Forums Index >> General >> Thanks Democrats
Page : 1 . . . . . 10 : 11 : <12> : 13 : 14 . . . . . 23
@Flea
Those volleyball players must have been democrats -- flip-floppers, every last one of them.
Sorry.....I fell asleep watching Nightline.
Were y'all saying something?
Postarama coming up - waffles for all. A little bit for everyone....I'm even going to mention Kerry.
My secret - I write this stuff in the airport. You should be able to tell by now when I'm in the airport bar.
@Flea
Funny how all the really intelligent people are branded liberals eh?
The most intelligent people always agree with me. :)
@ 44
Ummm...the war angle is based on Mr. Wilson, who is the wild card in this whole cranky affair, and his so-called intelligence.
@ else
The thing is hoot.
Conservatives in the cross fire of other conservatives. The liberals floating somewhere in the ozone, cranking out their famous a priori, conclusions-before-the-process-ends reasoning.
The Media Machine, the Wilsons, Robert Novak, Karl Rove, the so-called witch-hunting conservative prosecutor, the calls for shields for reporters before the Senate.
"Seasoned audiences" are shaking their heads.
Last edited: Thursday, July 21, 2005 at 10:14:52 AM
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown_WSJ_Top-Secret-Plame.wmv
Giddy up.
Last edited: Thursday, July 21, 2005 at 7:34:31 PM
WOW! There's no way they can escape this one!
Bush will not last the weekend!!
Chief!
Still politicking? Still cooking out? Decided work is more important? Heh! :)
A new tactic by the Democrats! (This is a repeat of a removed but enhanced post of yesterday.)
I bumped into a review of the book Don't Think Like an Elephant! by George Lakoff, who is a college professor in linguistics and a top Democratic consultant.
Lakoff's new tactic is called framing. It is the use of metaphor to steer political debate. In short, it is typecasting. The President is a power abuser. Rove is his top henchman, for example.
The first use was in the Social Security debate. The lack of debate on fixes for SS by the Democrats was deliberate, which is an interesting spin. Because private accounts made the public nervous, Nancy Pelosi says, "We branded them [the White House] with privatization."
Pelosi "laughs loudly" according to the review and says, "At the beginning of this debate, voters were saying that the president was a president who had new ideas. Now he's a guy who wants to cut my benefits."
The tactic's weakness is that it is offers no new ideas.
We are getting no debate or problem solving on Social Security or Iraq from the other side and we shouldn't expect any with this tactic. Just typecasting. Isn't it apparent?
It possibly will be the big tactic during the Roberts Supreme Court process, if the 14 lose compromisers lose control.
Stand by for news!
...or flick the light off as you go :)
Last edited: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 at 6:25:13 AM
@ Sally, when will you realize that PMSNBC is not reporting the truth!! %)
Sorry JJ - have been busy as hell at work as of late.
You're making some great points. Particularly with Wilson.
You know....he's probably the first guy I think of when I think of African yellow cake uranium. I would imagine he probably has a plane on hot status at Langley AFB waiting to wisk him around the globe on "eyes only" secret uranium missions.
LOL - would make a helluva video game. Maybe as fun as shooting cartoon tanks.
The biggest reason this whole issue has landed with a resounding "thud" with no applause outside the beltway.....everyone (or at least most everyone) sees it for what it is - political smear.. Liberals making issues out of what start as non-issues and at the end of the day saying "but yeah....still....".
This mission would have probably worked had they sent Superman instead of Schneider (what was the name of that '70's show?).
That one trick pony played out in the Clinton '90's guys. It's day has come and gone. And that, quite honestly, is probably the biggest reason Dems fear and loathe Karl Rove. The Dan Marino of the polical realm.
I love it though! I hope they keep it up. I hope they do in fact raise holy hell in the next 45 days of Roberts' confirmation. Hillary in '08 ain't a lock you know.
@JJ and Chief
Don't think like a donkey. Instead, try using the tactics of distraction and counter-attack — if you're being attacked and want to avoid discussing the merit of the charges....simply change the subject and attack somebody else.
That's what's happening with Joe Wilson right now. The irony is that it was an effort to discredit Wilson two years ago that got Rove and Scooter in trouble in the first place....and here they go again. More distraction. More counter-attack. No discussion of the merit of any of the charges. Who cares if they leaked a CIA agent's name? Who cares if they disclosed information from top secret memos? Who cares if they may have lied to a federal prosecutor to cover up their crimes? Distract and counter-attack. Works even better than that new framing tactic.
Here's the beauty of this story for those of us with eyes open and brains unwashed: Say what you will about Wilson and Plame -- even if he's the biggest idiot around and his wife's nothing more than a desk jockey -- smear them any way you want -- it doesn't change the fact that the CIA launched an investigation of the White House for leaking an undercover agent's identity. That ain't going to change, no matter how you distract, counter-attack or frame.
@ 44
I agree wholeheratedly in that anyone disclosing information sensitive to national security should be strung up.....provided they are proven guilty, by a jury of his/her peers, beyond a reasonable doubt (not in the media) in a court of law.
No discussion of the merit of any of the charges.
Sorry bro - I thought that had been addresses already.
A re-cap...at least of my posts....anyone else wanting to re-address should probably bump theirs as well for point/counter-point:
That's what I am saying. The email vindicates Rove. Yet, the press (along with the WH press corps) is pushing along entirely different lines....i.e. "he's the one!!!!!"
Plame's employment in the CIA was public knowledge. Her covert status, however, was not. The email says nothing about her status.
What's additionally funny is that Rove's comments (albeit second hand) were an attempt to keep Time from reporting something that was incorrect....basically saying "you don't have the facts straight - here's the real deal."
All of this being said....apparently GWB has said that anyone involved in this would be dealt with....so I expect, as I'm sure everyone else does, that that will take place.
EDIT: My last statement above is incorrect. I left it up for those that may have read this before now.
The GWB statement, made in the timeframe of the WH press conf FoFo refer's to below, was that "anyone involved inleaking potential WH policy before the decision to be made to implement that policy" would be dealt with swiftly."
Last edited: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 11:01:25 AM
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 10:30:36 AM
What's kind of funny - is that if ROVE WAS THE SOURCE THAN WHO IS JUDITH MILLER DEFENDING????????
Again - all Rove did was discourage a reporter from reporting a false story based on a false premise. Again - the email says it all. Plame's status was public knowledge (reported in various beltway magazine and newspaper articles about her and her husband) and NON-CLASSIFIED.
The one making political hay of all this is Wilson. Unfortunately, the facts get in the way.
Had to point that out. If you'd like to see the original email it's in the link in my previous post.
EDIT:
I am posting the linked article anyway:
Matt Cooper's Source
What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter.
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.
Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute "personal consent" from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead.
For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.
The controversy arose when Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying that he had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson's column was an early attack on the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. The White House wished to discredit Wilson and his attacks. The question for the prosecutor is whether someone in the administration, in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, intentionally revealed the covert identity of his wife.
In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. He [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger... "
Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK.
A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.
Fitzgerald is known as a tenacious, thorough prosecutor. He refused to comment, and it is not clear whether he is pursuing evidence that will result in indictments, or just tying up loose ends in a messy case. But the Cooper e-mail offers one new clue to the mystery of what Fitzgerald is probing—and provides a glimpse of what was unfolding at the highest levels as the administration defended a part of its case for going to war in Iraq.
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/[/quote]
Last edited: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 11:24:23 AM
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 11:14:12 AM[/quote]
Let's keep this in perspective.
I am all for prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law anyone who damages this nation's security.
Again - Ms. Plame's employ in the CIA was public record. Incidentally. The DO alone alledgedly has a couple thousand people with level clearance sufficient to access...not to mention the various staff members of the intel-related (oversight, select House, Senate select, etc) commitees....the number of people with access (again alledgedly) runs into 5 figures.
This is SOLELY politically motivated by Wilson....and the media is eating it up and doing their damnedest to give this story legs. Wilson was a very boisterous critic of Bush foreign policy before the run up to Iraq...and I think it's kinda funny that both Democratic and Republican Senators last year found that Wilson had made false statements in his 2003 public condemnations of the Bush administration's Iraq policies....yet no one's talking about that.
I'm here to tell you....there's a stripper in the cake. Judith Miller (who is no friend of this administration) ain't going to keep sitting in Ryker's forever....and my money's on Wilson himself. I mean - what a coincidence that the person authorizing his "voyage" would be....his wife??? You mean no one else in Langley would sign off??? Dude - it ain't that small a world.
There is absolutely no one else she would be willing to go this far to protect - journalistic privilege be damned.
Thursday, July 14, 2005 at 6:42:27 PM
Root out the traitor rats and shoot them. They are endangering our freedom.
I concur completely. On that I assure you we are in agreement.
I actually still have a magazine with an article on Plame and Wilson at the house - it's from before 2001 (last time I was in DC). If nothing else, I will scan it and post it as a PDF. (Edit: Incidentally, I never said her covert status was public domain info - just her employment at the Agency as, I think, a liaison to the IAEA or some other UN WMD taskforce).
Chief, you is keeping up with the details!
Me, I'm still stuck on the reporting surrounding Rove/Plame.
It certainly is not the reporting of Woodward and Bernstein. Nothing is based on facts; just a lot of inferences from the info.
Take Jonathon Alter's article in Newsweek above. It's not a bad write, fo fo, until it reaches this odd paragraph, part of which I quoteth:
For two years we've known that senior White House officials were determined to, in the words of the British intelligence memo, "fix" the intelligence to suit their policy decisions. When someone crossed them, they would "fix" him, too, as career ambassador Joseph Wilson found when he came back from Africa with a report that threw cold water on the story that Saddam Hussein sought yellow-cake uranium from Niger.
Even up until now, the word "fix" still has no new further supporting background information out there. We just get the word "fix."
There are no confirmations from other sources. Other facts that confirm that this was what was going on in the lead-up to war.
Woodward and Bernstein spent a year chasing leads and elusive facts that they based inferences on, but then followed until the facts came out. But today? Just say "fix" and nuff said.
Hey, I can fix too.
Here's what really happened!
Cooper did it . Everyone knows Plame's status because of gossip from a source outside the White House. Reporters start going to the White House for confirmation. Rove indirectly confirms it by saying he heard it too, as the email states.
The music stops and Rove and Libby have nowhere to sit and since they are so high profile, they are it. Cooper says they are.
Just as plausible as Alter's paragraph. Not to mention Keith Olbermann and others.
No one is much trying to verify the facts in the story.
Even Clinton remarked the other day:
My view is we should wait until all the facts are in and the prosecutor makes whatever report he's gonna make and all the people who are involved make available whatever information will be made available.
Thank you, Bill.
Last edited: Thursday, July 28, 2005 at 7:44:50 PM
Thanks JJ. The applause is deafening.
By the way - apparently Bill's hanging around George Sr too much.......
Chief, are you gone then? Hmmm. I pronounce you gone. Chief has left the building. You will not see him even infrequently. (If I'm wrong, make the correction.)
Two notes, Flea.
First, the CIA and George Tenet were arguing against war on Iraq. That's pretty well documented. For this reason, any gung-ho, yippee-Cowboy reports on WMD wouldn't ever have originated from a CIA goaded on by Cheney, as you imply.
Second, as Chief pointed out, in the excerpts from Cooper's email that we have seen, we get only pieces of the story or time-line. In the several minutes that Cooper says he talked to Rove, Rove did simply warn him about Wilson.
(We only got snippets of the Cooper's email; the Grand Jury has it in its whole form. I haven't found it or seen it in its whole form either. You?)
Also, Chief makes a good point about the lack of interest outside the Beltway.
Now the only interesting thing about this story is that the pieces that are starting to fall out of this continuing mess are making for better twists and turns than a good spy novel.
And, also, the major media types are getting a little closer to catching the scorn that they have so richly handed out. David Gregory of NBC may be reporting soon from the Clerk of Court's downtown on marriage licenses.
Last edited: Sunday, July 31, 2005 at 6:23:18 PM
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Face-the-Nation-Brownback-Cloning-7-31.wmv
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/31/growing-scandal/
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/oh2.wmv
the last one is most funny. If you can memorize bullet points, you too can run for office as a republican.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/1/12226/80730
...less funny, but just in case it had been forgotten. Anyone pick up the new harper's yet?
Sorry JJ. I got kinda ticked off over the weekend as someone was attempting to hack one of our servers (very sloppily I might add) through the 28k series ports. I caught a lot of hell about it as it forced me to work Sat & Sun.
That being said-----I am here.
@ Flea
Dude, that was a kick ass post.
My reply:
Absolutely and unequivocally true. Unfortunately for the traitors in office that outed Plame that "public record" was "Top Secret".
True. I am,however, unaware of KR making mention of Plame's status.
And now KR saying it was all an innocent mistake because he didn't want the Times to be embarrassed by running an incorrect story about the Niger yellow-cake.
Actually, he was trying to throw water on Wilson's "What I Didn't Find in Africa" op-ed column in the NYT. This I find particularly humorous, as this column continues to stay under the radar. Who started it notwithstanding.....KR's comments to Cooper was simply his playing the game that Wilson started..
Who made what comment to Judith Miller, however, remains to be seen. She still sits in jail, protecting whatever source she is protecting. Is it Rove? Is it Cheney? Is it Libby? No one knows----though I personally doubt it was any of those three due to the disdain she has previously shown for the Bush Whitehouse...not to mention she would be lauded as a hero for coming out and having the "courage" to name one of them. I do know one thing. She's not sitting there because of First Amendment integrity (an argument I find in and of itself ridiculous). She's there because she's boxed herself in. She's there because the revelation of her source would have a tremendous impact on the story itself.
Unfortunately for Ms. Miller, there is no deal to be cut here, as the IC's office is tangentially off on another track and knows it's only a matter of time before she gives in.
Thankfully, too many non-mainstream news sources (and those that don't understand the impact the above revelation will have on the issue itself) have their teeth sunk in on this deal and they're not going to let it go away. The fact that the mainstream news orgs have allowed this to fall off the front page is proof enough....they see what's coming as well.
^ gets it.
Ah, Chief. Nice to see you back.
Thought you had (probably wisely) checked out of the forum in favor of the ol' work ethic.
@ this forum, I have a thought on sort-of different angle.
In the form of personal disclaimer:
If I pick at the thoughts or posts of the left, it will not be that I am dissing you personally.
Things are seldom as black and white as many like to make politics and life in general.
And, as you know, Chief, politics is less real than the rubber-meets-the-road of the day-to-day working world. VIVA THE BLUE COLLAR MAN! ;)
Posts may become more ideological and rhetorical, which may bother some, like Stinker and others.
I certainly respect the intelligence of Flea, 44, Tally, or the departed Stinker. Not to mention the Canadians (if I must).
However, if you follow the mantra of the left without thinking, your mantra’s going to get analyzed.
Conservatives are not all “red-neck, chain-smoking, baby-slapping Christers desperately in need of some gender-free nurturing and political counseling by organic-gardening enthusiasts from Berkeley.”
Actually the correct mantra has always been: lower taxes, less government, strong defense, and family values.
Incoming.
Last edited: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 at 11:12:17 AM
^ for President....or at least City Council.
<---- popping popcorn for the show.
That's a lot of writing without saying anything, JJ. A disclaimer post on page 14?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050802/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_intelligent_design;_ylt=AiWP2X5hgl8qE1_7fwfw4cuyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Your education president at work.
THEOCRACY NOW!
Maybe King George will take the red states back.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/oh2.wmv
Anyone that watches that then goes out and votes for her or agrees with her inked-up, rubber stamp garbage should just go ahead and give their brain back.
Bush rocks!
Of course intelligent design should be taught!!
We (the majority) will continue to take care of and make the right (read "smart") choices for you!!!
What a day!
By smart, you mean religiously tolerated?
http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/08/02/election_results.html
Nice link there Tally - ha ha ha!
Keep practicing.
Intelligent design can be taught in church, as it already is. If people want their kids to know more about God's activity in their lives then they should have their parents/church teach them. Parents are slaking off lately anyway. Bunch of slackers.
Amusing. Also amusing was a bloody-red district narrowly squeezing in one of the pub's rubber stampers.
link to a better, longer editorial tomorrow or thursday assessing talking describing the puny, pathetic wizard behind the curtain.
sweet dreams, ohio.
Anxiously awaiting.....
While I'm at it....I'd like to thank Bill Maher for being himself on the Tonight Show the other night. It never hurts for mainstream America to see an undiluted view of a hard core leftie...if we're lucky maybe he'll campaign for Hillary.
If the Dem's are lucky maybe he'll drop (another) hit of acid and glue his lips shut.
One notable difference in the two parties....message discipline.
If ID is valid, I think its a good idea to give children a different point of view. We don't want to dogmatically teach evolution do we?
@ Flea
The only thing being ignored in Iraq is the progress that is being made.
I, for one, am fully aware of the sacrifices our men and women in uniform make on a daily basis.
A. How is ID valid, other than being an opinion? If you want to open that worm can, you better come correct, because it will absolutely be on.
B. Show us this progress in Iraq. Maybe you mean this? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4311.htm
Also, did you just say we shouldn't dogmatically teach science in schools? A clever rhetorical lay-down that, very red state. Science as competing religious "belief," or ideology, dropping it down to the mythological level of actual religion, creating equivalency and thus, a valid debate.
Please.
Last edited: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 at 10:09:43 AM
Here's my issue: I talk with my child all the time about how God created, continues to create, and everytime there is this moment of wonder about the majesty and mystery of how God works in the world. Do you really want that given to a state employee?
IDists and evolutionists are looking at the same evidence. The theists examine it and say, "Wow, look at what the Creator did" while the atheists examine it and say, "Wow, look at what nature did". Both come to the table with a predisposition that they apply to what they see around them. Somehow science has become something exclusive of God, but I don't think it has to be that way. Now its my understanding that more people are starting to look at the ID theory and I think that if it holds up as well as any other theory then yes, I think it should be allowed into the classroom. Why not have competing ideas. Isn't that what its all about? And ID is more than just "God did it in 6 days, now lets' move on to math". I've heard that there is some disagreement between ID people and creationists, so I don't think its just another attempt by the "red staters" to get religion in the classroom. If a Creator actually exists, then saying he designed things isn't religion and giving students that "opinion" shouldn't be a big hassle.
And sure, I said "dogmatically" for effect, but its true, isn't it? We don't want to just pound something into the kids' heads without discourse and examination. Even without ID in the classrooms, at least show the pros AND cons of evolution while making sure we're giving them the latest discoveries and debates concerning the issue.
@Memphis - I get your point, but I think my son's already moving beyond the "warm fuzzy" of such sentiments. We encourage him to study the world around him, buying him telescopes and microscopes, he's inquisitive. Add to that basically any nature show or science book and you only get the evolution POV. Yesterday over pizza and soda he asks, "What's a primate?" and "What's evolve?" The wife and I lay it out for him, but we also add the "God created..." bit, but its difficult to compete against slick TV productions and hours of classroom instruction. I know we're his most influential people in his life now, but I can still see that..."eh, I don't know about" in his reaction. If his teacher or NOVA was reenforcing ID, it would be helpful.
Last edited: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 at 1:18:19 PM
Okay, I was trying to be glib, but if we are going to talk about intelligent design mr. President...
Intelligent design makes the inference that mathematically evolution could not have happened by the random acts that it would have taken to get to where we are today. That since this is so, then God must have a hand in it.
The problem with this understanding is that it cheapens both sides of the proverbial coin. For one, it leaves God to do nothing other than to fix the things that don't seem to be working right. It laughs in the face of the integrity of God, and of the integrity of good science. For two, it leaves out some very important insights to how God actually works in the world, suffering (?), the cross (?) come to mind at the moment.
Evolution does not replace the teaching of everything created by God, and letting God deal with the world as it is. Both science and theology/religion interpret what they observe.
Evolution isn't a threat, it shows us that we are all intricately related, even down to our basic scientific elements. And it's a solid theory based on interpretation of physical evidence. ID is theory based on what isn't present. It's a "God of the gaps" theory and that's just plain bad theology.
Science is the realm of the school, theology is the realm of the religious school, and I'm sure the TBN has or will show something about ID sometime soon. FRONTLINE WHERE ARE YOU?!?!
Last edited: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 at 3:10:50 PM
^ gets it, and throws fewer matches than I would.
If anyone disagrees with Mem, smartly tell us why.
Oh, erm...evolution.
Did Bush comment on it to distract from the Rove coverage and the Iraq situation?
Well, you'd wonder.
But all that Rove/Plame stuff is aging like a fine wine or a fine cheese, or both.
Here's an example of the benefits of aging. From the Daily Howler. Over a year old. It loses none of its kick with time.
The Daily Howler, a well-respected liberal critic who takes aim at Mr. Wilson's then-recent misdeeds. No lie! See here:
Some of the best parts are from the final paragraphs:
Our conclusion [Daily Howler's conclusion on Wilson]
Democrats should be quite upset with their blowhard hero, Joe Wilson...
Sorry, but Wilson’s wife did play some role in his selection for the trip (not that there’s anything wrong with it). And Wilson did keep saying that Cheney must have been briefed, a thundering judgment he now says was wrong. The [Senate] Committee did judge that most analysts felt his report strengthened the case about Iraq’s pursuit of uranium...
In his TV interviews, Blitzer and Zahn were too inept to ask him the relevant questions. For the record, Wilson’s explanations seem mighty shaky compared the account of this matter in the unanimous report [of the Senate Committe on Intelligence]...
Loudmouth Wilson kept banging the drums, leading us down that Niger road. Now, he’s being called the latest liberal liar, and the charge is close enough to true so that, in part, it’s going to stick. Lord Butler said Bush’s claim was well-founded—and Wilson admits he can’t debunk it! Given those facts, many American are going to wonder why Bush was trashed for those 16 words. This was always a weak side road, with Wilson the piper who led Dems down it.
Just a talking point. At present, busy.
Now, back to evolution...
Last edited: Friday, August 05, 2005 at 11:51:15 AM
JJ with the what-whos again.
Sadly, I'm not versed well enough in either evolution or ID to properly debate/discuss either. Sure, I know I little about both, but not enough to satisfy this audience.
However, I do take acception to the idea that evolution isn't a threat to theology, but then we enter into a discussion concerning liberal and conservative interpretations of the Bible and what sort of authority it really has in an natural world.
...I need to start reading more.
^Try The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.
Last edited: Thursday, August 04, 2005 at 6:42:49 AM
Or Quarks, Chaos and Christianity by John Polkinghorne. Also Philip Hefner's, The Human Factor or my personal favorite, The Pulse of Creation , by Paul R. Sponheim.
Finish the above books by September, and we shall discuss.
If you would like a quick fix in regards to science/religion topics go to your local library and find the latest issue of Zygon .
Last edited: Thursday, August 04, 2005 at 8:15:13 AM
Memo to Republicans...
Don't write checks.
^ just because I'm willing to admit I'm not as informed on this topic as I might like to be doesn't invalidate my viewpoint (which is if ID is a good theory, it should be presented along side evolution). So I need to learn more about both topics, but I'm sure there are some other folks here who could support ID if they wanted to or at least discuss some of the problems with evolution (which seems to be in short order in government schools).
<snark attack>
then I respect your viewpoint about a forthcoming opinion, which I may or may not respect.
</snark attack>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Read carefully; discuss away.
-
As an aside, Rick Santorum.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Rick-mp3.mp3
Last edited: Friday, August 05, 2005 at 1:10:08 AM
Read my mind, bagger. Came to just that conclusion with duck yesterday.
Based on some of the stuff my teachers believed, I wouldn't want religion taught in schools.
Of course I'm one who doesn't think ID or evolution (as it's currently presented) should be taught in schools. The evolutionary theories they taught me in school (and still teach) are outdated, some of which I have heard contradicted by evolutionists since. It seems our classroom time would be better spent teaching the scientific method using an example that is perhaps a little more stable.
But maybe I'm just bitter because I've never been good at memorizing arbitrary dates.
Now chemistry and physics, those were classes I could get into.
@flea - I appreciate what you're saying and thanks. I do see a difference in opinion concerning the definition of what ID is however. I don't think ID is confined to any specific religion. I read some of Behe's book many years ago and if I remember correctly, he was just trying to make the case that some superbeing out there designed what makes up our natural world and here's why. For the most part I see it more as a deist idea that Christians are latching onto, but I think its open enough for any person who believes in a Creator.
As far as science entering churches, you make it sound like its banned from the sacred halls of faith. That's not the case. As a matter of fact, there's probably a lot more scientific influence in the church than religion in science. Theologians, pastors and laity all hold differing views on what the Scriptures tell us judged against the findings and theories of science (though I think the opposite should be true). Now your sticker idea is clever, but unnecessary. Its generally held that you can't prove historical occurances in the same way is scientific ones. And as far as things being impossible...against what measurement? Can science prove people can't walk on water. Sure, I can even conduct an experiment to prove that myself. But doesn't prove that Jesus didn't do it.
56K makes a good point. At least teach the lastest in evolutionary theory (pros and cons).
Couple of quick notes on the non-science front.
To help Tally with his what-was-that-that-just-passed-by-me.
Bush's comments on evolution as of August 3 from the NYT:
Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught." Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Mr. Bush replied that he did, "so people can understand what the debate is about."
Mr. Bush was pressed as to whether he accepted the view that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution, but he did not directly answer. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," he said, adding that "you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
I certainly expected a full battle cry from the left here and from media/bloggers. Bush's remarks are just a lame diversion from the Rove/Plame inquiry! was what I expected to hear.
No one comments much. Bush certainly pushed a hot button when he did that, I thought.
Perhaps Rove is just getting boring.
At any rate, the focus on Mr. Wilson and his many verbal slip-ups OVER A YEAR AGO do play a vital role in the Rove/Plame timeline.
At any rate, Mr. Wilson is a nice shelf item. Always interesting and always available.
More interesting was Bob Novak's angry departure from a CNN interview. There he WALKS!:
Since there is copy of Who's Who on the table (look for the big brown book in the picture), the presumption is that the discussion was headed toward that tired, old question about Rove's name-dropping. As we all know, only Rove and Libby are the only ones capable of cranking the Washington Rumor Mill.
OK, enunicate c-l-e-a-r-l-y. That was tongue-in-cheek, Tally. I intent to say that this question has been rehashed many, many, many times over the past year. Second, it is a little naive to think that only Rove and Libby would be doing this.
My conclusion is still that there is too much unclear about who started the name-dropping to think only Rove and Libby were capable. (In the Let's-Get-Mikey-To-Try-It-FIRST age of media that doesn't wash.)
Ah, also, here are some recent signs of less terrorism:
Libya has rejoined the civilized world it was announced this week. The “rogue” state and Colonel Gaddifi are not exporting terrorism anymore. They even have a nice website at www.libyaonline.com
Also, the IRA recently has announced that it has decided to lay down its weapons. IRA announcement
Republicans sing, "All we are saying is give peace a chance..."
Last edited: Friday, August 05, 2005 at 1:30:20 PM
Capable. Culpable. What's the difference?
But back on topic, did someone else tell Rove about Plame first? Did someone else tell Libby first? Who started the rumor mill?
Very good questions and central to the investigation of potential wrongdoing.
Some more important questions: Had Clinton received oral services from anyone prior to Monica? Had Monica given oral services to anyone prior to Bill? Both very good questions and central to the investigation of potential wrongdoing.
News flash #1: Rove knew he shouldn't out Plame.
News flash #2: Rove did so to smear a critic of pre-war intelligence.
News flash #3: There's a white stain on a blue dress and an "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" sound byte.
Uhhhhhhh....let's move on....
Libya is out of the terrorism business and the IRA is calling a cease fire. Both very significant announcements and clear indications that we're on the right track and making significant progress in the global war on terror.
News flash #1: Approval of Bush's handling of the war on terror is at 38%
News flash #2: Terrorism-related deaths around the world since the invasion of Afghanistan have increased every year.
Keep polishing....it's starting to look a bit like a Baby Ruth candy bar.
Democrats sing...
"I’m sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
I’ve had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth"
Last edited: Friday, August 05, 2005 at 5:39:54 PM
Are you trying to re-rail this thread back on topic? Sheesh...
I'll let the thread return after I add this:
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." Proverbs 25:2 .
As for my worm eating, Old Duffer says it's good for building up the immune system...
Page : 1 . . . . . 10 : 11 : <12> : 13 : 14 . . . . . 23
: :
Yeeeeeeeep, that's right. It ain't over 'til the fat lady has sung...and waffles are served for all.
First up - Social Security.
I bring you the following from an email I rec'd earlier today. Slightly partisan, but I though "What the hey...what's not lately?"
SO:
Subject: Social Security
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to
put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and
are now receiving a Social Security check every
month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed
on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal
government to "put away," you may be interested in
the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from
the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
MY FAVORITE :
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and
violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens
believe it!
I haven't had a chance to fact check yet - I'm sure someone will. I deleted the "pass this on" part of the email.
Well? Agree? Disagree?