letterman pwns o'reilly...
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
you're an alt for a retard that already posts here right, not another one that's just turned up out of the blue?LazyLLama wrote: No, he's NOT a moron, and NO, thats not "ownage"
The problem with this world is people like yourself who refuse to realize your mesmerized by the liberal media and Hollywood. Bill O' Reilly is one of the few people on television actually debating issues that matter to this country (assuming your from the U.S.). And if you've watched his show you'll realize he's probably the only balanced news caster/debater out there. He's also one of the only people out there who realizes this country needs to stop bitching and moaning and start realizing we're fighting terrorists in Iraq and everything our troops are doing overseas for us is preventing the fight from coming here.
Secondly, Letterman is the Moron for saying O' Reilly is "full of crap" when he's "never even watched his show"!! How could someone argue another's point of view if he has no idea what he is talking about. I can tell you right now, even if you don't like O'Reilly, atleast he's not a far left bomb throwing liberal like Letterman who appeases to the crowd to save him when O'Reilly asks him important, REAL questions that matter, not some entertainment bullshit to make the crowd laugh like "your 60% full of crap."
P.S. I can tell your a real "class act" by your "respectful" signature...(sarcasm intended)
I never said there were two 'parts' to legality...I simply tried to highlight the fact that YOU seemed to make this bifurcation without recognizing its implications. Furthermore, I didn't propose that legality and morality were unrelated...I said that, in the context of (simply) identifying X as legal or illegal, there is no need to bring moral questions into the mix. You can replace 'conceptual' with 'definitional' in my formulation, if that helps.Canis wrote:I wasnt viewing legality as seen in two parts as others seem to have defined it, one part being conceptual and the other being practical. To me, legality encompases morality, but to others, the view of legality is seemingly both separate and the same as morality.
To restate it simply: To say some act X is illegal it is ONLY necessary to identify X as falling under the purview of some law or other. Period. In the realm of international law, this is not always a straightforward task...but it is still the SAME TASK.
Thank you. Thank you.Hannibal wrote:I never said there were two 'parts' to legality...I simply tried to highlight the fact that YOU seemed to make this bifurcation without recognizing its implications. Furthermore, I didn't propose that legality and morality were unrelated...I said that, in the context of (simply) identifying X as legal or illegal, there is no need to bring moral questions into the mix. You can replace 'conceptual' with 'definitional' in my formulation, if that helps.Canis wrote:I wasnt viewing legality as seen in two parts as others seem to have defined it, one part being conceptual and the other being practical. To me, legality encompases morality, but to others, the view of legality is seemingly both separate and the same as morality.
To restate it simply: To say some act X is illegal it is ONLY necessary to identify X as falling under the purview of some law or other. Period. In the realm of international law, this is not always a straightforward task...but it is still the SAME TASK.
I see what you're getting at, and my argument has been that illegality has an implication of effect to it (beyond just description and categorization). I therefore disagree with the formulation you describe, as it does not have such effects. I do not see the concept of law as having been developed separate from the concept of consequence. They are hand-in-hand with each other. As such, my whole argument is that the effect of claiming illegality over some action and only claiming illegality does not fulfill the notion (as described in definition) of what legality encompasses.Hannibal wrote:I never said there were two 'parts' to legality...I simply tried to highlight the fact that YOU seemed to make this bifurcation without recognizing its implications. Furthermore, I didn't propose that legality and morality were unrelated...I said that, in the context of (simply) identifying X as legal or illegal, there is no need to bring moral questions into the mix. You can replace 'conceptual' with 'definitional' in my formulation, if that helps.Canis wrote:I wasnt viewing legality as seen in two parts as others seem to have defined it, one part being conceptual and the other being practical. To me, legality encompases morality, but to others, the view of legality is seemingly both separate and the same as morality.
To restate it simply: To say some act X is illegal it is ONLY necessary to identify X as falling under the purview of some law or other. Period. In the realm of international law, this is not always a straightforward task...but it is still the SAME TASK.
Much of what has been argued over is whether or not law precedes any enforcement or vice versa, and I've argued that since enforcement is implied, enforcement precedes the idea of law, at least for practical law which I distinguish from conceptual/solely-moral "law".
If one does separate the claim of illegality from punitive consequence, I cannot see a difference between such claims and morality. As such, in order to have an effective practical (relevant in that laws will be upheld) legal system, and in order to separate legality from pure morality, enforcement is an integral aspect of legality.
I do not agree with legality being purely a rhetorical device, or an idealistic concept. I do not agree that it is only conceptual.
I understand the differences noted in this argument, and its a basic definition difference. I dont see your position as illogical at all, but I just dont agree with it based on how I've observed things working in the world and how I believe the definitions to be. Both are just different ways of looking at it, but I cannot just accept your definition without the other aspects that (at least to me) are apparent in the definition, and that are quite obvious and relevant to me.
-
MidnightQ4
- Posts: 520
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:59 pm
Too bad O'Reilly brought it, and Dave had no response but to resort to insults.R00k wrote:"That's because Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy and expects his guests to bring something to the table."
--Bill O'Reilly, Feb. 27, 2001
Sorry Dave but you're dead to me now.
-
prince1000
- Posts: 1892
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 8:00 am
You're going to stop watching Letterman, just because he holds the opinion that O'Reilly is full of crap?MidnightQ4 wrote:Too bad O'Reilly brought it, and Dave had no response but to resort to insults.R00k wrote:"That's because Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy and expects his guests to bring something to the table."
--Bill O'Reilly, Feb. 27, 2001
Sorry Dave but you're dead to me now.
God you're a fucking sheep.
-
prince1000
- Posts: 1892
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 8:00 am
god lol liberal media...that fucking really cracks me up. neo-con millionaires preaching to their conservative base such lies as victimization and marginalization despite being in the majority in so many socio-political realms. so one dimensional that all dissenters are categorized as evil liberal democrats.