lied and only went in for Halliburton and the Oil.

Point of View is irrelevant. Only facts and truth are.

If the first scenario is true, then he is simply the victim of bad intelligence.

IF.

And while the second scenario, if true, may make him immoral, it doesn't make him insane.

True. Thus, he needs to be IMPEACHED. Now.

[Sriad]

However, taking God out of the equation, Bush had a logical case to be made for the invasion of Iraq. Maybe he felt that God "pushed him" in the direction of attacking Iraq, but again many people feel this way when they make choices from which the outcome is uncertain.

You've apparently been asleep for a couple years, definately for the last month.

Bush's "logical case" has been in doubt by skeptics for a long time and recently even by Ordinary People too! See: Libby/Rove, Downing Street Memo, Richard Clarke, etc.

Frankly Bush had better stop involving God with his bad plans, unless he's hungery for divine retribution.

[KHL]

You don't even merrit a response, but I will anyway.

Why? Did I use Bad Words? You know you can be Shot on Sight for dismissing an argument because it contained profanity. Watch your ass.

No its not because you used "Bad words" dumbass its because you used stupid words. Clearly Nobody dismissed your "argument" if you want to call it that as I answered your retarded statement. You got a hard on to get me banned or something?

First of all I never made any reference to the morality of his decisions.

No you didn't, but you were quite obviously defending those actions, which by definition implies that your morals or logic agree with his.

Wrong. I'm simply pointing out that he's not "insane" as the poster of this message implied by his statement in this thread. Or did you even bother to read what this thread as about past the word "Bush"?

I was merely trying to explain the quote. There is a stark contrast between someone actually hearing and having a conversation with "God" or some other entity and someone who feels they are being directed or influenced by God through their own intuition is something else entirely.

No there isn't if the results are the same. Stop being a fucking semantics whore.

No its not the same. What makes someone insanse isn't their action alone, it is their reasoning behind the action. If you were to walk up and shoot someone simply because a voice in your head told you to, that makes you insane. If you shoot that same person because they have a weapon in their hand and are threatening you then you are acting rationally in self defense. Results are the same, but one person is crazy and the other is not. Sorry if that makes me a "logic whore".

To answer your question, if you kill a man and you claim that the sole reason is that "God told me to" then yes you are insane. Likewise, If Bush were to suddenly order that we nuke Canada because "God told him to" he would also be insane.

Nice Red Herring. I never said 'nuke Canada', I said 'ordere two thousand troops to die in a pointless war'. Stop with the logical fallacies, asshole.

I was giving you an example of what an insane act by the President would be in order to contrast it with the invasion of Iraq dumbass. Its not a red herring, its called explaining a point.

However, taking God out of the equation, Bush had a logical case to be made for the invasion of Iraq.

Yeah, his thirst for revenge for his dad. Oh, and the country had oodles of this black crap in the ground that you can make beaucoup beaucoup beaucoup money off of. Oil, they call it?

As I said, I'm not here to debate the President's morality, only his sanity.

Maybe he felt that God "pushed him" in the direction of attacking Iraq, but again many people feel this way when they make choices from which the outcome is uncertain.

Somehow I doubt his motives.

Your doubt as to his motives is irrelevent to the debate as to whether or not he is insane.

Depending on your point of view, he either he was mistaken on the WMDs, or he outright lied and only went in for Halliburton and the Oil.

Point of View is irrelevant. Only facts and truth are.

Yes and we don't have all of either. Therefore all we have is personal belief. If you want an example of a Red herring, then this is it. Whether Bush lied, or simply was mistaken is irrelevant to his Sanity.

And while the second scenario, if true, may make him immoral, it doesn't make him insane.

True. Thus, he needs to be IMPEACHED. Now.

Great Idea! Put together them impeachment case, and present it to the democract party. I'm sure they'd give it a listen. However, it still is entirely irrelevent as to the President's sanity, which again, is the topic of this debate.

[Surlethe]

I was giving you an example of what an insane act by the President would be in order to contrast it with the invasion of Iraq dumbass. Its not a red herring, its called explaining a point.

So, invading Canada for no reason is insane, but invading Iraq for no reason is "perfectly logical". Hmm; that's news to me!

[KHL]

I was giving you an example of what an insane act by the President would be in order to contrast it with the invasion of Iraq dumbass. Its not a red herring, its called explaining a point.

So, invading Canada for no reason is insane, but invading Iraq for no reason is "perfectly logical". Hmm; that's news to me!

Bush had reasons for invading Iraq. Some say Oil, some say WMDs. Regardless, he didn't just wake up one day and say "God says I should invade Iraq so thats what Im gunna do!".

[Surlethe]

I was giving you an example of what an insane act by the President would be in order to contrast it with the invasion of Iraq dumbass. Its not a red herring, its called explaining a point.

So, invading Canada for no reason is insane, but invading Iraq for no reason is "perfectly logical". Hmm; that's news to me!

Bush had reasons for invading Iraq. Some say Oil, some say WMDs. Regardless, he didn't just wake up one day and say "God says I should invade Iraq so thats what Im gunna do!".

But that would be a reason to invade Iraq, too. I suppose you're going to backpedal now and say it's not a rational reason; in that case, my initial point stands.

[KHL]

So, invading Canada for no reason is insane, but invading Iraq for no reason is "perfectly logical". Hmm; that's news to me!

Bush had reasons for invading Iraq. Some say Oil, some say WMDs. Regardless, he didn't just wake up one day and say "God says I should invade Iraq so thats what Im gunna do!".

But that would be a reason to invade Iraq, too. I suppose you're going to backpedal now and say it's not a rational reason; in that case, my initial point stands.

Semantic whoring now?

Clearly I was referring to a rational reason.

I fail to see how your intial point (if you had one) stands given the fact that I just explained to you how one is rational and the other is not.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

No its not because you used "Bad words" dumbass its because you used stupid words.

Cry me a river. You trolled, I returned your fire. Deal with it.

Clearly Nobody dismissed your "argument" if you want to call it that as I answered your retarded statement.

I'm covering my bases and closing an avenue of escape.

You got a hard on to get me banned or something?

Nope. I'm just enjoying your self-destruction.

Wrong. I'm simply pointing out that he's not "insane" as the poster of this message implied by his statement in this thread. Or did you even bother to read what this thread as about past the word "Bush"?

There you go again claiming 'Bush-Hatred'. Besides, you're trying to deflect attention off the fact that "insane" or not you agree with his reasoning for attacking Iraq.

No its not the same. What makes someone insanse isn't their action alone, it is their reasoning behind the action. If you were to walk up and shoot someone simply because a voice in your head told you to, that makes you insane. If you shoot that same person because they have a weapon in their hand and are threatening you then you are acting rationally in self defense. Results are the same, but one person is crazy and the other is not. Sorry if that makes me a "logic whore".

Yay, another Red Herring! Shooting someone because you heard voices vs justified self defense doesn't compare to 'invading an oil-rich country just because vs invading said country because God said so.'

I was giving you an example of what an insane act by the President would be in order to contrast it with the invasion of Iraq dumbass. Its not a red herring, its called explaining a point.

You fail it. It's still a red herring and therefore inadmissible.

As I said, I'm not here to debate the President's morality, only his sanity.

Hmm, your actions speak otherwise.

Your doubt as to his motives is irrelevent to the debate as to whether or not he is insane.

Yes it is relevant in the way that I don't think he's insane, merely after-the-fact justifying his big huge screwup.

Yes and we don't have all of either.

Concession Accepted.

Therefore all we have is personal belief. If you want an example of a Red herring, then this is it.

Black-White Fallacy! What about the facts we DO have?

Whether Bush lied, or simply was mistaken is irrelevant to his Sanity.

Correct.

Great Idea! Put together them impeachment case, and present it to the democract party. I'm sure they'd give it a listen. However, it still is entirely irrelevent as to the President's sanity, which again, is the topic of this debate.

I'm sure the Dems can take care of themselves. Or the Internet community.

[KHL]

However, taking God out of the equation, Bush had a logical case to be made for the invasion of Iraq. Maybe he felt that God "pushed him" in the direction of attacking Iraq, but again many people feel this way when they make choices from which the outcome is uncertain.

You've apparently been asleep for a couple years, definately for the last month.

Bush's "logical case" has been in doubt by skeptics for a long time and recently even by Ordinary People too! See: Libby/Rove, Downing Street Memo, Richard Clarke, etc.

Frankly Bush had better stop involving God with his bad plans, unless he's hungery for divine retribution.

Don't hand me that bullshit. Tony Blair obviously felt that there was enough evidence to merrit invasion also. He had his own intelligence services giving him info in addition to our own. You also forget that Vladimir Putin admitted that Russian intelligence had passed along intel that Iraq WAS planning terror attacks against the U.S.

You can argue that the intel was flawed, but as for the logic and rationality of Bush's decision, you have to view it from the standpoint that he did at the time he made his decision: which is that the intelligence was accurate.

[Surlethe]

Semantic whoring now?

No, you fucking troll. Rebutting your points. You obviously have no idea what semantics whoring looks like.

Clearly I was referring to a rational reason.

Except you gave irrational reasons.

I fail to see how your intial point (if you had one) stands given the fact that I just explained to you how one is rational and the other is not.

So let's see some of those "rational reasons" for invading Iraq, then: real reasons, please; not some handwavy notions of "some say this; some say that".

[KHL]

Except you gave irrational reasons.

What irrational reason did I give? Do you even understand the meaning of the word?

[Frank Hipper]

Characterizing intuition or insight as god speaking to you is as delusional as hearing an actual voice in your head.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Characterizing intuition or insight as god speaking to you is as delusional as hearing an actual voice in your head.

It's also a way of passing the buck if what you did resulted in a Bad Thing.

[Gaidin]

Except you gave irrational reasons.

What irrational reason did I give? Do you even understand the meaning of the word?

Half your problem, like most political debates, is that you have a totally different definition of what is irrational than they do. The other half of the problem is you have a brick wall built around the definition and don't really see much from other points of view regarding it.

Start asking yourself 'Why do they see this as a fucked up statement?'. In fact, make a hobby of it, it'll make your life easier in debate.

[Frank Hipper]

Characterizing intuition or insight as god speaking to you is as delusional as hearing an actual voice in your head.

It's also a way of passing the buck if what you did resulted in a Bad Thing.

God gives bad advice!

[Sriad]

However, taking God out of the equation, Bush had a logical case to be made for the invasion of Iraq. Maybe he felt that God "pushed him" in the direction of attacking Iraq, but again many people feel this way when they make choices from which the outcome is uncertain.

You've apparently been asleep for a couple years, definately for the last month.

Bush's "logical case" has been in doubt by skeptics for a long time and recently even by Ordinary People too! See: Libby/Rove, Downing Street Memo, Richard Clarke, etc.

Frankly Bush had better stop involving God with his bad plans, unless he's hungery for divine retribution.

Don't hand me that bullshit. Tony Blair obviously felt that there was enough evidence to merrit invasion also. He had his own intelligence services giving him info in addition to our own. You also forget that Vladimir Putin admitted that Russian intelligence had passed along intel that Iraq WAS planning terror attacks against the U.S.

You can argue that the intel was flawed, but as for the logic and rationality of Bush's decision, you have to view it from the standpoint that he did at the time he made his decision: which is that the intelligence was accurate.

Uh?

I can't speak to Mr. Blair's choices, not being up to the minute on UK politics, but the Bush team was pressuring US intel services to deliver the facts THEY wanted, not the TRUTH. The whole Plamegate thing is because -top- White House aids leaked her identity in retribution for her husband pointing out "hey, this is flawed intelligence." Clarke has gone public saying that at hour one after the 9-11 attacks the administration was working on how to invade Iraq because of this.

Sirrah, you have a very low threshold for "rational reasons."