Shouldn't a DUI conviction, such as the one George Bush has, be a fundamental disqualifier for holding any important public office?   It would seem to me that if 30,000 Americans a year are killed by Drunk Drivers, a Presidential candidate having been a Drunk Driver ought to be viewed in roughly the same light as if Bush himself had formerly been a terrorist with the intent of killing Americans.  Because the net result of one person being a Drunk Driver is actually MORE harmful to MORE American citizens than is any one person being a terrorist in Al Qaida.

It just seems that this is a question we ought to ask ourselves before voting.

Now I realize that Bush is a reformed Drunkard, not a current one, so perhaps it's fairer to ask how that compares to hypothetically having FORMERLY been a terrorist, rather than a current one.  So, should FORMER Al Qaida members be considered as Presidential Candidates?  They would seem to have as much validity as does Bush, by the standards of how much damage they've done to the safety of American citizens.

-- Modified on 8/5/2004 5:35:52 PM

A former Terrorist has been Pres of Kenya , Israel, South Africa, and a few other states.  I don't hold with this line of argument.  One of the few areas I give the bush man a pass.

And as we know, the main difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is which side won the battle, and hence got to choose the names.

In THIS case, Bush as a DUI convict is analogous to a Terrorist who attacked our PRESENT REGIME, not the prior one, which was the Brits.  Because by YOUR characterization, George Washington, was a Terrorist, and by mine, he was a Freedom Fighter.

I'm talking about the type of terrorist who inflicted harm under our CURRENT system of government - THAT's what Bush and his DUI conviction is actually analogous to.

terrorist.  He did not avocate violence against his country, just equal rights for everyone.  But in the case of Kenya and Isreal, people who were once considered terrorists (in that they avocated violence to arrive at an end they considered just) became President (or Prime Minister) and actually led their countries into peace treaties that were not possible before they came along.
    But having said that, the only way that I would want to see a person like Bin Laden or his ilk near the center of power in a country, is for them to have bullets through their brains and be used as footmats for true leaders to wipe their feet on.

Unless that is you consider putting an old tire around a man's neck, filling it with gasoline and tricking him into his last cigarette.  Oh, wait, I forgot you libs are against smoking!

And I suppose you could make an argument that it wasn't terrorism, just plain murder, but God forbid it wasn't Hate.

-- Modified on 8/5/2004 8:04:04 PM

The only way you could get the repubs on board with this would be to have a dem run for president that got a DUI conviction, or possibly a dem that got a blow job at some point in his life.

I happened to fuckin write my thesis on this subject.  Ever hear of Umkhonto We Sizwe?   It was the military arm of the ANC.   Mainly fought a insurgent campaign against SA on the northern borders.  But DID occasionally set off a bombs or attack people in the main areas.  

My thesis was that they were driven to it by theitr govt's rejection of their peaceful overtures, but they did go for the gun.

Nelson Mandela did approve of some of those actions.  But he was originally more centrist.

Jomo Kenyatta IS problematic as the Mau Mau were almost more terrorist than insurgent.  But he  mellowed and becaome political.

What thinking!!!  F++++ amazing.  Nelson Mandella was not part of the military arm of the ANC.  He was imprisoned for his belief that apartheid was wrong and his POLITICAL activism against it.  Begin and Kenyetta WERE directly involved with organizations that worked to bring about change that they wanted, by killing some people.

Just WHY, EXACTLY,  is terrorism, which normally kills maybe dozens of Americans a year, and ONCE killed 3000 in a year, MORE harmful to us than Drunk Driving, which kills Tens of Thousands of Americans EVERY year?

You have Obviously accepted the premise, at face value, that Terrorism is a greater evil than drunk driving.  Which is ironic, for a man of medicine.  Why do you accept that premise?  Surely you are aware of the carnage than drunk driving is causing to our society, with over 30,000 fatalities a year.  Where is the outrage - especially since those are preventable fatalities?

I'll weigh in with this offering. I too have wondered why there is so much outrage, fear, hyperbole, etc. surrounding terrorism, when on the scale of things, as you point out, there is far more carnage and property damage anually due to car accidents than due to acts of terrorism. To answer this, I point out another statistic. I read once that the most common NATURAL disaster cause of death is lightning. By far. When I read this, I wondered how that could be? More than flood, hurricane, tornadoes, forest fires, earthquakes etc? Really? You read all the time about people dying in those disasters, but hardly ever read about someone getting struck by lightning. The reason is in the single event numbers. It is far more sensationalistic to say that 100 people died in a hurricane, than to say one farmer got hit while plowing his field in Iowa. 3000 people dying in one act of terrorism is off the scale in terms of sensationalism. 35,000 people a year in car accidents is "acceptable risk" whereas even 100 in a single act of terrorism is not.

gasoline and lit the gas on fire with a match combusting the persons head until they burned to a horrible death!  Then he taught the procedure to his wife who continued to do it while he was in prison.  Many believe he invented this method of torture.  He is not a nice person!

If you need a clearer picture than that, I cannot help you, nor will likely anybody else be able to.

They seem to have no problem dismissing it out of hand, but not one of those folks who dismissed the premise has been willing or able actually explain why they feel it warrants such an out of hand dismissal.  Probably because they have no solid argument to make, so insulting the premise is more convenient than dealing with it.

did manage to find detracting articles by a group called MediaWatch (hmmmm!) and an organization that printed a long detracting piece on Mandela (interestingly, they put him in the same category with George Washington, go figure!!).  When I pulled the article off the web and pasted, it turned out to have been written originally in Afrikaans - I gues that has no correlation at all so I should believe it as fact.
    Go back to fishing Mr.B, and while your are at it, try to stop reading stuff out of the Extreme Times & Chronicle.  
           

Just as it did when those baseless charges were first aired about Mandela decades ago.  This is an individual who has endured so much mistreatment WITHOUT carrying any bitterness forward toward his oppressors.  His class is a beacon of humanity the likes of which we rarely see in this world.  

Surely, if he had committed the atrocities which you claim, the Apartheid government he opposed, and which viewed him as a most dangerous enemy, would have charged him with them, and they would have executed him for those acts.  They did not, because they had no such evidence.  He was jailed only for organizing the ANC, and for treason in supporting the outlawed organization.

You are mistaking the acts of others in the ANC, including his wife, who committed violent acts during the time Mandela was in jail.  He didn't do what you charge him with, your charge is baseless.

-- Modified on 8/10/2004 9:07:56 AM

seriously don't think they were attributed in any manner to Mandela. I would be surprised if there were any substance to this allegation. But given the inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and outright fabricrations I have encountered in the so-called "legitimate press", I wouldn't rule it out entirely either. That's one of the biggest problems with wanting to be informed. What sources do you trust. Who's bullshit do you want to believe. What disgusts me is that there are so many people who listen to one source or genre of dogma, repeat it incessantly and emphatically for the truth, and never once question the veracity or the source. We must question all the answers, because we don't have the answers to all the questions.