Speaking to press on Air Force Two yesterday, Vice President Cheney lashed out at critics of the administration’s warrantless domestic spying program. His message was simple: people who don’t support our policies don’t believe terrorism is a threat.
There’s a temptation for people to sit around and say, well, gee, that [9/11] was just a one-off affair, they didn’t really mean it.
Now we’ve gotten to the point where four years beyond the attack, people are saying, well, gee, maybe there’s not a threat here after all.
Either we’re serious about fighting the war on terror or we’re not. Either we believe that there are individuals out there doing everything they can to try to launch more attacks, to try to get ever deadlier weapons to use against, or we don’t.
Here’s the problem. No one in the Bush administration can explain how this program helped America fight terrorists. Under existing law, surveillance can begin immediately. (The government just has to obtain a warrant from the FISA court with 72 hours). The secret program didn’t save time — it just avoided checks on abuse. Cheney’s cartoonish characterization of his critics arguments doesn’t change that.
Our laws gave the Bush administration the power to instantly start surveillance on people suspected of communicating with terrorists. If something in the law prevents us from addressing the threat we should change the law. But everyone, including the President and the Vice President, should follow the law.
Same false choices from Bushco. Remember “Either your with us, or your with the terrorists”, etc, etc.
How about “Either you believe Bush has committed an impeachable offense or you’re happy with the destruction of America.”
December 21st, 2005 at 10:39 amAND YOU ARE A DICTATOR, no we WON’T give you a blank check to rule this country, no go play with your monkey.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:40 amAnd why does Cheney insist that terrorists are trying “to get ever deadlier weapons” when we were attacked with civillian aircraft?
And ALL of the explosions ignited by terrorists in the last oh, I don’t know, 10 years maybe, are makeshift bombs loaded with nails and glass and such (not counting the massive explosions in Bali and other locations which were basically giant explosions of fire).
December 21st, 2005 at 10:40 amIt is all such stupid sloganeering from the Cheney
December 21st, 2005 at 10:41 amadministration.
Sad that it often works.
Perfect.Beautiful post . Mr. Cheney should use all of the judiciary he can get his hands on to prove his case. They thouroughly beleive the Supreme Court had the power to hand them their positions in 2000, how can they argue against having them decide now? This the party that screamed during WJC’s reign “we don’t need more laws, we need the one’s on the books enforced. Get to enforcing gentlemen.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:42 amEvidently, the “either you’re with us or you’re against us” now applies to US citizens as well.
The Revolution will begin now…King George and his Dick must be dethroned…
December 21st, 2005 at 10:42 amTranslation: Child abuser to victim: “If you don’t stop struggling, I will let the Boogeyman have you.”
December 21st, 2005 at 10:45 amAnyone that thinks that the spying on ‘terrorists’ will not include spying on political opponents has no concept of human nature or history. These guys will do anything, including breaking any and all rules, to stay in power.
We can thank Dick for one thing, showing us how easy it is to subvert our country. We must fix this. After the impeachment the checks and balances must be restored so that this does not happen again.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:47 amAll you need to know about how dishonest the Bush cult is can be seen in this canofun video:
http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/AmericasYouth2.ram
December 21st, 2005 at 10:50 amThanks Jeff … unfortunately, all to often I get the consrvative = evil Nazi line.
I think Congress should investigate the NSA thing … if only for the people to know what actually happened. There’s a ton of accusations swirling (some of the tinfoil hat variety, in my opinion) but I’m inclined to wait and see. I’ve said before, I believe in the legality of Bush’s actions (at this point and given what we know about the NSA actions) but should we find that Bush used the NSA for personal gain, then his statements about Constitutional mandate and Presidential war powers would be null. Then, I’d be on the impeachment band wagon …
December 21st, 2005 at 10:50 amAnyone that thinks that the spying on ‘terrorists’ will not include spying on political opponents has no concept of human nature or history. These guys will do anything, including breaking any and all rules, to stay in power.
Pure idealogical conjecture … I guess the fact that history tends to repeat itself (a true claim) means that you can claim such an occurance is currently happening without actual facts or proof to said claim. Are you psychic … or do you just really want it to be true (and thus for you, it is).
December 21st, 2005 at 10:54 am#11 – I respect your position, but honestly this isn’t about the NSA and all that other cloak-and-dagger crap. Here’s what this is about:
“Amendment IV – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
If he can break that Amendment because of some perpetual, trumped-up, wag-the-dog, war on terra, he can break any of them.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:59 amJudd, don’t ask the Right to make sense.
They operate in fear and fallacy only.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:59 amPuh-lease! Of course they’re spying on their political opponents…otherwise they wouldn’t have had a problem with obtaining a warrant. These people aren’t as stupid as they are evil. If you can spy on someone for up to three days, then go get a warrant to make it legal, what’s the problem…unless who/what/why you’re spying on someone is illegal on it’s face.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:59 amPure conjecture? Are you kidding? Not only is putting themselves above the Constitution part of the stated neocon agenda (I’ll post a summary if you really need it), it is why we have checks and balances in the first place.
I guess you trust this administration? I don’t.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:59 amBetter put – when you direct more anger at President Bush than you do the terrorists, you aren’t serious about terrorism.
When you call the President a liar even though Democrats supported the war in the beginning, you aren’t serious about terrorism.
When you cry about the August 6th memo, but then complain about wiretapping terrorists, you aren’t serious about fighting terrorism.
Judd- wake up buddy. The reactionary left in this country is not serious about fighting terrorism. If you guys fought terrorists the way you fight Bush (and Alito come next year), we might be able to win this war and save America.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:01 amThe ONLY terrorism I see comes FROM cheney and the rest of team bush. When are our ELECTED leaders finally going to wise up and stop these TERRORISTS in the white house from ignoring OUR constitutional rights?
By the way DICK (cheney), if you’re not for US, you’re AGAINST us. AND there’s a hell of a lot more of US than there is of YOU. Remember that DICK.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:03 amBush doesn’t need to spy on his political opponents. He can just pretend he is and their foaming at the mouth will hurt their election chances.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:03 am“9/11, 9/11, 9/11…..aawwkk, cracker time”
December 21st, 2005 at 11:05 am“9/11 changed everything”….hmmm, so far as I know, the CONSTITUTION is still intact/unaltered!
IMPEACH.
Here is a great little insight to how they are thinking over at PNAC, from Josh Marshall. Enjoy
December 21st, 2005 at 11:05 amEnjoy.
Sorry I am a doofus when it comes to this link thing. sorry http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007290.php
December 21st, 2005 at 11:06 amBush doesn’t need to spy on his political opponents. He can just pretend he is and their foaming at the mouth will hurt their election chances.
You mean in the same way all your foaming at the mouth has hurt conservatives over the last 30 years? Sorry, try again.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:06 amThe real danger with Cheney’s line is that he, and many others in power, too often accuse their political opponents of siding with enemy. Or if not siding with, then aiding and abetting the terrorists.
Personally, I think the Iraq war has been the thing that has offered Islamic terrorists the most help. In Iraq ‘Islamofacists’ get live-fire practice on real American troops, not mention pretty much everyone else. And clearly their bomb-making ability is improving, not declining.
However, I don’t doubt that Cheney believes in the rightness of what he’s doing, and that’s what really scary. I think he really does believe that domestic dissent is an enemy. Without checks and balances, which Cheney also considers an enemy, what steps will he feel are necessary to ‘protect the nation?’ Certainly curtails on free speech, on governmental oversight, on legal restrtictions of the executive have already been identified as legitimate targets.
By logical extentsion, free elections that lead to the the wrong outcome could be perceived as a threat to national security, and the Presdient, as Commander in Chief, would need to intervene to make sure the war isn’t undermined.
After all, if the President truly does have ‘Plenary’ power to conduct the war, there is no legal limit on what he does.
I know it’s an extreme position to assert that the Administration would subvert democracy, and I don’t know that they would. But we can’t know that they wouldn’t either. Basically the Cheney, on behalf of the President, is demanding the right to do anything, in secret, without any oversight whatsoever. The only check on Presidential power is the personal morality of the President.
How many Founding Fathers turning in their graves?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:06 amPuh-lease! Of course they’re spying on their political opponents…otherwise they wouldn’t have had a problem with obtaining a warrant.
I think it’s so … therefore it’s so. I’ll throw in the word “of course” to make it more stronger better. I need some proof people … not general sentiment.
I respect your position, but honestly this isn’t about the NSA and all that other cloak-and-dagger crap. Here’s what this is about:
In addition to what you wrote … it’s also about.
1) The US Constitution in Article II, Section 2 says … The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States … this, they claim, gives the President extremely broad powers to wage war.
2) The FISA act, at the end, states that no measure or provision contained herein shall usurp the Constitution and the powers entitled therein (or something to that effect).
3) Congress endorsed a “war against terrorism†in the wake of 9/11 attacks via the authorization of force resolution (S.J.Res. 23) approved by both chambers and signed into law on September 18, 2001. This mandate stated that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
ALL THREE of these items IN CONJUNCTION is what, they claim, allows the NSA activities.
For those of you wondering how he says it’s legal ……. this is it.
The President is not so much limited by the Constitution as he is by politics. It is common for ALL Presidents to use a wide interpretation of the powers given to them by the Constitution … where those powers “upper-most†end is mostly where political restraints (and citizen sentiment) say they end.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:08 amIMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!
December 21st, 2005 at 11:08 am#23 – conservatives control every branch of govt. When we foam at the mouth, at least there’s a point. AND a winning one, usually.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:09 amSome people need to read the actual Democratic agenda to safeguard our country. The Dems seem to me to have a better idea of how to protect our country than the “fear now, fear later” crowd in “power” whose stated goal is total world domination. I know it sounds crazy, but it happens to be true.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:10 am#17 NQ, What part of the federal government is controlled by the Radical left? Which Party has preached to be the Party of the rule of law? So the party in controll can’t do things by the laws that they put above all other principles? And an impotent opposition is to be blamed with the crybaby whine of Your team couldn’t do any better! I’m confused with your logic. Could please explain?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:11 am#23 YOU’RE foaming at the mouth is generally a sign of severe MENTAL ILLNESS. Maybe you and your assclown president can be cell mates. I bet you make a good looking couple (of idiots)
December 21st, 2005 at 11:13 am#23 – conservatives control every branch of govt. When we foam at the mouth, at least there’s a point. AND a winning one, usually.
So there’s no point to our anger, but yours is righteous and justified. I see now. How stupid I’ve been all these years. Ann Coulter wants to put me in a concentration camp for my own good – and the good of America!
And yes, you do control every branch of government. And YOU’RE STILL MAD. Not at the government of course, but at us damn liberals. If only we’d go away life would be peachy, and Tom Delay and W would usher in a golden age for the great white race of the United States of Christika.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:13 amIt’s another KKKarl Rove “New Yorkers want to give terrorists therapy” blunder.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:14 amThese guys want to go down looking like patriots, that’s all. They know noone takes them seriously anymore.
Don’t misquote Ann. The truth is, if people like you were at the helm during WW2, we all would have been gased. You don’t have the stomach for war. AND you don’t love America the way most of us do. You probably sit around and b*tch about everythign America has done wrong. I know the type.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:16 amThe President is not so much limited by the Constitution
You are insane. Go away. We’ll see you in November next year, when you can come in here and whine about the real threat you and the GOP are concerned about, paying your fair share in taxes. Ryan was right. You are a waste of time and the best part of you ran down the crack of your mother’s ass.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:16 amNot serious about fighting terrorism? This from the administration that ignored a security memo reading “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”
December 21st, 2005 at 11:17 amGiacomo taking the high road today…
December 21st, 2005 at 11:17 amThat’s quite a task to undertake, dude.
#32 – yeah, and everyone is taking liberals seriously. With Arianna in charge, the left is a real player in the scheme of things. Puh-leeze. It doesn’t matter if Cheney isn’t taken seriously anymore – he’s VP and you don’t have the votes to change that for at least three years.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:18 ameither you’re fer us, or agin us!
me, I’m a Guinness man…
December 21st, 2005 at 11:19 amThe truth is, if people like you were at the helm during WW2, we all would have been gased. You don’t have the stomach for war.
FDR = Democrat. You know, the New Deal welfare state that you all hate. Idiot.
Screw off, you loser. I thought you maybe wanted to engage in a real discussion, but you’re just another troll.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:19 am#35 – oh, the memo. Had Bush tried to stop 9/11, you would have been crying about terrorist’s civil rights. Do liberals even hear themselves anymore?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:19 amDecember 21st, 2005 1:45 am
Bolivia’s Morales brands Bush a “terrorist”
DUBAI (Reuters) – Evo Morales, the winner of Bolivia’s presidential election, branded U.S. President George W. Bush a “terrorist”, in an interview with Arabic satellite television on Tuesday.
“The only terrorist in this world that I know of is Bush. His military intervention, such as the one in Iraq, that is state terrorism,” he told Al Jazeera television.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:19 amThe Fact is, Nobody in their right mind are against fighting terror. Fighting Terror Bush and Cheneys Way is Ineffective. Bush and Cheney Know Absolutely NOTHING Of Fighting Terror. If you REALLY Want to Fight Terror. Hire Some REAL Terrorists.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:19 amP.S. Bush and Cheney Declared War and they are still losing.
Its time to put a real Military or Terror Hunter in Charge.
Impeach Bush and get Wesley Clark and John Kerry up there.
Not Quite,
December 21st, 2005 at 11:19 amPlease…yawn. Noone likes admitted liars and criminals.
#39 – yes, but you people are NOT FDR Democrats. George McGovern and John Kerry Democrats would better describe the folks at Think Progress.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:20 am#41 – that’s a mainstream point if I ever saw one.
I should get some popcorn for 2006 – the left is sure to put on a great show shooting themselves in the foot again.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:21 amNot quite,
December 21st, 2005 at 11:23 amYour tired schtick just showcases your ideology that being complicit in the crimes makes you above it. You’re detached from reality.
If Cheney was so serious about terrorism, why did they waste time, money, and personnel on Iraq? The guy’s incompetent, that’s why he has to lash out at critics. Cheney was only competent when he was a staffer or secretary under people who were smarter than he was. That’s how he gained a reputation – the smarter people told him what to do. In past administrations, he was kept out of the decision making process, and obviously for good reasons. He’s an incompetent leader and makes incompetent decisions.
http://www.editorialpaintings.com
December 21st, 2005 at 11:24 am#46 – I am alot of things, detached from reality is not one of them. It’s the left who is denial that 9/11 ever even happened. Or better put – it was Bush who did it.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:25 amYou are insane. Go away. We’ll see you in November next year, when you can come in here and whine about the real threat you and the GOP are concerned about, paying your fair share in taxes. Ryan was right. You are a waste of time and the best part of you ran down the crack of your mother’s ass.
Feel free to say “I disagree” KillCon. I don’t think you understand what I’m saying though. The Constitution doesn’t include every step that the President should or can take part and parcel. As such, ALL Presidents use this fact (and their Constitutional attorneys) in a way that widens their powers (for truthfully, who would say … the Constitutions ambiguous here … let’s go with the most restricitive interpretation then). This goes for both parties and isn’t really in debate. Given that, often what dictates how much leeway the President can take (again, in situations where the Constitution ISN’T specific enough) is the “political” ramifications of the action or decisions. Again, this has happened countless times. The Constitution gives the Executive Branch the most leeway (some say purposefully) … we don’t know exactly why. I’m not saying anything inflamatory and am repeating what Constitutional experts have said for a while (not just with this issue). Calm down and look at it in that light and I think you’ll understand the implications of this phenomenon in this case (you don’t have to agree with them though).
December 21st, 2005 at 11:26 am#39 – yes, but you people are NOT FDR Democrats. George McGovern and John Kerry Democrats would better describe the folks at Think Progress.
But you’re real Reagan conservatives, right? Whatever.
Augh… I have to get back to work, unlike you apparently. So I don’t have time to marvel at how John Kerry the war hero doesn’t have the stomach to fight a war while Bush and Cheney the rich draft-dodgers do. Your cognitive dissonance is astounding. I wish we could have this conversation face-to-face so I could bring it down to a level you’d understand.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:26 am#47 – Cheney is lashing out because he has no choice. He has to deal with a 24/7 barrage of hate from Pelosi, Dingy Harry, unAmerican Murtha, Dean, Helen Thomas, liar Russert – the list is endless. The left has been after Cheney’s throat for sometime. Why can’t you take him down? Because you’re not that smart.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:26 am#50 – John Kerry was not a war hero. He was a war criminal and he aided the enemy in a 1971 meeting in France and that is why he won’t release all of his military records.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:28 amJohn Kerry was not a war hero. He was a war criminal and he aided the enemy in a 1971 meeting in France and that is why he won’t release all of his military records.
Please go get a girlfriend (or boyfriend). You have way too much time on your hands.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:29 am#53 – apparently, so do you.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:30 am#40. So, you’re saying Bush did nothing to try to stop 9/11? I agree.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:31 amNOT QUITE is a good screen name for this idiot. NOT QUITE all there. NOT QUITE a human being. NOT QUITE intelligent to wipe his own butt. NOT QUITE AN AMERICAN.
IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!
December 21st, 2005 at 11:32 am#53 – apparently, so do you.
You can’t get one, can you?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:32 am“John Kerry was not a war hero. He was a war criminal and he aided the enemy in a 1971 meeting in France and that is why he won’t release all of his military records.”
Comment by Not Quite — December 21, 2005 @ 11:28 am
Is that the best you can do little troll? That one has already been debunked – more than a year ago. Where have you been since then, in a hole? It must really suck to have to support traitorous scum because you can’t stand to be proven wrong.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:32 amNot Quite — 9/11 happened. I watched it on TV. My wife can recount just about every thing we did, every word we said that day. Just thinking about that day pisses me off. The people who did that to us must pay. Unfortunately, they have not paid, nor are they likely to, because the incompetent bumblers making up this presidential administration has used nearly all their resources in the wrong country. No matter what Cheney says, the fact is that he is not fighting terrorism. Therefore, everyone who is against him is for fighting terrorism.
Giacomo, both Republican and Democratic members of Congress have publically stated that the resolution you referenced did not give Bush the authorization to disregard FISA. Therefore, what he did was against the law.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:33 amHey nut quite, I’ll ask you this question that I have asked retards like you for the last couple of years and have NOT gotten an answer.
What has bush done that was GOOD for this country?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:34 amScrew it. The little fella just wants attention while his mommy changes his sheets for him.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:35 amMy question is this: Who among the crowd of reporters who accompanied the VPOTUS actually questioned his logic and his facts instead of just going along for the ride and reporting his propoganda. Where is their reporting?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:35 amScrew it. The little fella just wants attention while his mommy changes his sheets for him.
Even when he has those “special dreams” where he’s a prisoner in Abu Ghraib and George Bush comes to interrogate him.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:37 amAnd where is Dick’s approval rating? Like 19 percent?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:37 amHis credibility matches his military service, none.
As I’ve noted before: Dick Cheney is a war criminal and should not be consulted on matters of National Security.
Very possibly the most disgusting human being I’ve ever laid eyes on. I’m in hopes that kool-aid pump he calls a heart fails soon.
Let the treason be exposed, prepare the guillotine.
Oh, don’t bother to sharpen the blade.
#60 – appointed John Roberts to the Supreme Court, cut taxes which expanded the economy as seen in today’s GDP number, fights the war on terror in the face of ridiculous and relentless criticism, the list goes on….
December 21st, 2005 at 11:38 am#60 – appointed John Roberts to the Supreme Court, cut taxes which expanded the economy as seen in today’s GDP number, fights the war on terror in the face of ridiculous and relentless criticism, the list goes on….
Plus, he’s your special, manly, jet pilot love god, right?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:39 amI KNEW you couldn’t come up with anything. TYPICAL.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:40 am“I’m not saying anything inflamatory and am repeating what Constitutional experts have said for a while (not just with this issue). Calm down and look at it in that light and I think you’ll understand the implications of this phenomenon in this case (you don’t have to agree with them though).”
Comment by Giacomo — December 21, 2005 @
Would those”constitutional experts” be from Heritage, and the American Enterprise Institute? If you’re using them as you authority, perhaps I should warn you; they are conservative outlets that can be depended upon to advance policies that promote conservatism – not truth. Please post the links so that we can decide for ourselves if you honestly believe what you say, or if you’re just telling half the story. Nothing personal, but conservatives seem to have that habit of late.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:41 amWhere was Cheney and these guys BEFORE 9/11!
9/11 changed nothing other than to give this administration an excuse to do whatever they want, whenever they want. Bush wasn’t kidding when he said it would be easier if he were dictator. News flash: the world was a dangerous place on 9/10, just as much as on 9/12, and we all assumed, certainly based on the percentage of the GDP that was and is spent on defense, that our Representatives were doing their jobs and protecting us. What did that August 6th PDB memo say again? Oh, Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US. I believe our administration was where, oh, on vacation.
Anyone that reads a major newspaper, and looks outside into the world, knew it was a dangerous place. After all, every couple of years or so something was getting blown up: 1993 WTC, 1995 Oklahoma (was McVeigh a terrorists?), 1998 embassy bombed, 2000 Cole was bombed.
1972 Olympics where Palestinian’s killed Israeli athletes – the same event that Steven Spielberg’s movie, Munich, is about. Let’s not forget the hostage crisis in 1979.
And does this administration hire skilled experienced people to fill critical roles? No, they hire Mike Brown types. Because Rove, Cheney, Rumfeld, Bush, Wolfowitz politicize everything.
If this administration came into the White House not thinking the world was a danagerous place and with their smug arrogance let things slide, then we were in danger from day 1 of this administration’s lack of reality based leadership, and they as much allowed 9/11 to happen. So now Cheney runs his mouth off and says asinine things like he usually does to threaten and scare us into submission, but God forbid they actually would implement the recommendations of the 9/11 committee to keep us safe. Cheney will say or do anything, use anyone or anything, to implement their agenda, and then run off to a bunker. Cheney will tell us he believes the insurgency is in their last throes, that we’ll be greated as liberators… if we look back at what this VP has said over the last 5+ years, either he is stupid, evil, not right in the head, or incompetent. But to them it is all politics, and they’ll manipulate anything.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:41 am#64 – most disgusting human being in this country is Cindy Sheehan followed closely by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Howard Dean.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:42 amThe “war” on terror. Now THAT’S funny! bush and his minions CREATED the “war” on terror.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:42 amBush ratings have dropped steadily since 911. A super majority of poeple believe the administration lied to go to war and want troop withdrawal. and Cheney decides he wants to stay with the KKKarl Rove divide and conquer strategy? After NOT being able to provide a single cogent explanation for breaking the law?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:43 amNot Quite, you’re detached from reality. Yawn…
#64 – most disgusting human being in this country is Cindy Sheehan followed closely by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Howard Dean.
What, no Hillary? Careful, you’re slipping!
December 21st, 2005 at 11:43 am#66 – it’s ok. John Kerry did admit to killing women and children in Vietnam. That should cheer you up.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:44 amBTW, Harry Reid could beat the crap out of Not Quite’s dad.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:44 am#73 – believe or not, conservatives are done trashing Hillary. She’ll never be President because her own is turning on her. We have more important problems like those mentioned.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:45 am“most disgusting human being in this country is Cindy Sheehan followed closely by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Howard Dean”
Oh, I think every time you touch a keyboard, you put THOSE pikers to shame.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:46 am#66 – it’s ok. John Kerry did admit to killing women and children in Vietnam. That should cheer you up.
John Kerry could beat up Bush and Cheney. Could beat your dumb ass too.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:46 am#74 Oh? And the 30,000+ that died in Iraq for your presidents lies must cheer YOU up.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:46 am#66 – it’s ok. John Kerry did admit to killing women and children in Vietnam. That should cheer you up.
John Kerry could whoop up on Bush and Cheney. Could beat your dumb ass too.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:46 am#80 – Oops! Double post. Sorry.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:47 amI’m so glad you brought up Cindy Sheehan, Not Quite.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:48 amAlong with Rove calling New Yorkers terrorist sympathizers, another HUGE piece of the crumbling Bush foundation was refusing to see Cindy Sheehan. Even if he didn’t want to it could have put out a pestering fire. Bush is an idiot. You’re an idiot.
Think Bush would like a do-over? The feeble-minded, soft Cindy got the best of Bush in yet another PR blunder.
Cheney: If You Don’t Support Everything I Do, You Aren’t Serious About Terrorism .
Dear Mr Cheney.
Please, What are You doing About Terrorism?
Cheney: SHUT UP Im BUSY SPYING ON AMERICAN NONSUPPORTERS/
December 21st, 2005 at 11:48 amCheney: If You Don’t Support Everything I Do, You Aren’t Serious About Terrorism .
Dear Mr Cheney.
Please, What is Your noble cause for War? How are You Defeating Terror?
Dear Mr Cheney Please in your Defining Terror, Who Terrorises you most?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:52 am#82 – whatever. Cindy Sheehan is disgusting and exposed the left and the MSM for the anti-American hate mongers they are. Also, the right-wing base HATES her and has had many of laughs at her expense. As for hurting Bush – gimme a break. In this current political environment, she poses a threat to people like Hillary and Mark Warner, NOT Republicans. The GOP is united against morons like Cindy Sheehan and the shameless media that exploits her.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:53 amCheney: If You Don’t Support Everything I Do, You Aren’t Serious About Terrorism .
Dear Mr Cheney.
Who is terrorizing You?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:53 amRemember, Not Quite-
December 21st, 2005 at 11:54 amIt doesn’t take Imperial Hubris to bring ‘em down. Just repeated PR mishaps. Over and over and over and over again. And teleprompter guy doesn’t have the wherewithal to stop the bleeding because every time he opens his mouth he loses more and more of his dwindling base…yawn.
#87 – who’s down. Bush is up 10 points since November. So no, I don’t get what you’re saying.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:56 amNot Quite, You are talking about a Mother who lost a son fighting for YOUR Freedoms, Do you seriously believe you are entitled to spew your hatred like that?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:56 amNot quite,
December 21st, 2005 at 11:56 amThe GOP is slowly being trimmed down to the 42% who believe ID should be taught in skool. Look at the baseline. Use your eyeballs. It’s unsustainable.
The GOP is united against morons like Cindy Sheehan and the shameless media that exploits her.Also, the right-wing base HATES her and has had many of laughs at her expense.
Quit talking like you’re part of the GOP. You’re just some loser in his mother’s basement with a cheeto addiction. You don’t work campaigns or donate money. You cold never run for office. The GOP wouldn’t be caught dead with a loser like you. You’re a booty call that they make once every two years. Get over yourself. You’re like a nerdy football fan who thinks he plays on the damn team.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:57 amNot Quite Deserves NO Freedoms. Lock Not Quiet up with the other treasonists.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:58 am#89 – there you go again! She is exploiting her son’s death for self-gain and that is beyond the pale.
#90 – Actually, 63% of Americans beleive some form of ID should be taught in school so using that baseline I would say the GOP stands to gain. The culture war is killing Democrats – you can’t burn bibles anymore and get away with it. Conservatives have moblized the way liberals did in the 60s and 70s. YOU LOSE.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:00 pmsohei # 91.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:01 pmDoes The GOP Really Do That?
You’re a booty call that they make once every two years.
#92 – interesting, you want silence those who do not think like you. We call that fascism.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:02 pmConservatives have moblized the way liberals did in the 60s and 70s.
Oh no! It’ll be terrible! Waves a fat sweaty white guys marching on Washington, raising their cheeto-stained fists in anger! No doubt they’ll be joined by legions of ugly, crones in pant suits and American flag sweaters bearing pamphlets about abstinence! The horror!
December 21st, 2005 at 12:03 pm#93. sounds to me you are the one trying to exploit your stupidity.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:04 pmSelf Gain? what kind of propaganda is that?
#92 – interesting, you want silence those who do not think like you. We call that fascism.
I’d be happy with just silencing those who do not think. Especially on this blog.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:06 pm#95. not quuiet is seeking Self Esteem.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:06 pmI’ve tired of this. The defendants in the Dover case won’t even try for a federal appeal. They know ID will NEVER be in a science class. Only 42% want ID in a science class. Hell, I believe ID on any given day. But not in science class. Not Quite, you can’t hoodwink everyday people. Stop trying. It SO HARD to watch.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:06 pmI’ve tired of this. The defendants in the Dover case won’t even try for a federal appeal. They know ID will NEVER be in a science class.
Actually, they aren’t appealing because the original 10 morons on the school board that started this ID crap got voted out of office.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:08 pmGiacomo – you offer that the prez can claim “wartime powers”. Well, if Congress had actually declared “war”, I would not argue. But this is America – you know, representative democracy and all that – and no one man can command our country to war (i myself have issue with the whole police action thing – which is what this is, and NOT a “war”, but that is another matter entirely). If one man commands the country to war, he is a dictator. Even most (not all) republicansd and conservatives don’t agree with that, and don’t really want King George.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:09 pmNo war = no wartime powers. Period.
Congress did not, and CAN NOT, give the president the power to simply declare war. Never. They supported police action, WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF BRINGING THE 9/11 PERPETRATORS TO JUSTICE, WHICH THEY HAVE NOT DONE.
#96 – that’s funny. NO, instead of making fools of ourselves at protests, we mobilize in a more effective way.
Take the judicial filibusters that Democrats used in Bush’s first term. We targeted and defeated Tom Daschle and kept the issue alive causing Democrats to lose every seat in the south. Admittedly, after Alito is seated and Bush names Ginsbrug and Stevens replacement, the GOP loses a big issue. But they won’t need it – we’ll have the Court so liberals will have to legislate at the polls, not on the bench.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:12 pm#96 – that’s funny. NO, instead of making fools of ourselves at protests, we mobilize in a more effective way.
You keep telling yourself that. We know you’re just a lazy coward without a life.
And there you go with that “we” crap again. What do you do? Annoy liberals on blogs? Eat Big Macs for Bush? Damn, you’re a veritable Grover Norquist!
December 21st, 2005 at 12:14 pm#104 – I am here to mock you. You people are consumed with hatred and it’s funny.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:16 pm“Alito is against race based preferences like affirmative action – like most of America is. That is a good thing.â€
“Bush can appoint Condi to VP and try to “heal†the country. The first female and black VP – major achievementâ€
-Not Quite
Your stench betrays you.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:16 pmmysticagent — I couldn,t have said it better myself. Thank You.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:18 pm#104 – I am here to mock you. You people are consumed with hatred and it’s funny.
Do I sound consumed with hatred to you? And it sounds like you’re the one being mocked. It’s fun for me to mock you, because you’re just a wimpy little nobody.
And you still haven’t answered the question? What do you do for the conservative movement? Are you even registered to vote?
December 21st, 2005 at 12:19 pmAnd Not Quite is in the big political game! He is a part of the team! Woo Hoo! Go team, go team! There are no great stakes here, its all just a sports game. Our team versus yours (…aren’t there more than two ‘teams’ ?…). Yay! He’s got a flag and one of those inflatable clappers! Hoozah! Go team neo-con. Team NeoCon is going for the goals…. Woo hoo!! We’ll win the trophy! Yay! I’m not really IN the ‘game’, but I think I am part of the team! Yay!
Wow. Not Quite’s mind is a disturbing place….
December 21st, 2005 at 12:19 pm# 105. Not Quite —Also, the right-wing base HATES her #85.
#105#104 – I am here to mock you. You people are consumed with hatred and it’s funny.
Comment by Not Quite
December 21st, 2005 at 12:21 pmSounds as if YOU Are the one Hating.
Thanks, nofreedom, though there are som grammatical ambiguities (such as the last statement). But i think a reasonable person gets what I am trying to say there.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:21 pmTeam NeoCon is going for the goals…. Woo hoo!! We’ll win the trophy! Yay! I’m not really IN the ‘game’, but I think I am part of the team! Yay!
And while the players on team Neocon walk away with the girls, the gold, and the fame, poor little Not Quite can only sob quietly under his sheets while reading Soldier of Fortune.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:22 pmgrammatical ambiguities are obsolete while in the fight.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:23 pmthis is a no rules fight.
Not quite may have a Soldier of Fortune mag under the sheets with him, but I don’t think he’s reading it…
December 21st, 2005 at 12:24 pm#47 Yes, and if Cheney was so serious about terrorism and ridding the world of Saddam why did Halliburton do business with him and other terrorist regimes when he was CEO?
Under Cheney, Halliburton Helped Saddam Hussein Siphon Billions from UN Oil-for-Food Program
Dick Cheney’s Illegal Oil Deals with Saddam Hussein
December 21st, 2005 at 12:24 pm#111 mysticagent. GOP Made it that way.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:25 pmNot quite may have a Soldier of Fortune mag under the sheets with him, but I don’t think he’s reading it…
Hey, he only reads it for the articles! :)
December 21st, 2005 at 12:25 pmCheney is a spoiled rotten Dealer fearing that he might be Put Out of Office. Plain and simple.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:27 pmCheney dosnt know how to play fair.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:27 pmNot quite may have a Soldier of Fortune mag under the sheets with him, but I don’t think he’s reading it… wacking under the bedsheets? typical little boy.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:28 pm113 nofreedom – While the admin stated something about the gloves coming off, or some other mach tripe, that is simply not true. There is no “no-rules” fight if you wish to maintain honor. One must fight honorably (and there IS a bit of flexibility in the limits of honor – some) to win a moral and honorable victory. There is no room for dishonorable activity in any battle or conflict. For example, if it were the stated intention of the admin and or its apologists that this is a different kind of conflict and that the rules and laws by which we have always judged ourselves (and most others have as well) as being righteous and moral and decent and just and fair and honorable are all obsolete, and that the only way to confront this enemy is by using methods that one might normally call dishonorable or immoral (etc.), then the admin and its apologists are without moral or honor. You cannot maintain honor while acting dishonorably. If you have to resort to killing, maiming, and torturing children (how many underage children held at Gitmo and Abdu G?), then you are without honor. One need not resort to the tactics of a monster in order to fight a monster.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:31 pmI love slaying Trolls. I declare we have achieved total victory in the “Global War Against Extremist Poster ‘Not Quite’ on Liberal Blogs that Allow Anonymous Comments! (GWAEPNQLBAAC)”
December 21st, 2005 at 12:34 pmAwwww… he’s done? I was just starting to have fun with that one. He’s a tad better than wwallace, not quite as thoughtful as Giacomo, and about as evil as IRI and Migty A. But still an idiot.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:44 pmOn topic – so, the admin defence here is, “You either agree with whatever we do or you are an enemy.” How uniting. How patriotic (attacking American citizens expressing their freedom of speech – which relates more to people talking politics and criticizing government more than it realtes to the press). How reasonable.
“Is this illegal?”
response, “If you are not with us, you are against us.”
that is a non-argument, and even an admission of guilt through the refusal to address the issue.
Not Quite = NED
She’s really messed up, that one. She doesn’t understand that separation of church and state is a constitutional restriction, and an american value. UNIntelligentDesign is just religious dogma very poorly described as science.
Hey Not Quite, what did you think of the ‘conservative judge’, calling all of the ID ‘christians’ on the carpet for continually lying? Hypocrisy, thy name is conservatism…
As for your little rant about ‘fascism’, actually fascism is a ‘rightwing’ political stance, and you perfectly reflect its values. Why don’t you add to that collection of bibles a dictionary, a copy of the constitution and a history book. You clearly would benefit more from those items.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:51 pmWell she does go by the name “not quite”…
There’s a plethora of free on-line dictionaries for the trolls too… http://www.dictionary.com (of course they’d need to be able to SPELL dictionary correctly, and like that will happen…) Maybe we can donate dictionaries to trolls?
December 21st, 2005 at 12:58 pmIf republicans were ’serious’ about terrorism, they would have put the necessary troops into afghanistan to catch bin laden. Afghanistan was ‘responsible’ for attacking us, yet we fielded only a fraction of troops for that battle, than Iraq. Why? That’s irrational, irresponsible, and impossible to justify unless you don’t actually want to catch the guy. That’s about the only ‘rational’ argument for such mismanagement, other than the ‘mike brown’ defense of ineptitude, which certainly could apply to this crew.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:03 pmWould thoseâ€constitutional experts†be from Heritage, and the American Enterprise Institute? If you’re using them as you authority, perhaps I should warn you; they are conservative outlets that can be depended upon to advance policies that promote conservatism – not truth. Please post the links so that we can decide for ourselves if you honestly believe what you say, or if you’re just telling half the story. Nothing personal, but conservatives seem to have that habit of late.
No they’re not from Heritage or its ilk. My comments aren’t particularly based upon research on THIS issue but some reading I’ve done over the last 10 years on the Constitution (Yes, I’m a bit of a geek, I know) and the Presidency. Most of what I said here today about the nature of Presidential powers as they derive from the Constitution I learned while Clinton was in power (and the articles referred to Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan) and thus were rather benign when I first read them … more of a “that’s curious” moment back then, than a defense of Bush’s activities here and now. I did hear a Constitutional attorney (from Georgetowne) say much of the same yesterday, but it was a sentiment/theory that I knew of previously.
Giacomo – you offer that the prez can claim “wartime powersâ€. Well, if Congress had actually declared “warâ€, I would not argue. But this is America – you know, representative democracy and all that – and no one man can command our country to war (i myself have issue with the whole police action thing – which is what this is, and NOT a “warâ€, but that is another matter entirely). If one man commands the country to war, he is a dictator.
You’re right … we are not officially “at war” because Congress never declared it, but to say that the Constitution doesn’t allow the President to act in protection of the nation without a formal declaration would be incorrect. In addition read the authorization of force resolution (S.J.Res. 23) that Congress passed in 2001.
the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
This is quite a broad and non-specific statement (perhaps the democrats wish the verbage was a tad more restrictive now, but hindsight is 20/20) … I mean “all necessary and appropriate FORCE” and “those nations, organizations or persons HE determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” … wicked broad. I think this is where the “wartime powers” comments are derived … even though “formal war” (that’s an odd grouping of words) is not being waged.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:20 pmWhy would Bush want to catch his family friends? OBL is Bush’s buddy. Besides, Bush’s “wartime powers” (that he claims to have) might end (at least as far as Congress is concerned) if OBL is caught. He would, at least, need to get further authorization from congress to continue his “war on terror”, and that might not actually fly at this point. Well, that is assuming that some “terrorist” strike does not occur again within our borders. One important note on that, though – considering all the rhetoric that has been spewed by these nutz for these last few years, should another attack occur on American soil, the blame will lie squarely at the feet of those who: 1) claim to have made America ’safer’ 2) claimto be the only ones capable of protecting America (lots of trolls repeat that one) 3) claim to have improved our security (despite the 9/11 report stating the contrary) (list could go on… but why).
December 21st, 2005 at 1:24 pmAnd you rightwing loser trolls – not a single American wants another attack to come to our soil. Rational Americans want the traitorous bastards out of our government (Bushco, that is), hopefully very soon. It can’t be soon enough. Oh, Mr. Fitz, some of us hope that your sights are set very high…
#123 mysticagent — Who was that addressed to ? referring to ,Awwww… he’s done? Not Quite?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:25 pmby the way, I sorta understood your #121 . BUt, How else will you Fight BIG Gvt?
How did David in the story of David and Goliath, Fight?
Was his fight a no holds barred fight? I believe so.
Republicans gave up on fair fight. I believe its time Dems did the same, give up on fair fighting and come out fists flying.
UNIntelligentDesign is just religious dogma very poorly described as science.
While I don’t agree with Ryan’s re-word, ID is, in my opinion, bad science … especially given the fact that they (those who postulate ID) began with the end in mind and sought to find a theory that met that end. Bad science. Science goes where it wants to go, not where we want it to.
I have no problem with evolution (although I do believe in God and that he is the uncaused cause from whom all “effects” are derived, although maybe not directly). I’m not Deist, but I don’t think God is manipulating each “event” of creation … In my opinion, ID is an attempt to “save the children” from evolution when they don’t need saving. If God is truth and science directs us toward truth … then science is from God and fundamentalists need to chill … again, my Christian opinion.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:27 pmIf Republicans could care less How the War is Won, then that is where, SOMEONE(Not necessarily Dems) has to say “ENOUGH ALLREADY!).
December 21st, 2005 at 1:27 pmThe Line Must be Drawn, Thats a better way of putting it.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:29 pmHow the west was Won? Though War. and Gun ownership Rights.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:31 pmWhat did the West win? Look no futher than Viva Las Vegas.
and SIN City.
Not Quite:
Defeating Daschle was the best thing that’s happened to the Democrats. He was a weak leader. Reid is much, much more effective.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – there are far too many personal attacks against the wingnuts on this board. Not mild ones, but incendiary ones. It also goes the other way, of course. It encourages them to continue their troll behavior and keep TP on RSS.
It would appear that they have a list of RNC talking points for every issue – probably some program that has it loaded:) While they aren’t all, obviously, I would suspect some are GOP operatives. ‘Cheeto eating’ and living in mom’s ‘basement’ aren’t helpful.
I think it’s helpful that the wingnuts are on the site simply to debunk their belief that 1. they are persecuted by liberals 2. there is a liberal conspiracy against them 3. TP is part of that vast conspiracy 4. liberals are ALL weak on national security 5. the president enjoys vast powers 6. etc.
What isn’t helpful is engaging them by stooping to their level. If it’s witty, nice, if it’s just a stupid, offensive attack – please don’t do it.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:31 pmFreedom is won through Wars, True or False?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:32 pmFreedom is Not peaceful, True or False?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:33 pmJames? dare to take my test above?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:36 pmI’ll expand on #143.
If you stoop to ‘their’ level you make yourself (and consequently ‘our’ community) as intolerant as they are. I believe that is their ultimate goal and is a turn off to potential ‘new’ posters who wish to engage in debate.
I realize all of us make important, intellectual points. Some of us engage in personal attacks. Let’s try to seperate the two.
Attracting new posters who are interested in issues is good. Attracting leftish trolls is not.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:36 pmhmm, #134. Don’t know how that happened.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:36 pmCheney is pure evil. The Devil has possesed our government.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:37 pmAttracting leftish trolls is not.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:38 pmwhat are leftish and rightish trolls? please define.
And you rightwing loser trolls – not a single American wants another attack to come to our soil.
Wouldn’t begin to believe that you do …
Rational Americans want the traitorous bastards out of our government (Bushco, that is), hopefully very soon.
I would prefer you qualify with “rational liberals” rather than “rational Americans” as one can be Conservative, American, and rational.
One important note on that, though – considering all the rhetoric that has been spewed by these nutz for these last few years, should another attack occur on American soil, the blame will lie squarely at the feet of those who: 1) claim to have made America ’safer’ 2) claim to be the only ones capable of protecting America (lots of trolls repeat that one) 3) claim to have improved our security (despite the 9/11 report stating the contrary) (list could go on… but why).
I think most people would agree with this … if one wants the “buck ” to stop with them, then they can’t pass said “buck” if something horrible occurs. You’d likely hear the comment “we were hamstrung by the Democrats” if such an event were to occur … a charge that may have 5% truth to it (given that most Democrats, up until recently, were as hawkish as the Republicans). Lastly, don’t equate what “trolls” say (ie. the Republicans are the only ones who can keep the country safe) for what all Conservatives believe … I do believe we are safer than we were (Heck, at least we know the terrorists are out there now … most Americans were blissfully ignorant about this prior to 9/11) but concede that Iraq puts more zealots in “play”. I would like the 9/11 commissions recommendations to be put into “ludicrous speed”.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:39 pmGiacomo – the resolution was intended, implicitly, to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice. That has absolutelty nothing to do with removing Hussein from power, nation building in Iraq, policies of torture, or abridging the rights of Americans as granted by the Constitution (again, pertaining to surveilance of American citizens see amandment IV). The prez himself has said that a warrant is required to spy on Americans who are not affiliated with known terriorists. The Quaker group I am pretty sure has no such connections (in fact, the admin has presented no evidence to the contrary, which would be the best defence – and no crap about “ongoing surveilance”, because if even one of them were tied to terrorists they are ALREADY tipped off to being watched, and will react as they will. The gov’t pointing it out will not change the fact that IF one or more were terrorists they ALREADY KNOW THEY ARE BEING WATCHED). So, why circumvent a system that, in 2001, was already augmented to make it even easier to LEGALLY go about this business of domestic spying (a useful tool, when directed against ACTUAL threats to America). While you are correct in saying that we need to see the list, that does NOT mean we should just sit by complicitly and trust the admin. They have proven, repeatedly, that they are NOT trustworthy, and it is clear in EVERY SINGLE thing that they do that is is ENTIRELY partisan (what they love to accuse others of being): they act for the benefit of thier political party, and of their special interests, but NOT with any consideration for the Americans that they swore to serve. We are also NEVER going to see the list if we just “sit down and shut up and wait”. No, if everyone did that, this administartion would take that as a sign of acceptance, and drop the issue (which is what they want). We need to see the list, and every American should scream for it. If the list has nothing wrong in it – if it is simply a list of those linked to terrorism, then fine – and it would be an ENORMOUS bolster for the admin. All Bush supporters should be screaming for the list , too (because all of you believe that this admin is moral, and that thus the list has on it only terrorist related people, and not dissenters and political enemies… right?). I’ll even allow that a bipartisan panel review the list first (because actual people with actual links to terrorism on the list may, in some cases, need to remain secret – but that secrecy does not mean that senior politicians can’t review it… that is WHY we have security classifications… if you have the clearance you SHOULD be allowed to see the material).
December 21st, 2005 at 1:42 pmAnd the language its not all that broad – it authorizes the use of police action against: “those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons…” That is actually pretty specific – link to 9/11 equals valid target. No link to 9/11 equals NO CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE under this statute. Pretty clear. Where is the Iraq link? And how does the nation building in Iraq fall under this, rather specific guideline? I don’t see it, son. I just don’t see it in there.
No Freedom. Your ‘test’ is in absolute terms. The west was ‘won’ through a variety of ways. One effective way was through disease wiping out large numbers of ‘Indians’.
The ‘indians’ were also a rather noneffective fighting force in terms of military technology – it was only a matter of time before they ‘lost’ (although I would say the won in a limited sense, some, not all, of the rezs have lucrative operations).
Freedom can be ‘won’ through both civil and military/resistance operations. In the current case it’s not going to be necessary to wipe out the wingnuts. And I am certainly not advocating that. Your freedom could only be achieved by wiping out the liberals. we coexist.
Freedom means many things.
“Freedom is not peaceful”. I am assuming you really mean obtaining freedom. If not, you’re making yourself look rather stupid. Exercising your freedom, under the constitution and USSC, should be peaceful.
If you mean obtaining freedom it’s the same as your first test. Please move on.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:42 pm‘Real American’ ‘wwallace’ are right wing trolls. A number of us are left wing trolls.
Does that satisfy your need for a TP specific ‘definition’?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:43 pm“How the west was Won? Though War. and Gun ownership Rights.
What did the West win? Look no futher than Viva Las Vegas.
and SIN City.”
I missed that one. The settlers could have moved in at a later date. The west was ‘won’ by the US Army defeating the ‘Indian’ forces. Gun ownership ‘rights’ simply allowed settlers to move in more quickly. It also allowed them to have some meat.
And who said I am against gun ownership ‘rights’. It’s a privelage, not absolute, and I am not against it.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:46 pmSee, ‘liberals’ do not hold the same positions on all issues. In fact, I am socially liberal and economically a classical liberal. If you aren’t aware what a classical liberal is, it means I am economically orthodox in my beliefs. As a side note I am a MS econ candidate.
You’d call such believes ‘libertarian’.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:49 pmyes, ‘beliefs’ not ‘believes’. I am aware.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:50 pmCheney’s quotes are also complete strawmen. Find me one quote by anyone other than a bush administration apologist that says the things that Cheney claims here.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:51 pmYes, it is time to get on to my ‘real life’. Notably leaf blowing in the great, frigid outdoors, Xmas gift wrapping, animal feeding, socializing, and then reading. Perhaps followed by drinking. That’s my ‘normal’ life. Enjoy the day.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:51 pmWhat did the West win? You missed this one?.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:55 pm#129 nofreedom – that “awww” post refered to “NotQuite”. Hey, “coming out fists flying” is not dishonorable. There IS such a thing as “honorable combat”, and it pretty much boils down to NOT using any and all means. If your means are immoral, then it is dishonorable. I am pacifist in that that is the only adult, civilized, intelligent, (etc.) manner to resolve any issue. But I am militant in that if you (not you personally :)) are going to put me in a corner and force me to fight, then it is ‘game on’. I volunteered for the military because it was right, and served as a front line soldier because it was right. I do not believe that violence solves anything, except by killing an opponent who then can’t be an opponent because they are dead. That line of thinking is the same as a wild dog’s.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:57 pmBut, speaking politically, by all means – come out with fists swinging (metaphorically), but it would be dishonorable to use unethical approaches – even if it is their weaponry: say, diebold. Because they stole elections does not mean it becomes o.k. to do the same to them. It is still wrong. Many repugs don’t get this (anyone who uses a “Clinton did it” argument is in this category). Their lies and criminal activity are enough to focus on.
#130
Giacomo, let me ask you a question then. Where did your god come from? Who created him if creation is the premise?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:57 pmmysticagent. thanks for the explainations. I too was Military(U.S.Army 76-97).( Just a cook).
December 21st, 2005 at 2:03 pmIts hard to fight the knowledge people posess and the lack of wisdom they have. then of course, alot of people never get outside their perimeters unless they feel threatened.
weird.
mysticagent
Man … I need some paragraphs or else my eyes start melting.
I’m not arguing the validity of the Iraq war, although you included it in your comment … there are other “validations” of said war that are open to opinion.
I’m pointing out where the powers given to the NSA by Bush are derived (according to Bush and his Constitutional attorneys). One has to ask … does the 4th ammendment trump Article 2 … I’d say no, if one is of the opinion that the Bush argument that Article 2 is as broad as he says it is. It’s hard to say “you’re going against the Constitution” when the opposite person is defending their stance on “the Constitution” … do you see what I’m saying? Before we got declaring that liberties have been rolled back, we need this NSA thing to be taken out of the theoretical (NSA eaves dropped) and into the practical (How, who, what, why did they eavesdrop).
I also disagree that the “terorists” know we are watching in the sense that they have no idea what capabilities our NSA has … we, the US citizens, don’t even know what the NSA can do, much less the “terrorists”. They know now though, or at least have a better idea.
And I disagree as well with your assertion that the language is not that broad … the “broadness” is in the fact that it leaves the interpretation of who planned, authorized, committed, or aided 9/11 up to President Bush (and not Congress AND the President) … we’ve already seen the way Iraq can be “linked” (albeit as loosly as possible) by this Administration to Al Qaeda … this mandate leaves miles of “wiggle” room, especially if you consider, which I think you may, Bush to not be above engaging in political opportunism.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:04 pmGiacomo -” Rational Americans want the traitorous bastards out of our government (Bushco, that is), hopefully very soon.”
“I would prefer you qualify with “rational liberals†rather than “rational Americans†as one can be Conservative, American, and rational.”
December 21st, 2005 at 2:05 pmSorry, but I meant what I said. You seem to be stuck into that two-sides mentality. Seriously. While my use of “rational” was sneaky, the fact of the matter is that not every single Republican or every single conservative support Bush, and (surprise) you’ll find those who do think that this admin is problematic for america. And please don’t put me in any political party. I am an American, and not told what to think by any partisan group of any flavor. Thanks.
mysticagent — The reason Military personnel understand what civilians dont is because military are no more afraid of stepping outside the box. hence think outside the box. once forced to step outside the box, the views are quite different, wouldnt you say?
December 21st, 2005 at 2:10 pmI too have a problem with right/left sides of dicision makers.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:11 pmGiacomo – sorry about the paragraphing. I type in the paragraphs and spacing, but when I post it all jumbles together. I still don’t know what I’m doing wrong in that regard.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:12 pmFeel free to say “I disagree†KillCon.
If I just disagreed, I’d say so. Contempt is what I feel for you and all who lack the ability to think and see clearly, like you. Unfortunately for me I just don’t find you quite low enough to be beneath contempt. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about your feelings on the matter. So I’ll just go on felling free to display my contempt for you because contempt is all I have for you. Slither a little lower and maybe you can get beneath that bar. There is no point in debating the issue. There are no judges or juries. This is not a court of law, and all this crap only matters when it’s election time, or failing that, if we go to the mattresses. Your “lectures” on the Constitution and “politicking” are wasted on folks around here.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:12 pmalot of people never get outside their perimeters unless they feel threatened
I’ve heard this sentiment (or others similar to it) often at TP. I agree with this above statement but I have a problem with the larger theory that some forward … namely, that the more one travels, reads, gets out of their homogeneous area, listens to those who disagree with them, etc. the more liberal or progressive one is. Or that those who have done such activities, are more open minded or liberal or whatever. I believe Unbelievable said something to this effect to me this morning.
Personally, I’ve travelled all over the world, am well-educated, and enjoy speaking with those that disagree with me … I still lean fairly conservative. Am I an aberation. Politicians themselves are probably some of the best travelled people on the planet … we can all agree that they’re not all Democrats (or all that open minded either). I agree that the “red” states tend to be more concentrated in the deeper south and mid-west and those people tend to be of the “shotguns and pickups” variety … but having lived in NY and NC, I can tell you that the perceptions of the South (at least the one I had) are largely different than reality (some not though).
So where does this travel = progressive (or more open) idea derive … is it from my aforementioned geographical locations of the voting blocks?
December 21st, 2005 at 2:13 pmALert , ALERT! Pay attention to this one:
NATIONAL SECURITY
Warrantless Spying Apologetics Continue
Concern over President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program is growing. U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret FISA Court, took the extraordinary step of resigning on Monday “in protest of President Bush’s secret authorization of a domestic spying program.” Associates of Judge Robertson, who was appointed to the court by late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, said he had “privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court’s work.” Also yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators, including Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), called “for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program.”
Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest
Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel
By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
December 21st, 2005 at 2:17 pmWashington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Page A01
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/lookup.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=917053
Jerkamo is not an idiot. He is the “reasonable troll” but a troll he is.
He needs proof? Their lips are moving. What more proof do you need. Only a dead man or an idiot or an party operative supports Bush at this point. Ignore Jerkamo, he’s not here to be “convinced”. As I said, at this late stage in the game, if you aren’t convinced, your either dead, an idiot or a GOP troll. I think he only qualifies for the latter, he’s no idiot, but he is contemptible just the same.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:17 pmGiacomo, let me ask you a question then. Where did your god come from? Who created him if creation is the premise?
Let me reference you to what I said earlier … I do believe in God and that he is the uncaused cause from whom all “effects†are derived, although maybe not directly … the key is the uncaused cause. It’s largely a human understanding that all things that are, must have a begining that can be defined under our own rules and laws (in the science sense).
Given that science is constantly in a state of “awakening” to new truths and given that “human” understanding isn’t remotely infinite, I have no answer for you, nor need one. That said, we have cold hard science (discovered truth) where we have the results before we have or understand the question (string theory comes to mind). We “know” of the existance of matter that’s too small to proove (ie. gravitons) … again, our current understanding is just that … bounded by our limitations and previous discoveries. This shouldn’t and doesn’t change the nature of God.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:20 pmGiacomo – what century do think these people come from? terrorists, that is? They live in the modern world with the rest of us, and are probably, on the average, FAR more knowledgeable about our spying techniques and capablities than any average American. It is naiive to believe that they are just oblivious and don’t know that they are – or might be – spied by any and all means available. Any working within (or without) have NOT been “suddenly tipped off that they might be being watched” because of this information about what appears to be illegal activity (unless they can release the list and display that it is ONLY terrorists or those with clear terrorist links). The surface of this is not innocence – it is guilt. I regularly get junk mail mags with incredible spy type stuff that common bob can buy (heck, some even sell police badges – which i think ought to be illegal). I’ll bet going on the internet is even a greater source of information on that regards. To believe that the terrorists are ignorant moronic mindless zombies with no capacity to think or understand the modern world is extremely naiive, if not self-deluding (I really am not tossing insults at you, I am speaking generally here).
And the interpretation of the statute STILL does not authorize Bush to declare war in the name of America. Thus we are not at war. And a statute that conflicts with the constitution is, by definition, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And article 2 – do you mean the wartime powers bit? Again, WE ARE NOT AT WAR.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:21 pmYour “lectures†on the Constitution and “politicking†are wasted on folks around here.
Fair enough … just trying to converse though man. Don’t sweat me so much … I’m nobody in the big scheme of things.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:21 pmUnbelievable, isn’t it? This list of Bush scandals is almost a year old, only covers the first four years and already numbers 34 and doesn’t include all the fresh garbage that we know about or have yet to learn of. And a person still needs proof? I’m not buying it. Anyone who does is an idiot
December 21st, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Killcon2006 – I understand your point in regards to Giacomo, but at least he is a civil troll, and does not disintegrate into insults when cornered (though he will often change subjects in such instances – a “now let me ask you…” question is usually an attempt at deflection). But at least the discussion is level. Our other trolls are far below G in the discussion realm. Just as no troll is going to change minds here, no troll is going to change their mind. But that is not the reason for engaging them in discussion.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:30 pmThey live in the modern world with the rest of us, and are probably, on the average, FAR more knowledgeable about our spying techniques and capablities than any average American.
Maybe so … they would have to have someone inside the NSA to truly know what the NSA is capable of. Some Americans don’t even know the NSA exists for God’s sake (although they maybe do now).
It is naiive to believe that they are just oblivious and don’t know that they are – or might be – spied by any and all means available.
Perhaps … I do think the NSA has some freaky stuff that none of us will ever know about, let alone the terrorists. This 100% conjecture on my part and may stem from a Tom Clancy novel more than it does the truth.
To believe that the terrorists are ignorant moronic mindless zombies with no capacity to think or understand the modern world is extremely naiive, if not self-deluding (I really am not tossing insults at you, I am speaking generally here).
I would agree … they managed to hijack 4 planes and fly them into our buildings (and land) … a plan that took some 5 years to fruit. I think they understand us fine, but I’m not sure if they’re privvy to what’s possible through techbological surveillance (since all but 500 or so humans on earth are).
And the interpretation of the statute STILL does not authorize Bush to declare war in the name of America. Thus we are not at war.
I think your interpretation is fair and not innacurate, but one of many (because it is an interpretation and not the only interpretation) that the same can be said for depending on ones point of view (or motivations). I can’t really disagree with your position other than to say I have, currently, arrived at a different one … time and further info. will shed light on this.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:30 pmmysticagent, do you work for Mil Intel?
December 21st, 2005 at 2:30 pm(hehe)not that you would tell me.
But, Seriously speaking.
Take a Common N.Korean Worker. Do you think that they are aware of the fact that their Gvt has been named”Axis of Evil”? and , do they even care? I know the Iraqis care, But how do the Afganis feel with our presence there? are they safer now than when they were engaged in a War with Russia? I do have some colourable Questions.
Fair enough … just trying to converse though man. Don’t sweat me so much … I’m nobody in the big scheme of things.
Comment by Giacomo
No shit, Sherlock. Since you were delving into the ontological a moment ago about God and creation. Which came first, the Constitution or the president? Kind of blows your third grade argument out the second grade window. They may work with the abstract, but not in this case. The president is not above the law and the SCOTUS interprets the con and the law, not the executive.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:31 pmFurthermore, most conservative scholars agree with that. Political hacks don’t. So get your facts together before you drone on about shit you know nothing about.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:32 pmSorry mysticagent, didnt mean to blow your cover.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:34 pmwas not deliberate
December 21st, 2005 at 2:35 pmnofreedom – I think that military experience is a very positive thing. Of course, not always (as in any conflict – never ‘fun’, except for the sociopaths and psychopaths), but overall there are positive benefits, apart from patriotically serving your country (giving something back, as it were). I have noticed that the perspectives of veterans are often very different from others, but i am not sure I agree that it is purely from travel. It IS, though, as you said, a measure of ’stepping outside the box’ (and I am NOT getting into how the military helps one do that – and i understand that many will find that hard to believe).
December 21st, 2005 at 2:35 pmthis is starting to sound like a James Bond Movie.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:36 pmhttp://www.americanprogressaction.org/talkingpoints
After the revolution, they wanted to crown George Washington and make him King. He refused. We have a constitution to proscribe the powers of the president because we are not a monarchy where a King makes the law. Not everyone is as strong willed as George Washington. Most are as wimpy and wishy washy and weak willed as George Bush and Giacomo.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:36 pmKillCon 2006
I’ve read that before … to me it’s more an inditement of “government” than just one of the Republicans. Are some of them dirty … without a doubt. Unfortunately for all of us, this phenomenon is not limited to the conservative side of the aisle.
As I said before, I’m conservative in spite of conservatives. Conservatism is a leaning in the fiscal and social (with me to a lesser extent in the social) realms … not the blinding approval of those that claim to be of the same ilk. It’s more how I think and percieve the world, than who I deem worthy of trust (although they do connect). I vote on issues not on party lines (voted Democrat before, I have (my Yoda moment)) and get sick when others tell me they chose the “straight Republican” ticket (the voting machines in NC let one do this).
December 21st, 2005 at 2:39 pmnofreedom – I don’t have a response for you in #172. I really don’t have anything to say on those issues – I don’t know.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:41 pm#163
So where does this travel = progressive (or more open) idea derive … is it from my aforementioned geographical locations of the voting blocks?
Comment by Giacomo — December 21, 2005 @ 2:13 pm
Because there is an overwhelming connection between people who have experienced (in person and not via the magic of microwaves transmitting imagines into an idiot box inside the comfort of your own livingroom) the world and those who are open-minded (progressive, free thinker, humanist, etc.)
I don’t mean organized travel either. I mean going somewhere else and talking to people and learning the cultures and seeing other ways of life.
In 1998, I took a backpack, an Eurail pass and a friend and we traveled for 3 months around Europe. It was the end of my conservative view on life. I met amazing people from all walks of life who dispelled all the previous preconceptions I’d been given by the Republican party about other people hating us, and how afraid I should be about being outside the security of my own country. I learned that there is no RIGHT way… just many different ways all equally valid, and how respecting that, rather than trying to change or destroy it was a much nicer way to exists in the world.
The Republicans want you to be afraid. I’m telling you, there’s very little to be afraid of. After 1998, I started traveling on my own to places where the US warns us not to go. And while I know there are always risks, even in my own living room, it’s no where near as bad as they portray.
Do you travel?
December 21st, 2005 at 2:41 pmMe think GWB and DC watches too many James Bond Movies.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:42 pmCorrection Giacomo – How do you travel?
December 21st, 2005 at 2:43 pm#181. HAU !
December 21st, 2005 at 2:44 pmSince you were delving into the ontological a moment ago about God and creation.
Merely answering a question friend.
Kind of blows your third grade argument out the second grade window. They may work with the abstract, but not in this case.
You’re going to have to delineate how my argument is blown apart because I’m not able to divine as much from your post. In addition, the construct I was discussing is very much “real world” … abstract insinuates that I am posing a hypothetical or situational understanding of the Constitution … I’m not. I’m discussing the derivation of the current opinions of this administration (those that they’ve indicated thus far).
Furthermore, most conservative scholars agree with that. Political hacks don’t. So get your facts together before you drone on about shit you know nothing about.
I can appreciate your call for a lack of ignorance … to be clear, are you saying that since you’ve heard “conservative scholars” that agree with your point (a point that is still not yet clear to me) ergo most agree (or at least those that should count). You can’t possibly think that you’ve exhausted the realm of Conservative Constitutinal attorneys and thought, can you? Please leave open, then, the option that there are PLENTY of educated conservative constitutional scholars who happen to believe that your conclusions (which you seem to share with other scholars although you cite none) are in error.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:48 pmmsticagent. FYI, I have great intel. Met Some pretty high figure heads(as Protocal servant in Ft, Lewis during my tenure there in 83-84) including (Communist two stars three stars). shouldnt really be talking about this, but, it wasnt top secret at the time.(it could be now though). maybe i ought to shush. wink wink.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:49 pm#166
This shouldn’t and doesn’t change the nature of God.
Comment by Giacomo — December 21, 2005 @ 2:20 pm
Actually, I think it does, and it should. Religion gives many people the notion that they are not responsible for their own actions and that is dangerous.
If a god can just be, so too can the universe. And the latter is more likely, less naive and Atheists don’t wage wars (every religion except Buddhism has).
December 21st, 2005 at 2:49 pmnofreedom – :) Not MI. I was 82nd infantry, dragon gunner (tank sniper) and sniper (people sniper).
December 21st, 2005 at 2:53 pmKillCon
Agreed… if they are still delusional at this point, it’s a psychosis that no agrument can cure…
Tha ones that annoy me are the lazy fat ones who drop in on a thread at the end and ask for evidence. Read the entire thread moron, we’re not here to serve you.
Our boycott of wwwwallace has been going well, haven’t seen much of him today (knock on wood, if I believed in such things :)
December 21st, 2005 at 2:54 pmSorry:
December 21st, 2005 at 2:56 pmnofreedom – :) Not MI. I was 82nd airborne infantry (not a “leg” :) ), dragon gunner (tank sniper) and sniper (people sniper).
eeewwwwww.(i was a kook cooking for you all)but i also cooked and attended to high figs/ Ive cooked for hatians(Operation provide hope, to DVQs at Ft. Lewis. mets Chinese Delegates, Indos, Indias del, etc…so, im experienced with bottom to top. P.S. the bottom of the ladder were much friendlier,(they held the Ladder).
December 21st, 2005 at 2:57 pmso why do you go by mystery agent?
December 21st, 2005 at 2:58 pmGiacomo – can you explain how, in your opinion, this activity was necessary and helpful? How was this secret spying needed when FISA was arranged to accomodate immediate needs (by allowing retroactive warrants)? No matter what, in the American court system, evidence obtained through spying techniques without a waarant is inadmissable in court. How is this supposed to be a useful tool when the information cannot be presented in a court of law?
December 21st, 2005 at 2:59 pmThere’s a temptation for people to sit around and say, well, gee, that [9/11] was just a one-off affair, they didn’t really mean it.
No Dickhead, we know that you will attack American again when you feel like it. We also know that we can’t prevent you from doing it again so why sit around and worry about it.
Now we’ve gotten to the point where four years beyond the attack, people are saying, well, gee, maybe there’s not a threat here after all.
You are the threat Dickhead thats why we will impeach you.
Either we’re serious about fighting the war on terror or we’re not. Either we believe that there are individuals out there doing everything they can to try to launch more attacks, to try to get ever deadlier weapons to use against, or we don’t.
The 9-11 Commission already proved that you and your co-conspirators are doing nothing to protect America. We are serious about impeaching you Dickhead, you and your co-conspirators.
Give it up Dickhead, us real American’s will fight you to the finish, the neocons will stay safely tucked under their beds.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:03 pmnofreedom – Ah! I have ben waiting for that for many months now. (wicked grin). (begin amused and irrelevant tone): I seek my nemesis: the MYSTICAL WARRIOR CHANG. You know, that mystical personage that GW and Jeb Bush call to in times of need, and who, by their own admission, advises them (these people hear a lot of voices, don’t they?). That greasy little Mystical Chang has hid from me alll this time, but we will one day have our final confrontation….. That’s why I am the mystical agent. I want Mystical Chang’s a$$. :)
I amuse myself. (go ahead, trolls – shoot :))
December 21st, 2005 at 3:04 pmIn 1998, I took a backpack, an Eurail pass and a friend and we traveled for 3 months around Europe. It was the end of my conservative view on life. I met amazing people from all walks of life who dispelled all the previous preconceptions I’d been given by the Republican party about other people hating us, and how afraid I should be about being outside the security of my own country.
I have a few thoughts on your experiences but let me preface by saying I’m a dual citizen (US and Italy) … born here and applied for Italian citizenship through my grandparents. I have travelled extensively throughout Europe … some in Central America (mostly Guatemala and Mexico) … and once in New Zealand.
There are several contentions that you assert that seem, to me, to be loosly based on conservatives in general. The notions that the Republicans wish one to be fearful and are distrustful of foreigners is a function of your experiences (but to be fair, the lack of such factors on my life could be because of mine … maybe I’m the aberation, not you).
I adore Europe (and New Zealand) … Guatemala is beautiful but dirt poor. The people in these lands are very much like our own … I may be biased, but the Italians are warm and welcoming in a way that puts “Southern Hospitality” to shame. I loved France as well (I include them b/c they’re the current conservative whipping boy). Most people associate countries (and their indigenous people) with their governments … this is usually WAY off. I know better, but have big issues with some of those government leaders and how they portray us to their people.
learned that there is no RIGHT way… just many different ways all equally valid, and how respecting that, rather than trying to change or destroy it was a much nicer way to exists in the world.
I think I know what you’re driving at here … I would disagree though that ALL ways are equally valid. I’ll say there may not be one right way, but there ARE many wrong ones. I think we can go too far with respect, especially when “respect” is often a synonym for “stay out of their business entirely” especially when we could legitimately help or assist (there is a slight inference to the Iraq war here, but it’s only slight). We export financial resources and we help countries that can’t help themselves with respect to disasters, disease, famine and the like. I think brutal leaders can effect people far more profoundly than any of the “disasters” can and I don’t think our responsibility (especially since we have the means) ends before the political. This line is WAY more fuzzy though, and rational people can disagree on our influence on the world political stage.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:05 pmSusan, You are Right, America is More Vulnerable, not less.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:07 pm(that word, i had to look up)and this is what i got.
http://www.coping.org/growth/vulner.htm
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/articles/eisvink.html
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/12/14/us_government_security_site_vulnerable_to_common_attack.html
Oh WOE IS US !!!
Giacomo – But are foreign nations more deserving of our attention than our own country> How much is spent daily on Iraq? And what exactly just got cut in this recent “cheney rush back to break the tie, and we know how he’s voting” fiasco? Is it more important to spend, what, a million a day (I may be low here) in Iraq while making it even harder for the poor to survive or children to get education? The admin thinks Iraq is more important.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:09 pmI want Mystical Chang’s a$$. :) too.lol
December 21st, 2005 at 3:11 pmMy two cents.
More people die every year from smoking cigarettes than by the hands of terrorists.
I smoke.
I will die of lung cancer long before any terrorist gets near me.
Terrorists do not scare me at all.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:12 pmUS Government Security Site Vulnerable to Common Attack Security
December 21st, 2005 at 3:13 pmThe U.S. government site that tracks cyber security risks was recently found vulnerable to cross-site scripting, a technique commonly used in hacker attacks and web site spoofing. Several security sites have published a demonstration of the security hole in the web site for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which hosts the U.S. National Vulnerability Database, which ironically includes numerous examples of cross-site scripting.
mysticagent,
The Bush administartion just asked for $100 billion more for the Global War on Terror and only $3.1 billion to reconstruct the levees in New Orleans.
Bush and pals could care less about this country. They are Globalists. The US just happens to be the country they are in right now. Once they have bankrupted this country by funneling all of the money to their wealthy friends, they are outta here.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:15 pmwhat is cross site scripting
December 21st, 2005 at 3:15 pmReligion gives many people the notion that they are not responsible for their own actions and that is dangerous.
It may give them this notion, but that’s not because the Bible (or other religions) explicitly or even implicitly dictate as much. The fallability of humans is not a fair indicator of the value of faith (notice I didn’t say religion).
If a god can just be, so too can the universe. And the latter is more likely, less naive and Atheists don’t wage wars (every religion except Buddhism has).
I wouldn’t disagree with you except that the universe, at leats our current understanding of it has a “singularity” … a begining. This notion of the singularity is the most popular (although by no means the only) current theory. So yes, the universe could just be (like I posed God is) but science seems to contradict that at this point.
There is nothing so motivating as the convictions derived from ones religion … I agree. “Not only do I say so, but God says so as well” is a powerful force in people’s lives. But to say that no atheists have “waged war” seems to infer that all wars have religion at their source (or as their basis) which isn’t necessarily the case. The inclination to make war shouldn’t be filtered through the lens that religion is a causal properity, but rather a casual property (akin to saying “those that wage war are Christians, but do not wage war BECAUSE they are Christians). Hitler was a homicidal maniac who spoke of Christian rhetoric … was the critical factor his psychosis or his Christianity … do you see my point. In that case, his “Christian” commentary was incidental … in spite of it being a motivator to him.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:15 pmspudgeboy, I agree, I believe that when their time is up, they too will flee, just as elton john ,micheal jackson, bill &melinda gates, etc… Did. the rich are fleecing and fleeing america. codename EXPATS.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:18 pmWatch, you are gonna see a overwhelming majority of Rich people, FLEEING America Soon. Before the Next War I presume.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:20 pmmaybe sooner.
#205 there ARE those who would argue (and not without vast evidence) that Christianity IS a psychosis (and I am being both facetious and serious).
December 21st, 2005 at 3:22 pmGiacomo – can you explain how, in your opinion, this activity was necessary and helpful? How was this secret spying needed when FISA was arranged to accomodate immediate needs (by allowing retroactive warrants)?
Since you asked questions that I spoke about on other threads, I took the liberty of cutting and pasting my comments …
I think the issue here, while not stated, can be fairly deduced. Quite simply, the burden of proof needed to get a warrant may not be present on the individual(s) they want to monitor. In that case, they couldn’t get a warrant. This is on one part very troubling (for if there’s not enough evidence, should they be listening) and on another part somewhat evident (suspected terrorist(s) are not qualified by some “threashold†of evidence, but, rather, a series of troubling acts). I can see both points in this debate right now. I don’t want willy nilly wire taps, but neither do I wish to hamstring the NSA (the formation of which was developed out of the Army’s monitoring program) …
No matter what, in the American court system, evidence obtained through spying techniques without a waarant is inadmissable in court. How is this supposed to be a useful tool when the information cannot be presented in a court of law?
Another thing that seems to be coming up often is a discussion of admissable evidence and criminal law. This is not the basis upon which the White House is authorizing surveillance … the basis is upon “war†powers implicit in the Constitution (and in FISA and from Congress in 2001). Again, the President has inherent powers to allow surveillance when he is engaged in a war (whether this power changes if war is formally declared or not may be a an issue for the constitutional lawyers) We will see how this plays out though.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:22 pmAnd Probably alot of So Called Christians will soon start Fleeing America, (Since the I.D. Got shot down)
December 21st, 2005 at 3:22 pmand the 10 commandments . thou shalt not display the ten commandments.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:25 pmSpudge_Boy – you know, thanks for that. I have really been confused as to WHY the wealthy would WANT to engage in practices and policies that are systematically and swiftly (in a historic sense of time) destroying our country. That is the obvious answer that just was not that obvious – they will just move (probably to where their buddies are – does OBL have his guest house ready for the admin? Some will go to other places, such as Israel).
December 21st, 2005 at 3:26 pmChristians will soon start Fleeing America.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:26 pmjust as they did back in Eygpt.
But this time, it is the rich that will flee. not the poor.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:27 pmin God we trust.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:28 pmBut are foreign nations more deserving of our attention than our own country> How much is spent daily on Iraq? And what exactly just got cut in this recent “cheney rush back to break the tie, and we know how he’s voting†fiasco? Is it more important to spend, what, a million a day (I may be low here) in Iraq while making it even harder for the poor to survive or children to get education?
I think your argument has merit given the efficiency (or lack thereof) in our current state of government. This, however, does not need to be an either/or … it can be a both/and. I think you’re low on your million as well. I don’t know how the new legislation works, so I will reserve judgment until I’m not ignorant … at face value it does look like a trade of our own social prgrams for Iraq.
The Bush administartion just asked for $100 billion more for the Global War on Terror and only $3.1 billion to reconstruct the levees in New Orleans.
C’mon Spudge … maybe the levies could get another billion but that comparison is not an accurate one. You’re inferring that one amount reduced and or influenced the other in this case … the way we’re racking up debt (and printing bonds) this ins’t necessarily the case.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:29 pmThe US just happens to be the country they are in right now. Once they have bankrupted this country by funneling all of the money to their wealthy friends, they are outta here.
How do you, economically, explain this phenomenon that you pose given that most of the money is invested in our capital markets and held in our financial institutions.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:31 pmthe comparison is not the same, but, the AMOUNT Going to Iraq? come on, what are they REALLY doing with all that Money? huh? putting it into Banks?
December 21st, 2005 at 3:33 pmThere ARE those who would argue (and not without vast evidence) that Christianity IS a psychosis
I’ve heard those arguments before … the same argument has been made about homosexuality (heck it was in the DSM-III) … the “argument” doesn’t alter reality. I would say that such arguments are derived from poor subjects and or “directional” (ie. begin with the end in mind) studies.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:34 pminvesting in foriegn nations and foriegn banks and foriegn stock exchanges, etc….
December 21st, 2005 at 3:34 pmthe selling out and fleecing of N.America(Armageddon)
December 21st, 2005 at 3:36 pmCome on, what are they REALLY doing with all that money?
Seeing as how one missle can cost 1.5 million by itslef (not to mention the cost of supplying and equipping the troops) it’s not hard to see how that bill can rack up quickly. It’s as if the USA went into a really large bar and said “give everyone a round on me” … get’s expensive if you do that daily.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:36 pm“How do you, economically, explain this phenomenon that you pose given that most of the money is invested in our capital markets and held in our financial institutions.
Comment by Giacomo ”
Easy, it’s called ‘capital flight’, or didn’t they teach you that concept in that MBA school you supposedly attended. The restrictions for moving capital out of the country have been dismantled, while the increasing percentage of wealth has been been concentrated among corporations and individuals who have no loyalty or worries about moving their money abroad. The result is that money invested in ‘our markets’ and ‘our companies’ are no more ‘american’ than that gas you pump into your SUV, or the clothes made in china by those companies is ‘american’.
For someone who claims to have an MBA, you’re woefully ignorant on economics, investment, taxation and currency markets. It explains why you’re such a retard and republican apologist – you’re clearly ignorant of any information that would make you a sane rational person.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:44 pmGiacomo
“Since you asked questions that I spoke about on other threads, I took the liberty of cutting and pasting my comments …”
No problem. saves the fingers. I can’t get to the other threads while trying to respond on one because, 10 my computer is SLOOOOWWW, and 2) my typing is SLOOOOWWW.
“I think the issue here, while not stated, can be fairly deduced. ”
Well, now. Let’s be fair. Others regularly make deductions and you regularly shoot them down with a line similar to, “I appreciate your opinion, but show me the proof.” Seriously, I have never seen you accept another’s deductions, and here you expect me to accept yours. Keep it honest, now.
“Quite simply, the burden of proof needed to get a warrant may not be present on the individual(s) they want to monitor. In that case, they couldn’t get a warrant.”
warrants are not difficult to get from FISA, as has been gone over ad nauseum. If there is not sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant – or even a retroactive warrant, then there is no reason to conduct surveilance (except, perhaps, the, “I don’t like how that one looks” argument, which is WHY warrants are required).
“This is on one part very troubling (for if there’s not enough evidence, should they be listening)”
Answer – no. If they have no evidence of terrorist activity, they have no reason to spy.
“and on another part somewhat evident (suspected terrorist(s) are not qualified by some “threashold†of evidence, but, rather, a series of troubling acts).”
‘a series of troubling acts”, as you put it, amounts to sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant. Your argument holds no water here. Physical evidence is not necessary for a warrant – a confirmable “list of suspicious activity” is more than sufficient to obtain a warrant. I’m sorry, but this is not a sustainable argument.
“I don’t want willy nilly wire taps, but neither do I wish to hamstring the NSA (the formation of which was developed out of the Army’s monitoring program) … ”
Following the law as it is already laid down will not “hamstring the NSA”. Not at all. It just means that they can only spy on those who are suspected terrorists or who clearly have links to suspected terrorists.
“Another thing that seems to be coming up often is a discussion of admissable evidence and criminal law. This is not the basis upon which the White House is authorizing surveillance … the basis is upon “war†powers implicit in the Constitution (and in FISA and from Congress in 2001). Again, the President has inherent powers to allow surveillance when he is engaged in a war (whether this power changes if war is formally declared or not may be a an issue for the constitutional lawyers)”
Yet again, no argument, were we at war. But no matter how much yourself or the administration want to say that this is a war because GW said so, it is not a war in the constitutional sense. America is not at war. America is involved in a police action that is likely illegal – it IS illegal by international standards (the UN said “No”, and we went on in, and then argued that we were protecting UN interests, even though they said don’t do it.) So, the brunt is that the apologists are clinging to the argument that the president can declare a war and then has carte blanche to do as he pleases in the name of this war without any oversight at all. Even as far as that the Executive is above the Legislative and Judiciary, and does not need to answer to either.
And you didn;t answer my question: but let me rephrase it: do YOU have any examples of how this secret spying on Americans was useful where the normal procedure (72 hours retrocatice warrant) was too cumbersome? (although that is not right, for as soon as anyone claims that the law is “too cumbersome” it usually means that they want to do things not allowed by that law).
December 21st, 2005 at 3:44 pm“Seeing as how one missle can cost 1.5 million by itslef (not to mention the cost of supplying and equipping the troops) it’s not hard to see how that bill can rack up quickly.” GeoMetro
And yet republicans ‘claimed’ the opposite would be true when we invaded. Do you remember how ‘cheap’ they said the war would be?
If it’s so expensive, then we should have a tax increase to fund it. That’s what a SANE economist would do, but then again we’ve previously demostrated you have zero understanding of economics – so surely you’ll argue for the same ignorant and idiotic policies that your fellow ‘brownie inepts’ do.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:45 pmSeeing as how one missle can cost 1.5 million by itslef (not to mention the cost of supplying and equipping the troops) it’s not hard to see how that bill can rack up quickly.
Comment by Giacomo — December 21, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
Agreed, it also gets expensive when monies go “unaccounted” -meaning, people in charge don’t know where the money went. Both before and after the “transfer of sovereignty”:
U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds
So, Mr Bremer, where did all the money go?
U.S. probes $100 million missing in Iraq
What has happened to Iraq’s missing $1bn?
It also gets very expensive, very quickly, when your service providers overcharge you at every turn of the way:
Pentagon ‘hid’ damning Halliburton audit
Halliburton: $61M Overcharge?
Bush warns ‘oil overcharge’ firm
December 21st, 2005 at 3:47 pm#219 – I was being mainly facetious, Giacomo. I’d LOVE to argue religion with you, but not here. I actually know of no such ’studies’. I speak from experiences and theological studies (ah, an old time favorite).
December 21st, 2005 at 3:48 pmBut I’m not suggesting that is a true blanket statement. Christians: don’t be offended, I meant no offence.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:48 pmLater, gators… if I’m not back before, merry christmass, happy hannukah (sp?), kwanza, happy new years, etc…. or HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
December 21st, 2005 at 3:53 pmThe restrictions for moving capital out of the country have been dismantled, while the increasing percentage of wealth has been been concentrated among corporations and individuals who have no loyalty or worries about moving their money abroad.
Except that such a flight isn’t occuring … our markets are out performing other developed nations (some emerging markets have outperformed ours, but its spotty) … to go international is to lose money … people ARE NOT doing this right now, Ryan.
The result is that money invested in ‘our markets’ and ‘our companies’ are no more ‘american’ than that gas you pump into your SUV, or the clothes made in china by those companies is ‘american’.
This has always been the case in “our markets” if you’re a Japanese businessman and you can “earn” .5% to 4% in your own market and 5% to 37% in our market … where do you put your money … hmmmmmm.
For someone who claims to have an MBA, you’re woefully ignorant on economics, investment, taxation and currency markets. It explains why you’re such a retard and republican apologist – you’re clearly ignorant of any information that would make you a sane rational person.
Yeah … the person who does “investing” for a living knows less about it than you do … good one Ryan. If you want to argue about this, you’re welcome to … I wouldn’t if I were you because you’re woefully uninformed about capital structure and capital markets. For once, just drop it before you look angry and ignorant. You have plenty to debate me on that you already DO know something about … this ain’t one of ‘em.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:53 pmWell, now. Let’s be fair. Others regularly make deductions and you regularly shoot them down with a line similar to, “I appreciate your opinion, but show me the proof.â€
That’s why I tried to qualify my opinion … maybe I needed to do more in that aim.
If there is not sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant – or even a retroactive warrant, then there is no reason to conduct surveilance and a series of troubling actsâ€, as you put it, amounts to sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant.
My response is that in order to observe the “series” the observation needs to be continuous … as in, from a suspect conversation through an unearthing of a terrorist plot. I think they’re listening based upon buzzwords, but I could be wrong.
Following the law as it is already laid down will not “hamstring the NSAâ€. Not at all. It just means that they can only spy on those who are suspected terrorists or who clearly have links to suspected terrorists.
I think the White House would say that there are varrying degrees of “suspected terrorist” and the point at which they want to start listening may not pass the current law’s “muster”. I’d say, then change the law in the last 4 years or so, but that’s just me.
And you didn;t answer my question: but let me rephrase it: do YOU have any examples of how this secret spying on Americans was useful where the normal procedure (72 hours retrocatice warrant) was too cumbersome?
None whatsoever … I’m in a holding pattern (as most should be).
December 21st, 2005 at 4:00 pmAnd yet republicans ‘claimed’ the opposite would be true when we invaded. Do you remember how ‘cheap’ they said the war would be?
If it’s so expensive, then we should have a tax increase to fund it. That’s what a SANE economist would do, but then again we’ve previously demostrated you have zero understanding of economics – so surely you’ll argue for the same ignorant and idiotic policies that your fellow ‘brownie inepts’ do.
Could you possibly be more inflamatory Ryan. So you postulate something I think (since all Republicans must agree on everything I guess) and then tear it to shreds. You do this twice in one post. Instead, why don’t you ask a logical question like “If we all agree the war’s expensive, why did conservatives say it would be cheap and why are the avoiding a raise in taxes like the plague”. I could then answer you … instead of you creating my talking point and then trashing it in the same thread. This is called point/counter-point.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:03 pmI don’t think he’s burning enough stuff up. He needs to be more inflammatory. It’s all gotta burn, and be burnt down. If you want to have a little tete a tete with tea cups and nice manners, start your own blog and attract some people who aren’t as pissed as they have ever been in their lives at crooks running the government. That is if you can find any.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:08 pmIf you want to have a little tete a tete with tea cups and nice manners, start your own blog and attract some people who aren’t as pissed as they have ever been in their lives at crooks running the government.
So you don’t think that if he wants to argue something he should stick to something I actually said? You may be onto something though … I can win every argument I enter if I counter a point of my own making (without bothering to actually ask the other person what their actual opinion is). To steal from that beer commercial … BRILLIANT.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:18 pm#205
It may give them this notion, but that’s not because the Bible (or other religions) explicitly or even implicitly dictate as much. The fallability of humans is not a fair indicator of the value of faith (notice I didn’t say religion).
Yes it is. You wouldn’t need Ten Commandments or a Bible if people we’re considered unable to behave themselves. Religion exists to tell people how to act and what to think and how to feel. As a result, they are unaccountable for their behavior because they are simply following church rules.
The church accesses the strength of faith by behavior. Not my ruler, it’s theirs. They say that if you have been weak or sinned it’s because your faith wasn’t strong enough. Go pray some more.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:39 pm#205
I wouldn’t disagree with you except that the universe, at leats our current understanding of it has a “singularity†… a begining.
Yes, the Big Bang. Still no god required. Hydrogen, the basis of everything else is the source and the catalyst. Read Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”. He supposes there might be a god, so there’s no atheistic intent there.
There is nothing so motivating as the convictions derived from ones religion … I agree. “Not only do I say so, but God says so as well†is a powerful force in people’s lives.
People blowing themselves up to get 72 virgins in a mythical heaven is a pretty good indicator :)
But to say that no atheists have “waged war†seems to infer that all wars have religion at their source (or as their basis) which isn’t necessarily the case.
That’s not what I said or implied at all… your logic isn’t accurate here. But, since you made the leap, I will say that most wars do have religious implications. Every conflict in the Middle East, as well as most in Africa and Asia right now have religious influences.
WWII was a result of Hitler thinking he was serving God (Specifically Christianity). Which I have already debated prior and don’t want to get into with other trolls again… go look back a couple weeks ago and yu’ll find my proof of this (and you can read Mein Kampf).
WWI, Korea and Vietnam were about fighting Communism, which we know was equated with destroying Atheism
The inclination to make war shouldn’t be filtered through the lens that religion is a causal properity, but rather a casual property (akin to saying “those that wage war are Christians, but do not wage war BECAUSE they are Christians). Hitler was a homicidal maniac who spoke of Christian rhetoric … was the critical factor his psychosis or his Christianity … do you see my point. In that case, his “Christian†commentary was incidental … in spite of it being a motivator to him.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:49 pm#205
OOps, accidentally hit the post too soon…
you said
The inclination to make war shouldn’t be filtered through the lens that religion is a causal properity, but rather a casual property (akin to saying “those that wage war are Christians, but do not wage war BECAUSE they are Christians). Hitler was a homicidal maniac who spoke of Christian rhetoric … was the critical factor his psychosis or his Christianity … do you see my point. In that case, his “Christian†commentary was incidental … in spite of it being a motivator to him.
You’re trying to make a logic argument that simply isn’t there, or implied. What I said was that religions find war acceptable enough to wage them. Don’t try to complicate this like you do by making assumptions that are not intended. It’s what’s getting you in trouble most of the time in your debates.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:52 pmSo you don’t think that if he wants to argue something he should stick to something I actually said? You may be onto something though … I can win every argument I enter if I counter a point of my own making (without bothering to actually ask the other person what their actual opinion is). To steal from that beer commercial … BRILLIANT.
You can’t “win” arguments any more than you can “win a war on terror”. But you keep telling yourself that you can if it makes you feel safe for the latter or superior for the former. If you studied more logic and leass business you might have learned to distrust it a bit more. Logic doesn’t produce true results unless it starts with true premises. Outside of mathematics, it’s hard to have a true premise about some aspect of the real world. Maybe, if you are lucky, you have a premise which is accurate to some degree. More than likely today that is not the case. There’s always a tradeoff between specificity and accuracy.
If you think you are actually winning arguments, you’d think you would be more convincing around here, don’t you agree? Perhaps you are just convincing yourself.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:55 pm#236 – I could not have stated it better.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:14 pmOutside of mathematics, it’s hard to have a true premise about some aspect of the real world. .
I guess you’ve never read Plato? That’s too bad. I liked the way he proved the immortality of man by discussing things like Truth and Beauty.
And I think it is possible, actually required, that we can define true premises. Such as “Stealing is wrong.” Now if someone was starving and stole in order to live, the stealing is still wrong, but allowing onesself to die over someone not selling a loaf of bread, would be even more wrong.
War is wrong. Can war be required to stop a Hitler? Yes, but it is still wrong.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:29 pm#239
Thanks… Unfortunately, I don’t think he will get it though. I just get so tired of religion being forced upon on us because people need to believe there is a happily ever after awaiting them in some mythical heaven. Causes them to be irresponsible and make a giant mess out of everyting. But, I know I’m singing to the choir here… :)
December 21st, 2005 at 5:38 pmHow do you, economically, explain this phenomenon that you pose given that most of the money is invested in our capital markets and held in our financial institutions.
Comment by Giacomo
jaggoffmore #217
Who are the capital markets and financial institutions?
December 21st, 2005 at 6:27 pmAnswer that and you’ll have your answer.
GeoMetro,
Your rant at me was classic ‘passive aggressive’ where contradicted your own statements of what you stood for. You need therapy…
December 21st, 2005 at 6:44 pm“It’s no accident we haven’t been hit again in four years”
comment by L’il Dick Cheney
Were I the parent, sibling, or significant other of any American soldier killed or wounded in Afghanistan or Iraq I would be livid!
Does it matter if Americans are killed by “terrorists” in New York, Oklahoma City, Kabul or Baghdad? A dead or seriously wounded American is just that!
Shame on L’il Dick (and all of the families of troops who support this callous, incompetent, corrupt junta) for discounting the American troops he supposedly cares so much about.
Inbreds keep parroting the “fightin’ ‘em over there to keep from fightin’ ‘em over here” line. We’re STILL dying, hemorraghing dollars, dismantling the Constitution, and helping create an Islamic caliphate in the ME.
Who’s serious about terrorism?
December 21st, 2005 at 6:51 pmYes it is. You wouldn’t need Ten Commandments or a Bible if people we’re considered unable to behave themselves. Religion exists to tell people how to act and what to think and how to feel. As a result, they are unaccountable for their behavior because they are simply following church rules.
From this comment it sounds like you’ve had a bad interaction with religion but perhaps never experienced someone with an authentic faith … there’s a big difference (like Hitler compared with mother Theresa big). All the things you’re relaying sound like legalism run amock (ie. religion is there to tell people how to act) but not faith in God or a “relationship” with God.
The church accesses the strength of faith by behavior. Not my ruler, it’s theirs.
Again, I’m sorry if this is your experience with the religious … it is nowhere near the point of Christianity or what Christ taught. Any person of faith that has a literal or allegorical yard stick to assess faith (what they’re really measuring is adherance to doctrine which is very different) should be beaten with it in the same vein.
They say that if you have been weak or sinned it’s because your faith wasn’t strong enough.
Anyone that says this is severely missing the point of Christ’s message.
Yes, the Big Bang. Still no god required. Hydrogen, the basis of everything else is the source and the catalyst.
You missed my point though … the universe has a traceable begining … we can’t say it “always was” (like I said with God) because science has given us some evidence that there was a time before “the universe” and then bang … it all started from a minute focal point. It has a begining (at least that’s where the evidence points right now).
What I said was that religions find war acceptable enough to wage them. Don’t try to complicate this like you do by making assumptions that are not intended.
Fair enough … maybe I read into your comments. War has been to often excused by all religions … “blessed are the peacemakers” isn’t very wishy washy though.
Thanks… Unfortunately, I don’t think he will get it though. I just get so tired of religion being forced upon on us because people need to believe there is a happily ever after awaiting them in some mythical heaven.
This comment made me feel sad (no, not feel sorry for you) … it’s obvious you’ve been burned by religious pomposity but please believe that those who wish to practice authentic faith are not foisting themselves or their religion on others … they may talk about it, but won’t strong arm it (for they know there’s no point in doing so). I apologize for those of my ilk … we sometimes have poor manners. What you’ve experienced is those that choose to wield religion like a sword instead of relaying an experience that is about grace, peace, purpose and completeness.
To the person that wrote …
You can’t “win†arguments any more than you can “win a war on terrorâ€. But you keep telling yourself that you can if it makes you feel safe for the latter or superior for the former.
You totally missed the point of my post but that’s OK. I could care less about winning but I wish that Ryan would at least argue about something I actually said … I was trying to show how ridiculous his post was … you didn’t get it.
Then Ryan said …
Your rant at me was classic ‘passive aggressive’ where contradicted your own statements of what you stood for.
This sentence doesn’t make any sense … care to re-write?
December 21st, 2005 at 7:34 pm“Your rant at me was classic ‘passive aggressive’ where contradicted your own statements of what you stood for.
This sentence doesn’t make any sense … care to re-write? ” GeoMetro
Sure…
Your rant at me was classic ‘passive aggressive’. You contradicted your own statements around what you stood for, and simultaneously ‘defend’ and ‘attack’ the same set of positions. This is ‘classic’ passive aggressive personality behavior. You’re ‘textbook’…
December 21st, 2005 at 7:42 pmGiacomo — ever known a church that did not ask for donations?
December 21st, 2005 at 7:44 pmIm looking for one.
ever known a preacher that didnt have his or her own church?
does Jesus sound familiar?
“I could care less about winning but I wish that Ryan would at least argue about something I actually said … I was trying to show how ridiculous his post was … you didn’t get it.” GeoMetro
If you wouldn’t post so ‘ambiguously’, with your passive aggressive arguments that say you don’t support a position, while simultaneously attacking those that oppose it, then you would understand my responses. How do you know what you’re saying, all of your arguments are nothing more than rants about the rights of politicians to have their own opinions and violate people’s rights even though you don’t agree with their actions. You write passive aggressive nonsense arguments, but you’re too stupid to even recognize it. You’re a sad bag of worms.
December 21st, 2005 at 7:45 pmYour rant at me was classic ‘passive aggressive’. You contradicted your own statements around what you stood for, and simultaneously ‘defend’ and ‘attack’ the same set of positions. This is ‘classic’ passive aggressive personality behavior. You’re ‘textbook’…
Oh, I get it now. Ryan, do you think it’s too much for me to ask that if you wish to respond to one of my posts that you at least are sure that the positions you attack are actually those that I hold? You went off on some huge tangent about tax increases and the costs of war … something we’ve never even discussed. I figured that if you want to argue, you should at least be debating something I actually said … but, perhaps it’s easier to attack what I’m not saying … that way I’m sure to not have a response.
If you wouldn’t post so ‘ambiguously’, with your passive aggressive arguments that say you don’t support a position, while simultaneously attacking those that oppose it, then you would understand my responses. How do you know what you’re saying, all of your arguments are nothing more than rants about the rights of politicians to have their own opinions and violate people’s rights even though you don’t agree with their actions. You write passive aggressive nonsense arguments, but you’re too stupid to even recognize it. You’re a sad bag of worms.
There’s really nothing ambiguous about what I’ve said here … and there’s a difference between attacking WHAT someone said and WHO they are. I agree that I tend to play devil’s advocate way too much … so much that I end up arguing in defense of something I may not agree with totally. I could care less about the “rights” of politicians … I do get annoyed when you dismiss the dissenting opinion as “unworthy” without actually understanding it, but that’s my problem. I think you’re confusing passive aggressive with civil and polite … if I’m going to tell everyone I’m a Christian, I can’t in the next breathe start attacking everyone, can I. I don’t need or expect you to understand … perhaps though, you could stand for some “passive aggressive” tendencies, if only to make you as “progressive and liberal” as your politics are.
December 21st, 2005 at 7:59 pmGiacomo — ever known a church that did not ask for donations? I’m looking for one. Ever known a preacher that didnt have his or her own church … does Jesus sound familiar?
Few churches can exist without “passing the plate”. While there are those who use these donations and benevolent funds to pad their own pockets … there are plenty that use that money to give back to the community … look for one of those.
I’ve seen preachers that didn’t have a church buidling … and I know that Jesus rarely stayed in one place for long. This model isn’t necessarily the only model for churches and “discipleship” (heck, the first church was willingly communistic … they shared everything … try suggesting that from the pulpit in a US church) but it seems to work decently in the US (There ARE some good churches out there).
December 21st, 2005 at 8:03 pmGiacomo — try suggesting that from the pulpit in a US church.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:27 pmWhat a Great Idea. Why don,t you try it? let us know the results.hehe.
Giacomo — you threw me off with that one. This model isn’t used in the US or anywhere that i am aware of.
sooo, how can it work in the us?
This model isn’t necessarily the only model for churches and “discipleship†but it seems to work decently in the US
December 21st, 2005 at 8:31 pm“Yeah … the person who does “investing†for a living knows less about it than you do … good one Ryan. If you want to argue about this, you’re welcome to … I wouldn’t if I were you because you’re woefully uninformed about capital structure and capital markets.” GeoMetro
The little financial ‘desk hack’ thinks he knows more than someone who’s actually started companies that operate in all 6 continents.
Bahaha, that’s really amusing! Who do you work for FEMA?
Please, share with me your ‘wisdom’, this should be good!
December 21st, 2005 at 8:34 pmbuddha though may have trid it, or Gandi, or maybe even M. Teresa. ( some good churches are out there).
December 21st, 2005 at 8:36 pmLord Buddha http://www.dlshq.org/saints/buddha.htm
Killing the Buddha http://www.killingthebuddha.com/
“I’ve heard those arguments before … the same argument has been made about homosexuality (heck it was in the DSM-III) … the “argument†doesn’t alter reality. I would say that such arguments are derived from poor subjects and or “directional†(ie. begin with the end in mind) studies.” GeoMetro
The difference is that we have proof that religious extremism is a symptom of mental illness, the ‘homosexuality’ claim was made unscientifically (by conservatives), and later disproven by ACTUAL scientific work. Religious people always associate ‘opinions’ they have as equal in weight to a scientifically investigated fact. It’s why they (like you) are so consistently ignorant and idiotic in their claims.
I’d be happy to point to reference materials if you like about religious extremism and psychosis. But just like you ignored the passive aggressive references, we both know you don’t want to prove, but just rant like the madman you clearly are.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:39 pmI agree that I tend to play devil’s advocate way too much … so much that I end up arguing in defense of something I may not agree with totally.
Comment by Giacomo — December 21, 2005 @ 7:59 pm
So much, in fact, it is hard to know where your opinion ends and your advocacy begins.
I do get annoyed when you dismiss the dissenting opinion as “unworthy” without actually understanding it, but that’s my problem.
I can’t speak for Ryan, but I understand how someone would have a different opinion -even though we are looking at the same facts. What I don’t understand is people’s inability to see that they are shooting themselves in the foot; like when they support the erosion of the rule of the law by excusing illegal wiretapping and secret detentions.
if I’m going to tell everyone I’m a Christian, I can’t in the next breathe start attacking everyone, can I.
If you are Catholic, then you surely see why launching an unprovoked attack is wrong -not only is it against the Church’s doctrine, it is also sinful. The invasion of Iraq squarely falls into the category of “unprovoked attack”, however abhorrent Hussein’s regime was.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:40 pmSomeone Quick, Find Giacomo —
December 21st, 2005 at 8:40 pmthis should be good!
“My response is that in order to observe the “series†the observation needs to be continuous … as in, from a suspect conversation through an unearthing of a terrorist plot. I think they’re listening based upon buzzwords, but I could be wrong.” GeoMetro
This is called a ‘fishing expedition’, and would be similar to planting a bug in everyone’s house that personnel listened into, or in ‘olden days’ equivalent to breaking and entering and searching the house for evidence. The fact you don’t automatically condemn this is further truth that you are unamerican, and unworthy of citizenship in this country. You are a traitor our values, and a despicable excuse for a man. Shame on you!
December 21st, 2005 at 8:42 pmGregor,
Well said. Republican hypocrisy around violence, murder, torture and kidnapping is one of the most ‘unchristian’ things I’ve seen from americans in my lifetime. And yet, GeoMetro and the other whackos still ’stand by their man’, just like good little brownshirts. It’s sickening, perverted and disgusting how immoral these morons are.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:44 pmThe little financial ‘desk hack’ thinks he knows more than someone who’s actually started companies that operate in all 6 continents.
I’m not going to get into a pissing contest with you Ryan. The comments you made about capital flight show a complete lack of understanding about the us capital markets and world fiscal affairs. I would expect someone who started numerous companies to have a better grasp of the current world economy and the current state of investing in their own country. Maybe your companies are of the human services derivation and have nothing to do with capital markets … even then though, I’d expect you to have a little more savvy in capital structure. But … what do i know, I just do this stuff for 11 hours a day … that’s all. You’re outclassed in this arena … drop it before you get burned.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:47 pmGiacomo — It is the WAR Supporters that should drop it before WE ALL
December 21st, 2005 at 8:54 pmget burned!! Enough said! point blank!
War does not resolve terroristic Egos.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:56 pmTo Ryan …
The difference is that we have proof that religious extremism is a symptom of mental illness
You won’t get an argument from me there ….
This is called a ‘fishing expedition’, and would be similar to planting a bug in everyone’s house that personnel listened into, or in ‘olden days’ equivalent to breaking and entering and searching the house for evidence.
Like I said before Ryan, I’m taking a wait and see attitude because specifics haven’t yet surfaced about this monitoring thing. I’m of the opinion that if it turns out that this NSA things was a political stunt … I’ll be all for impeachment. If it’s just about monitoring suspected terrorists … I think there’s enough wiggle room in the Constitution and Congressional law for Bush to make his case to avoid prosecution. I AM wondering why they didn’t just ask for the warrants retroactively … that seems fishy to me, but I’ll wait and see.
To Gregor …
So much, in fact, it is hard to know where your opinion ends and your advocacy begins.
Fair enough … if I choose to go with devil’s advocate, I’ll make my personal opinion known.
f you are Catholic, then you surely see why launching an unprovoked attack is wrong -not only is it against the Church’s doctrine, it is also sinful.
While I’m not Catholic (I’m like the only Italian/US citizen that’s not, I think) your point still has merit. As I said earlier, blessed are the peacemakers is not an ambiguous statement … that also must be reconciled with Jesus’ mandate to help “the least of these” which I think can describe the plight of the Iraqi people. I wasn’t of the opinion that we should’ve invavded Iraq when we did, and I didn’t like that it put us at odds with much of the world … that said, now that we’re there we need to finish and I think that in the long run, Iraq may have a fighting (no pun intended) chance at democracy … out of the ashes could rise the phoenix so to speak.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:58 pmBilly the Kid, Barney and Clyde, David Koreash, Tim Mcveigh, just to name a few terrorists. oh yea , and the Serial Killers, they too are terrorists. and the DC shootings. terror started long before america was ever discovered, war hasnt stopped it yet.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:58 pmI agree nofreedom, terrorism is not just a foreign phenomenon.
In reference to your “church” question earlier, Methodists rotate their pastors every few years (at least they used to). There are also many traveling ministers that go from church to church. The vast majority of pastors are at fixed locations, but that’s more about establishing relationships and growing the church as a group of people than it is a miguided attempt at recreating the early Roman church. As the world has changed, so has the church to meet the new demands of the people.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:03 pmThe primary victims of any war are innocent men, women and children. It is a barbaric practice that can be only be glorified by psuedo-macho men who have never experienced war at home where their own loved ones were placed in mortal danger.
Only a blood thirsty barbarian, a complete moron or an American can be pro war.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:06 pm“I’m not going to get into a pissing contest with you Ryan.” GeoMetro
You already have, the problem is you know you’ll lose, so you’re stopping before I embarrass you yet again from your profound level of ignorance.
“The comments you made about capital flight show a complete lack of understanding about the us capital markets and world fiscal affairs.”
Really, and what makes you believe this ‘anecdotal nonsense’. Did your ‘boss’ tell you that was the case? Grow up and face the real world.
http://www.corp-research.org/archives/apr04.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KAY/is_4_7/ai_n8964786
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/offshoringtext.pdf
“maybe your companies are of the human services derivation and have nothing to do with capital markets … even then though, I’d expect you to have a little more savvy in capital structure. ”
Hehe, I’m savvy enough to know a blowhard who doesn’t know crap about what he’s talking about when I see one.
“But … what do i know, I just do this stuff for 11 hours a day … that’s all. You’re outclassed in this arena … drop it before you get burned.”
You’re cheating your boss, because you spend way too much time here to meet this claim…
Burn baby burn, I’m ready, are you?
Come on, show me what you’ve got, we both know you shoot blanks!
I’ve supplied just a hand full of resources that are suited to someone of your ‘diminished’ capacity. I can get increasingly more technical if you like, but we both know you don’t have the ‘chops’ to keep up.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:07 pm“Like I said before Ryan, I’m taking a wait and see attitude because specifics haven’t yet surfaced about this monitoring thing.” GeoMetro
That’s crap you retarded liar. We know everything we need to know. They implemented warrantless eavesdropping on americans in breach of the constitution, and they ADMITTED it publically.
You’re a fool!
December 21st, 2005 at 9:08 pm“that also must be reconciled with Jesus’ mandate to help “the least of these†which I think can describe the plight of the Iraqi people.” GeoMetro
Yeah, an image of a gun toting jesus really conjures up when I think of this. What a load of crap…
December 21st, 2005 at 9:09 pmGiacomo —Just dro-p the War stuff, you,ll be allright.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:12 pmwe can all get along then(Maybe)
Like I stated Previously, War has Never Stopped Terrorist or suicidal bombing phobia.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:18 pmtake Japan for instance, how many suicidal comocosies sacrificed in what they believed was a right thing to do.
Our soldiers are Dying,But I wouldn,t call it Sacrifical Suicidal attempts to defeat Terror.
A war on Terror cannot be Won. Let the Police, criminal aynalists) pyhciatrists , whomever, *they get paid for this sort of thing) do their jobs.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:23 pm#245
From this comment it sounds like you’ve had a bad interaction with religion but perhaps never experienced someone with an authentic faith … there’s a big difference (like Hitler compared with mother Theresa big). All the things you’re relaying sound like legalism run amock (ie. religion is there to tell people how to act) but not faith in God or a “relationship†with God.
This is notthe pity me I was victimized speech. Though, I went to church and that was torturous enough. People telling me how to behave in ways that were either obvious or grossly inconsistent with reality, and then telling me my eternal soul was contingent upon how well I followed the rules. That’s not a choice really. It’s coersion.
I asked you about Nihilism early because I wondered if you knew anything about it. It’s the believe that there is no purpose in life. At first that seems dark and depressing, but when you really study it, Nihilism is actually the ultimate in freedom. There is no carrot to dangle in order to induce behavior. A person is 100% free to decide his own purpose, rules and path because there are zero consequences for his actions. When there are consequences for your actions, you are no longer free, and no longer accountable. See it yet?
Anyone that says this is severely missing the point of Christ’s message.
You should read the Bible. It’s in there.
Deuteronomy 32:20
And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.
Psalm 31:23
O love the LORD, all ye his saints: for the LORD preserveth the faithful, and plentifully rewardeth the proud doer.
Psalm 101:6
Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me.
Matthew 6:30
Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Mark 11:22
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
Again, I’m sorry if this is your experience with the religious … it is nowhere near the point of Christianity or what Christ taught. Any person of faith that has a literal or allegorical yard stick to assess faith (what they’re really measuring is adherance to doctrine which is very different) should be beaten with it in the same vein.
It’s not my experience. It’s a logical argument. It is totally the Christian requirement that in order to get into heaven (the goal), you must follow the rules. Hence the ten commandments and the Bible. I actually think you are not seeing it objectively. Because if you did you would understand that the church would not exist if faith were a Nihilistic choice of how it works. You don;t get to choose. You follow their plan, or you you go to Hell. It’s exactly what they advocate.
it’s obvious you’ve been burned by religious pomposity but please believe that those who wish to practice authentic faith are not foisting themselves or their religion on others …
Giacomo – I’ve not been ‘burned’. People do force their religion on those of us who do not want any. I gave you wars where this is the case. There are ‘mercinaries’ in third world countries who offer people food to convert. There were the Inquisition and the Crusades to force poeple to convert or they were murdered. Want proof? Go outside and tell people you don’t believe in God and see how they behave. Religion has a very bloody history, I’m sorry if that makes you sad, but your denial of it doesn’t change it.
I realize that not all religious people are fanatics or lunatics, but religion gives fanatics and lunatics a platform to behave abysmally. It also gives people a platformto be unaccountable for their actions. That is why I gave it up, for the 100% unadulterated freedom of Nihilism. the choice to decide who I am, decide my purpose and decide my consequences. And until you’ve walked on both sides of tehfence as I have, I really don;t see how you can understand. No offense, but I just don;t think you’re presentable able to understand where I’m coming from. I’m not a victim. I just made a consious choice to choose for myself. Religion does not give you the same benefit. It just doesn’t. Or it wouldn’t exist to begin with.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:48 pm#264
While I’m not Catholic (I’m like the only Italian/US citizen that’s not, I think) Giacomo
I’m an Italian descendent U.S. citizen who is not Catholic – I’m an Atheist…
December 21st, 2005 at 9:58 pm#274 clarification
when I was consequences, I mean in a “Heaven or Hell after life” context.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:02 pmwhen I say consequences, I mean in a “Heaven or Hell after life†context.
I need to stop typing tonight… too many errors…
December 21st, 2005 at 10:07 pmGiacomo —
December 21st, 2005 at 10:07 pmHere is another Example of “DAILY” Terrorism.
I’ve supplied just a hand full of resources that are suited to someone of your ‘diminished’ capacity. I can get increasingly more technical if you like, but we both know you don’t have the ‘chops’ to keep up.
Again, you claim to know about capital markets and then post articles in support of your claim from 2004. Don’t you know that the world markets and economy, especially with regard to the flow of money changes MONTHLY, but I digress.((((((((((But to respond to those articles Article 1 – This year, 2005, has seen an increase in venture capitalism in the US again. By it’s very nature though, venture capitalists often seek emerging technologies AND emerging markets. Article 2 – I’m not sure if “colorlines magazine” is the best source for economic info … buut … this article discusses capital flight in reference to offshoring and outsourcing, the current whipping boy I guess. Offshoring, as I’ve said, before is due to our move out of the agrarian and industrial economy into the digital age … those that are fulfilling the older jobs (China, India) can do so because they work for less and are less educated than the US workforce (which demands better, more stimulating work on the whole). The article mentions white collar offshoring but that topic is discussed more in your 3rd article. Article 3 – More about the offshoring but this time about the digital offshoring … a totally new beast. This phenomenon is like aformentioned industrial sector but to a much smaller level. If the US is going to be an open market economy, then this practice needs to be allowed … companies in an arena of increasing competition must find competitive advantages wherever they exist. Offshoring is not the demon … although I see the government placing further restricitions on it in the future (out of political pressure))))))))
But, I guess if the source of my information was what I read on the internet, and not what I did for a living, I’d make the same mistake.
How exactly does your ability to source an article through google make you well versed in capital markets and capital structure … I’ve told you this is what I do for a living yet you insist on answering me with articles that you “found”. How that translates to your own personal knowledge and depth on the subject, I don’t know. Forgive the pun, but your knowledge of finance is clearly “bush” league. When YOU actually have something to say, and not something that any moron could regurgitate from a google search (or night class at the local community college) you let me know.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:08 pmMiami serial rape suspect escapes jail
Police say Reynaldo Rapalo tied sheets, climbed from roof
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Posted: 9:28 p.m. EST (02:28 GMT)
Reynaldo Elias Rapalo, who escaped from a Miami jail, is suspected in a string of rapes.
Miami (Florida)
MIAMI, Florida (AP) — A man accused of raping seven girls and women in Miami’s Little Havana neighborhood escaped from jail by crawling through a ceiling vent and then climbing down from the roof using tied-together bed sheets, police said.
Police searched neighborhoods, airports, rail stations and ports for Reynaldo E. Rapalo, 34, who broke out of a Miami-Dade County jail Tuesday night, police said. A man who tried to escape with him was caught after he jumped and broke his legs.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:09 pmoops. #290. forgot to change name.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:10 pmI’m an Italian descendent U.S. citizen who is not Catholic – I’m an Atheist…
I know you’re an Atheist. Gregor logically assumed Italian ergo Catholic, I think. That’s a fair assumption, given that I already said I was a dual citizen. Most Italians are Catholic (if they are of a particular religious persuasion).
December 21st, 2005 at 10:11 pm#279 i mean.#279, 281 meant for Giacomo —
December 21st, 2005 at 10:15 pmI asked you about Nihilism early because I wondered if you knew anything about it. It’s the believe that there is no purpose in life. At first that seems dark and depressing, but when you really study it, Nihilism is actually the ultimate in freedom.
Sounds pretty horrible to me but I’m glad it works for you. In order to believe in a purpose, one has to believe in a “right and wrong” way to fulfill that purpose … some find this uncomfortable.
People do force their religion on those of us who do not want any. I gave you wars where this is the case. There are ‘mercinaries’ in third world countries who offer people food to convert. There were the Inquisition and the Crusades to force poeple to convert or they were murdered. Want proof? Go outside and tell people you don’t believe in God and see how they behave. Religion has a very bloody history, I’m sorry if that makes you sad, but your denial of it doesn’t change it.
Again, you equate religion with faith and they’re not the same. People are fallable and downright evil to one another … this does’t marginalize the faith because they’re acting in ways that are inconsistent with that faith. Feel free to disagree, of course, but why would you define a faith only by the worst of its adherants. For every Hitler, there’s a mother Theresa (as I said earlier).
It is totally the Christian requirement that in order to get into heaven (the goal), you must follow the rules. Hence the ten commandments and the Bible. I actually think you are not seeing it objectively.
This may be your experience, but is as far from the truth of Christ as possible. Christ said, he came to 1) fulfill the law and 2) help people have abundant life … he actively harrrassed the morally pompous and saved his sharpest rebukes for the piously religious … Christianity is not about rules …
I realize that not all religious people are fanatics or lunatics, but religion gives fanatics and lunatics a platform to behave abysmally. It also gives people a platformto be unaccountable for their actions.
To be sure, much evil has been done in the name of religion … those who engage in such a way are fooling themselves if they believe their faith is a valid excuse or source for barbarism. It’s not. There’s not much I can say other than I’m a Christian and that is not the correct understanding of Christ’s message (unnacountability) … quite the opposite.
That is why I gave it up, for the 100% unadulterated freedom of Nihilism. the choice to decide who I am, decide my purpose and decide my consequences. And until you’ve walked on both sides of tehfence as I have, I really don;t see how you can understand. No offense, but I just don;t think you’re presentable able to understand where I’m coming from.
To be perfectly obvious you moved from one extreme to another. The “if Religion is all about rules and can’ts then I’m going the entirely opposite direction, where there are no rules and only perspective”. I’ve had friends who thought similarly. Interestingly enough, all of them at one time were church members (or had family members who were) … they observed huge amounts of hypocrisy and self-serving religion and decided that they wanted no part of it … perhaps had I been confronted with the same, I would’ve done the same. Let me say that your understanding of Christianity is not at all what the real message of Christ was … be careful that you don’t take a few verses out of context to build a theory upon. I’ve been a Christian for many years, but find quoting the Bible to non-Christians to be of no use, so I won’t … I’d be happy to discuss this in further detail via a medium that would better allow.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:27 pmI meant to say perfectly honest … not obvious. Must be getting tired.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:29 pmGiacomo, Religion is for people that can’t accept “our” fate. I have no problem with people of faith..good for them. Just don’t impose it on us. Most need to find “meaning” in life. I am comfortable with there is none. I have a brother that is a baptist minister and a daughter that is a “born again” Christian.. would never try and change their minds. However, to believe that in order to get to heaven they must vote for replublicans sickens me.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:50 pmIn addition the thread is illegal electronic survailance. Not one of your very eloquant posts can ansewr the simple point.. GW didn’t need prior approval do do this..just that within 72 hours they notified the court. How can you defend that?
For a similar argument, check out this post from JABBS.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:13 pmJoefriday
I did not start the tangent but was asked a question that caused the tangent … I’ve posted ad nauseum about this NSA issue … look earlier in this thread and a few of the other ones on the same topic … off to bed I go.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:16 pm“I know you’re an Atheist. Gregor logically assumed Italian ergo Catholic, I think. That’s a fair assumption, given that I already said I was a dual citizen. Most Italians are Catholic (if they are of a particular religious persuasion).
Comment by Giacomo ”
This explains why you’re clueless on american values and the constitution. You don’t belong in this country, the followers of mussolini and fascism have no place here!
December 21st, 2005 at 11:18 pmGeoMetro,
I post resources, and all you come back with is generalities. Clearly you’re incapable of even discussing the topic, as you offer no counter point to the one that I presented and PROVED. You’re a fool, a liar, and an idiot.
What you think is ‘capital flow’, is largely currency exchange and is unrelated to the actual topic. A manipulator of third tier financial instruments that involve speculative gambling have nothing to do with corporate capital flow – but it does show the level of ignorance you possess.
You do realize that american companies receive tax break that allows U.S. businesses to defer tax payments on income earned abroad, thereby increasing capital flight and a wide variety of economic ills don’t you? Or had that little ‘fact’ escaped your overinflated pea brain?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:24 pmThere’s nothing wrong with ‘religion’, it is the practitioners that are consistently clueless… Just like economics practiced by morons like GeoMetro. Forgive them for they know not what they do in their ignorance…
December 21st, 2005 at 11:25 pmRyan. Your take on Giacomo is correct..A Wolf in sheeps clothing. Or, so conflicted he can’t differentiate capital flow from currency exchange. Supports the neocon fascists but, feels bad about it..kinda. off to sleep when he has been trounced.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:34 pmGregor logically assumed Italian ergo Catholic, I think. That’s a fair assumption, given that I already said I was a dual citizen.
Comment by Giacomo — December 21, 2005 @ 10:11 pm
Yes, I ran with the odds -as you already said.
Don’t you know that the world markets and economy, especially with regard to the flow of money changes MONTHLY, but I digress.(…) But, I guess if the source of my information was what I read on the internet, and not what I did for a living, I’d make the same mistake.
Comment by Giacomo — December 21, 2005 @ 10:08 pm
There is an easy way to settle this: post references. I am sure the data you mention can be found on the web. Or a magazine. Give us sources, so it is not your word against someone else’s. Preferably a serious source -but you already know what I mean.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:26 amThis explains why you’re clueless on american values and the constitution. You don’t belong in this country, the followers of mussolini and fascism have no place here!
Comment by Ryan Neat — December 21, 2005 @ 11:18 pm
With all due respect -please be careful with this line of attack. I respect your opinion and think I know what you were trying to say but be mindful that not all Italians are or were fascists.
Alessandra Mussolini notwithstanding, neo-fascism is a fringe movement in modern-day Italy.
My two cents.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:06 amRyan,
No problem. I was a little taken aback, that’s all.
I appreciate your consideration of my post.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:56 am#283
I’m an Italian descendent U.S. citizen who is not Catholic – I’m an Atheist…
I know you’re an Atheist. Gregor logically assumed Italian ergo Catholic, I think. That’s a fair assumption, given that I already said I was a dual citizen. Most Italians are Catholic (if they are of a particular religious persuasion).
Comment by Giacomo — December 21, 2005 @ 10:11 pm
Okay, I think I see… no offense Giacomo, but you take everything seriously, as if it’s a loaded gun pointed at your head. I guess you assume we feel the same way. Not so. You’d said you were probably the only Italian American who wasn’t Catholic. I was stating that I was as well. Just playing… you know – a joke. But your response seems very defensive. That’s part of what I’ve been trying to explain as to why I gave up that side of the fence.
Knowing that your eternal soul depends on judgment causes you guys to be much more defensive, because you don’t want to be falsely judged. I don’t think you know how much of a burden it is to take every comment or criticism so seriously, because it’s the only way you’ve ever lived. I got sick of it. Now, I don’t take a lot seriously. IRI called me a Bitch. Some of the guys here got upset with him, because it seemed disrespectful. He was kidding, but you guys on the right usually don’t. It’s why we think you are all paranoid and uptight – you’re always worried about being judged and burning in Hell. We’re not.
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:39 am#285
Sounds pretty horrible to me but I’m glad it works for you. In order to believe in a purpose, one has to believe in a “right and wrong†way to fulfill that purpose … some find this uncomfortable.
Not so. I don’t believe we have a purpose that is pre-determined. I believe we have individual purposes that are self-chosen. And it’s not only not horrible, it’s extremely liberating, because you aren’t held to some pre-conceived idea or purpose that you don’t like or believe in. I was an okay architect, never really liked it and definitely didn’t believe in it. Thought that was my purpose because I am artistic. In contrast, I am an excellent teacher. This is because I defined my purpose as doing something I wanted and believed in.
Actually the belief of ‘right and wrong’ is what causes much conflict in our lives, because as much as you guys say it’s been decided, the reality is that it hasn’t been decided. Right and wrong are personal perspectives. It’s why two people will look at the same thing and have different opinions. It’s why we watch so many of you beat your heads against the wall trying to get us to agree with your way of seeing right and wrong. It matters to you. To us, live and let live according to your own values – until you infringe on others and then we have a problem.
I’d tell you to watch the gorillas or chimpanzees, to see how other social apes (we are apes), manage to survive just fine without religion, law and order, or prison – but I don’t know if you’d get that. Because they do. Social animals learn a basic social sense of right and wrong from living in tribes. Religions came after human beings, so they derived their sense of ethics from human culture – not the other way around. And therefore, religion is redundant.
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:50 am#285
Again, you equate religion with faith and they’re not the same. People are fallable and downright evil to one another … this does’t marginalize the faith because they’re acting in ways that are inconsistent with that faith. Feel free to disagree, of course, but why would you define a faith only by the worst of its adherants. For every Hitler, there’s a mother Theresa (as I said earlier).
I’m not confusing them. They are synonimous…
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n. 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; “he lost his faith but not his morality” [syn: faith, religious belief] 2: institution to express belief in a divine power; “he was raised in the Baptist religion”; “a member of his own faith contradicted him” [syn: faith]
ADVERTISEMENT
Related ads:
End of Faith
Mormon Religion
Christian Faith
Islam
True Religion Jeans
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:55 am#285
This may be your experience, but is as far from the truth of Christ as possible. Christ said, he came to 1) fulfill the law and 2) help people have abundant life … he actively harrrassed the morally pompous and saved his sharpest rebukes for the piously religious … Christianity is not about rules …
It’s not my experience. It’s an objective view of Christianity. It is, however, your view of Christianity. You know there are thousands of other takes on the same topic? Why should I hold yours any more relevant than someone elses? I don’t. I think you’re certainly entitled, but you are not representative of the majority.
Here’s some other stuff Jesus did or said (which validates my claims that religion mongers fear and therefore you must either follow the rules of Christianity to gain access to Heaven, or wind up in Hell). And it’s just the tip of the iceberg…
Matthew 26:51
And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.
Matthew 26:31
Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Mark 10:14
But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
That’s some serious and heavy stuff…
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:12 am#285
Christianity is not about rules
Of course it is…
Deuteronomy 4:13
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:13 amAnd he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
#285
There’s not much I can say other than I’m a Christian and that is not the correct understanding of Christ’s message (unnacountability) … quite the opposite.
You have to prove it. You’re just saying it. That makes it simply your opinion.
I never said Jesus told you to be unaccountable. STop twisting my words. I said that because Christianity establishes rules for reaching the ultimate goal of Heaven, that people become unaccountable. They say “I’m just doing what I’m told”. Hitler said in Mein Kampf that he was following the rules… I’m not saying all people take Hitler’s views. I;m just saying that most people who take Hitler’s view do so in the name of religion. Atheists do not have a code to misinterpret. There’s a major difference.
Here’s one place where Hitler took his unaccountable direction to slaughter the Jews from Christianity the religion…
Esther 3:12-14 (King James Version)
source for this and all quotes in this thread: http://www.biblegateway.com/
12Then were the king’s scribes called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and there was written according to all that Haman had commanded unto the king’s lieutenants, and to the governors that were over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language; in the name of king Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the king’s ring.
13And the letters were sent by posts into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.
14The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all people, that they should be ready against that day.
Do you understand cause and effect? If Christianity says that the Bible is the word of your Lord, who commands you, then following the commandments of the Lord is just like being inthe mlitray. You follow orders, without thinking, without interpretation, period. When you follow orders, or commands, or commandments, you are simply acting without personal accountability. If you don’t see that, then it’s because you don’t want to.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:27 am#285
To be perfectly obvious you moved from one extreme to another. The “if Religion is all about rules and can’ts then I’m going the entirely opposite direction, where there are no rules and only perspectiveâ€.
No Giacomo, that’s not it at all. There are many shades of grey in between the black and white to select from. Of course I folow rules. Just not blindly. For example, I drive. That requires rules. I follow them. I am not without the willingness to follow rules. I just think about my actions and choose for myself rather than consult a religion, a faith or a book on how I should act.
I’ve had friends who thought similarly. Interestingly enough, all of them at one time were church members (or had family members who were) … they observed huge amounts of hypocrisy and self-serving religion and decided that they wanted no part of it … perhaps had I been confronted with the same, I would’ve done the same. Let me say that your understanding of Christianity is not at all what the real message of Christ was … be careful that you don’t take a few verses out of context to build a theory upon. I’ve been a Christian for many years, but find quoting the Bible to non-Christians to be of no use, so I won’t … I’d be happy to discuss this in further detail via a medium that would better allow.
Giacomo. I was a Christian for 33 years. I get it. I know the message. I was pretty religious at some points. I do know what it says. You aren’t privy to anything I haven’t already experienced. I’m not angry at religion. I just don’t buy it. It’s not necessary. I can think for myself.
The difference here is that while I full understand your side, you don’t understand mine. You might not like it. But it’s still true.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:34 am#285
I’ve been a Christian for many years, but find quoting the Bible to non-Christians to be of no use, so I won’t … I’d be happy to discuss this in further detail via a medium that would better allow.
Comment by Giacomo — December 21, 2005 @ 10:27 pm
The bible is not my authority, so you quoting it to me is pointless. But is your authority as a Christian, so my quoting it to you is valid. Sorry, there is no atheist handbook for you toquote to me. We just follow basic common sense, and I’m sorry but you don’t seem to know what that is.
You won’t change my mind. I spent years considering my ’spritual’ beliefs and am 100% committed to having no religion in my life. It’s a crutch, and I don’t need one.
I disagree. This is as good as any place for discussion, if not better because it’s neutral and there is truly a forum for free speech. My experience teaches me that when people start giving excuses for not being effective in their argument it is becasue they have no argument. Do you even know why you are a Christian Giacomo? Have you read the Bible? Have you asked yorself why you chose this? Have you actually explored other options?
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:43 amJoefriday
I did not start the tangent but was asked a question that caused the tangent … I’ve posted ad nauseum about this NSA issue … look earlier in this thread and a few of the other ones on the same topic … off to bed I go.
Comment by Giacomo — December 21, 2005 @ 11:16 pm
Actually, I started “the tangent” because I think it is actually a very relevent part of why Bush thinks he can do whatever he wasst. It’s his lack of accountability that equates to his religious fervor of absolute ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. And I wanted to expose it, because if we understand why Bush does whathe does, we will better understand why he always will and why he should NOT be in the post of President of the United States.
JFK was a fine example of how a man of faith can serve the office without imposing his views on us. G.W. is no JFK and I thought it was time to point that out.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:48 am#301
my source in #301 was http://www.dictionary.com
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:55 amIs Giacomo still around? He said:
“I’m taking a wait and see attitude because specifics haven’t yet surfaced about this monitoring thing.”
Actually, there are a number of specifics that have surfaced. How many do you need?
“I’m of the opinion that if it turns out that this NSA things was a political stunt … I’ll be all for impeachment. If it’s just about monitoring suspected terrorists”
The WH admitted that it was spying on American citizens without a warrant. NOT that they were just spying on suspected terrorists (which, were that the case, it would not have caused the bipartisan stir it has – a FISA judge resigned immediately upon hearing this out of protest. FISA is convening to discuss this and the ramifications to warrants that have been served. What is critical mass for you people on this?).
“I think there’s enough wiggle room in the Constitution and Congressional law for Bush to make his case to avoid prosecution.”
So, if they manage to slime thier way out of it legally, you will accept the verdict of ‘innocent’? What did you think about OJ?
“I AM wondering why they didn’t just ask for the warrants retroactively … that seems fishy to me, but I’ll wait and see.”
So, you admit to having a great doubt here – you recognize that something has occurred that does not square up against the law that is in place. And still, you insist on standing by. Rhetorical question (and predictable, but seriously spend some time meditating on this question): if this were a Democrat, with the same list of activities (and in-house corruption and indictments), would you still be arguing “wait and see”? (maybe not, but it is for you to answer to yourself).
” now that we’re there we need to finish and I think that in the long run, Iraq may have a fighting (no pun intended) chance at democracy … out of the ashes could rise the phoenix so to speak. ”
And that is fine, at the expense of the ‘least of these’ in your own country, by your stance. We HAVE to finish (what does that mean? Exactly WHEN is Iraq ‘finished’? And do you think that moment (once you define it) is actually achievable GIVEN the people and religion and religious contentions in the area? Or does that mean what the WH means – we’re there forever, at the expense of our own country?). We do not HAVE to anything more than we HAD to go in (illegally). America is not good at nation building. Why not go to the UN, have them take over the oversight, and enlist their aid entirely to resolve this mess. At the very least it would be strategical gold, as the responsibility for any further problems would not lay squarely on the shoulders of every American. I am not a Christian, and while I feel for the plight of people, all in all, I don’t give a rat’s a## about Iraq, or Afganistan, or Israel, or ANY other foreign nation: I care about America and Americans. We have plenty of poor, and plenty who need our aid right here in this country. My Christmas? Spending it at a homeless shelter helping out. Funny thing is, most people I have encountered doing such things on holidays are NOT Christians… the Christians are too busy indulging in the commercialization of the holiday (pick one), and sating their gluttony.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:10 pmGiacomo – as I said before, this is not a relevant forum for religious discussion (though I appreciate unbleievables posts – very well written). You have the typical Christian viewpoint – all “non-Christians” have similar, non-Christian, beliefs (which is, false). You also seem to assume (stating that quoting the Bible to non Christians has no purpose for supporting arguments from you) that all non-Christians have no idea about the bible. I was raised myself in the Catholic church. Because I had questions about the dogma and about the requirements (such as church attendance), I was denied recess for two years – and at recess time I had to sit and talk (or listen) to teachers, nuns, and priests trying to tell me, basicall, to just get in line and stop asking these tough questions. Christianity (like all other organized religions) begins brainwashing and indoctrination as soon as there is cognition, and questioning the religion is not allowed. If you have had a different experience, then you are in the minority. Fundamentalist Christianity is NO different from fundamentalist Islam (”but Christians don’t kill” – tell that to people who died or were maimed by abortion clinic terrorists… and of course, we could go through history for the LONG list of atrocities done in the name of Jesus).
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:28 pmWow, this is quite the thread. Lots of name calling and jingoism going on here, but that adds to the flavor. There are quite a few intelligent posts in there too. This may or may not be one of them…
I seriously doubt anyone here has a real job, let alone one where an MBA would be used. You all have been here all damned day. One would suspect that some are on a political parties payroll as they have an answer for everything, others are obviously O’Riley/Limbaugh type ball busters who just like to sling shit. But???
I read about the presidential powers and how some feel that the president is not limited in wartime, and some who feel that the president was given the right to do anything using a broad reading of the 911 resolution, this in spite of the fact that congressmen from both sides of the aisle have said not quite Mr. President. Still there are others who seem to feel that the president has no restrictions once in office, and they somehow bring the founders into the picture. Some view Presidential powers and say that they have accountability only at the polls. This could not be further from the truth.
A true reading of the constitution and the intent of it would reveal the truth and that is that the founders (those pesky liberals) wanted limits on the powers of all three branches and especially the presidency. We had just come out of a war for independence fought against a monarchy, we had seen the turmoil in France with their revolution and their monarchy and the founders did not want to put too much power in the hands of one individual. Even Hamilton who was more inclined towards the English way of doing things, wrote about the limits of the president and the dangers of vesting too much power with one person. That’s why they put checks and balances into the constitution, strictly to stop one branch from getting too dominate over the country. Too bad all three branches have been in lock step for 4 years now.
One of the arguments here is that the 911 resolution gave the president authority to authorize this. Gonzales has said that had they gone to congress with this there is no way congress would have agreed to it. And this is with a heavily partisan republican congress to take it to. So Gonzales has admitted that congress did not (implied) and would not (stated) authorize this program. Of course he also says that the resolution gave them authority to do it, so in the span of a few sentences Gonzales flips and flops. Congressmen from both sides of the aisle have said that was not their intention.
The biggie for me is that the administration seems to think they can act with no oversight. They say they are only spying on terrorist types? How can we trust them without independent verification? They claim the oversight function is being fulfilled by telling select congressional leaders “this is what we are doing, now don’t tell anyone” Without oversight there really is no way to know if they truly are only monitoring terrorism suspects, or if they might be spying on domestic political enemies. It’s been done before and they do have Rove on their side. They have also shown that they will use federal assets to monitor what they think are political threats, PETA, Greenpeace, Catholic Charities, Texas Legislators (republican party, not necessarily the administration) They have also shown that they will put political goals above the law (Texas redistricting). Of course the oversight in the Texas re-districting failed due to…political meddling. So who is to say that the republican party and their minions are not involved in domestic spying on political opponents? You just don’t know, but it sure the hell looks like it might be a possibility.
They do not have to make the details of what they have done public, but perhaps they do need to go before the FISA court and say here is what we have done and here is who we have done it to. They won’t do this even long after the fact…why? What is there to fear? It’s not about national security, the bad guys have known what we can do, they can get the law and read it. They roughly know our capabilities, science digest and other magazines are available world wide. They know who we get and who we don’t get simply by looking around at who is and is not there anymore. The administration has yet to prove that their smoking gun theory of spying works, or has worked even once. There is that Brooklyn bridge thing, but I think they could take a week arriving on the scene and still apprehend guys with blow torches before they did any serious damage to the bridge. I don’t see what the big deal is with following the laws of the land.
Giacomo has an answer for everything. It’s almost like you work for the White House, but they wouldn’t monitor sites like this where they suspect political opponents might be…would they? Capital flight is occurring dude like it or not. Take a look at our balance of trade that is a component of capital leaving the US.
Giacomo, you will probably read an comment on this point by point telling me how I am wrong. But aside from that could you answer this question in a separate thread. I used to be a hard core republican, dues paying, frothing at the mouth, Clinton killed Foster, we do no wrong, they do no good. That sort of type. I had been away from the church for a good 15 years and when I started going again and reading the bible studying Jesus my views began to change. Couple that with my reading more and more about the founding fathers and their intentions for this country. Anyhow, since the Christian community seems to be claimed by the right I was wondering how the teachings of Jesus (a very liberal individual) are supported by conservative doctrine? I just don’t see the connection beyond hot button issues such as abortion, prayer in school etc… But those issues are narrow and not all encompassing. I think the greater message of Christianity is completely lost on the right.
Oh well I have a real job to do so I’ll check back later on the answer to the Christianity question.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:32 pmGiacomo – and you cannot source the Christian Bible as authority to a non-Christain and expect it to be taklen seriously any more than an Islamic can source the Koran to YOUY as an absolute authority: you would deny it, as you do not believe that that piece of work, written by a man (God never came down from heaven and penned anything… He did not), is authoritative. If your authority is a religious text, you are already well on the way to blind fundamnetalism, in any religion, and that leads to intolerance, and that leads to evil. As another poster says – blessings.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:34 pmI forgot to add that a true reading of the constitution also includes how you look at it? Do you want to follow the framers intent? Are you a strict constructionist? Do you believein an evolving document that changes over time (framers intent by the way). How do you look at it?
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:35 pmMark #311 – I’m a nobody here, but thanks for the post. I must go, as well.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:40 pm#311
Oh well I have a real job to do so I’ll check back later on the answer to the Christianity question.
Comment by Mark — December 22, 2005 @ 12:32 pm
Your negative judgment of others is simply astounding. I’m a teacher and school is out for the semester.
The answer to the Christianity question is that people like you give it a bad name.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:45 pmSo that is why the republicans claim christianity? Interesting. Great phillosopical base for inclusion.
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:54 pmSo that is why the republicans claim christianity? Interesting. Great phillosopical base for inclusion.
Comment by Mark — December 22, 2005 @ 1:54 pm
The Republicans have no interest in inclusion, and lately, the left really isn’t interested in hanging around with people who claim to be pious, but then cut funding to programs who need support the most so they can go fight pre-emptive wars, and then come back and force their religion on others by declaring a nonsensical War on Christmas where they will throw away mountains of food they don’t want the starving to have.
We’re a bit tired of the hypocracy and unjust persocution that is ruining this country.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:01 pmHmm, the left cut the funding? Interesting Last I checked all dems voted against the cuts, along with enough republicans to tie the vote allowing Darth Cheany a chance to use the dark side. Gee I guess that’s another example of the press being out of control.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:37 pm#318
Specifically which funding cut are you referencing here? There have been so many lately – from food for the starving to student loans. Hard to keep track with them all…
Don’t confuse moderates with liberals. That gets you absolutists in trouble on a regular basis.
There are Democrats owned by Corporate America who serve their Dark Lord just as well as the Republicans. I am speaking of the liberal left.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:50 pmWOW … I’m having brain burn … way too many responses to my responses for me to … respond to. Especially given that the thread is getting old.
To mysticagent – I appreciate your comments … some of the things I said you slightly misread or misunderstood (for example, why I wouldn’t quote the Bible … the reason I didn’t is exactly why you state in post 312). I will try and respond to some of your points in the next day if I can.
To Mark – I have an MBA, work in finance … and take days off around the holidays … I spent far too much time here yesterday, but I like the debating with those that don’t agree with me.
To unbelievable – I appreciate your candor and thoughtfulness … while I disagree with you a lot, I still enjoy the tenor of your comments and can appreciate your take on things. If you’ll allow me some time, I’ll respond to your comments and questions … I had/have several clients to assist today so I can’t right now.
To Ryan – It still appears that you’re posting based upon “stuff” you’ve read once … that makes for an an educated opinion, but perhaps not an informed one. Capital flight (as you referenced it) does not at all speak to Worfeus’ statement about Americans (the rich ones) taking their money elsewhere. Most of the companies that are investing overseas (in the forms of human capital, production and infrastructure … ie. supply chain stuff), still take their earned capital and invest it here … that’s what I was speaking to about Capital Budgeting and Capital Structure and its conveniently left out of the off-shoring debate. Also conveniently left out of your argument is the number of foreign companies that off-shore to the US … especially with their capital investments. The amount of the “in motion” money on the world scale in our capital markets is staggering and part of what drives our economy (especially as we move further into technology). If you don’t like off-shoring because it costs Americans their jobs, fair enough, but don’t use one sided documentation that manipulates the actual effects of the money trail and the “flight” of capital.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:30 pmOh, and To Gregor … the reason I didn’t “cite” my data is because it’s based upon my work experience and daily dealings in the finance industry … If you were an electrical engineer and spoke about electrical engineering, I wouldn’t expect that you needed to cite either. Ryan understands just enough of finance and economics to be dangerous … but not enough to be fully informed. When he posts articles (especially those from 2004) about the state of finance and the flow of capital (all types of capital flow) … from which he claims he knows more than I do about the subject, I wonder if he also goes to his Medical Doctor and argues about diagnoses because he read something about medecine once.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:36 pm#319 I was referring to #317, but then went back and re-read what he said. I mis-read him and my response was not needed I guess.
#320 Finance? Advance Corporate Finance is the last class I need to complete my MBA. I think I could have made a better choice for a final elective, but there was not a whole lot of real choice so I get what I get.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:46 pm#320 Finance? Advance Corporate Finance is the last class I need to complete my MBA. I think I could have made a better choice for a final elective, but there was not a whole lot of real choice so I get what I get.
I work in the financials and investment industry is, probably, a better description.
Hopefully you have a good professor … I’ve seen a huge disparity in the level of rigor and depth that corporate finance classes delve into … it may suck, but I’d wish upon you the hardest class possible b/c you’ll use your finance courses more than most anything else (at least I have). I think you made a fine choice. I too chose an advanced finance class as one of my electives (in addition to game theory, organizational change, real estate, and human resource management). Have you read the syllabus yet? What will you be covering?
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:34 pmTo unbelievable – I appreciate your candor and thoughtfulness … while I disagree with you a lot, I still enjoy the tenor of your comments and can appreciate your take on things. If you’ll allow me some time, I’ll respond to your comments and questions … I had/have several clients to assist today so I can’t right now.
No rush Giacomo… we all have jobs. Fortunately mine is on break for now. We can talk more later.
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:35 pm“To Ryan – It still appears that you’re posting based upon “stuff†you’ve read once … that makes for an an educated opinion, but perhaps not an informed one. Capital flight (as you referenced it) does not at all speak to Worfeus’ statement about Americans (the rich ones) taking their money elsewhere.”GeoMetro
You’re showing your ‘ignorance’ again. Most large american wealth is sheltered through corporate structures, and international investment vehicles, whether it’s investing in a Munich sewage system, or outsourcing is actually done through corporate and shelter corporations. My statements not only speak to what worfeus said, they explain it. Your ignorance however confirms what I said, that you’re a 3rd tier desk hack who deals in speculative financial instruments for those who don’t possess real wealth. You’re a hack, a moron and a fool, as is demostrated by your complete lack of knowledge on this topic.
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:14 am“Oh, and To Gregor … the reason I didn’t “cite†my data is because it’s based upon my work experience and daily dealings in the finance industry …” GeoMetro
Translation: I’m making this crap up, and if I tell you specifics, or fake it and try cite REAL data you’ll know what a fool I am, and how little I actually know.
GeoMetro, we all know you’re lying, just give it up.
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:15 amGeoMetro,
Go ask your ‘boss’ what a Domiciliary Company is, maybe you’ll eventually learn how money works, and that you’re just a little rat in a maze you don’t even know exists.
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:17 amTo use Cheney’s line of reasoning:
Either you want Bush and Cheny impeached, removed from office and tried for treason, or you want to tear up the Constitution and revert to a dictatorship.
Either you want to conduct a real war on terrorism and finally get Bin Laden, or you want to keep sacrificing American lives in Iraq so that Cheney’s Halliburton stock options can skyrocket.
Either you believe that Dick Cheney is lowest form of pond scum ever to talk out of one side of his mouth, or your IQ is too low to register on standardized tests.
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:43 am#323, nope have not read it yet. We just finished International Marketing (a better choice for a last class IMHO) so I have been laying low. My Syllabus was a booklet and looked to daunting to tackle prior to the holidays.
December 23rd, 2005 at 9:19 amMost large american wealth is sheltered through corporate structures, and international investment vehicles, whether it’s investing in a Munich sewage system, or outsourcing is actually done through corporate and shelter corporations.
Most wealth is sheltered through corporate structures eh … and in international vehicles eh … given that I do investing for both corporate and individual clients, you are staggeringly ignorant about this subject.
Just to show all that Ryan is a totally uninformed … let’s look at one of his moronic claims … international “vehicles”.
1) Investing in international bonds (ie. the Munich Sewer Syetem) leads to several risks for the investor that are greater than in domestice investments …
a) Currency risk – exchange rates rise and fall … the Euro to Dollar difference could result in a loss (or gain). Since the Euro is currently weakening to the dollar, anyone who invested (or continues to under the Ryan Neat capital flight theory as he explains it) in Int’l Bonds is LOSING MONEY … but of course, you knew this, right Ryan. (some int’l bonds are yankee bonds … issued in US dollars)
b) Sovreign risk – the risk the government policy could change and effect the investment (like what happened in Cuba when Castro took over)
c) Liquidity risk – the risk that the holder of the investment can’t “move” (ie. sell) said investment.
d) Default risk – the risk that the company can’t pay the individual the periodic payments or the original principal back as stated in the bond contract.
Some of these risks are in the nature of all investments but what’s significant is that they’re all higher for international “vehicles” (this does depend on the individual investment though). Ryan, your capital flight argument (and the truth about actual capital flight) is a phenomenon mostly limited to the off-shoring and out-sourcing debate. Not capital investments. Not capital budgeting or structure by CFOs. Not ordinary investing by the wealthy. Stop arguing … better to have people believe you actually know something than to be proven to be a ignoramous by someone who actually does.
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:19 pmMy Syllabus was a booklet and looked to daunting to tackle prior to the holidays.
Have fun …
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:20 pmKds Bbs Pics Underage Porn Kid Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 6:20 amFiona
Hello, I have a few websites of my own and I must say that your site is really top notch. Keep up the great work on a really high class resource.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:09 amPee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 7:50 amnew zealand currency
Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:19 amKds Bbs Pics Childporn Underage Nudist
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 7:21 amMy Cracks and Serials
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 2:25 pmKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 2:14 amJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:03 amAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:20 pmPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 11:01 amYetta
Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.
March 29th, 2008 at 6:24 amTim
April 4th, 2008 at 1:18 amGreg
April 4th, 2008 at 1:18 amJessie
I could not believe the amount of quality material on this site. The site is extremely eyecatching and pulls the reader straight it, the articles are great quality and are very professionally written. I have seen too many of these sites where it looks…
April 4th, 2008 at 3:10 amPassive Foreign Investment
Found your blog on yahoo – thanks for the article but i still don’t get it.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:15 amCheap Vacation Deals
I can’t wait to get back to Grand Cayman for my next vacation but I don’t think the current dollar exchange rate will hold up for long.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:15 pmCracks House
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 12:27 pmDirect Flight To Las Vegas
A planned life is a dead life. ~ Lauren Bacall
May 14th, 2008 at 2:19 pmPierce
I had some great things and I had some bad things. The best and the worst… In other words, I had a life. ~ Richard Pryor
May 15th, 2008 at 10:10 amLas Vegas Computer Service
Love is life. All, everything that I understand, I understand only because I love. ~ Leo Tolstoy
May 16th, 2008 at 10:17 pmCock Mommy Loves Cock Cocks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 18th, 2008 at 4:39 amPsychic Reading Email
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:00 pmVacation Rental Vacation Package Cruise Travel
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
May 19th, 2008 at 10:50 amWedding Dresses Secretaries In Short Skirts Stockings Tight Braless Shirts
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:31 pmMortgage Calculator Currency Conversion Financing
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
May 24th, 2008 at 6:23 pmfree direct tv satellite tv system
. As a result, TrackBack spam filters similar to those implemented against comment spam now exist in many weblog publishing systems.
May 25th, 2008 at 3:19 amDogs Ugliest Dogs German Shepherd Puppies
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
May 26th, 2008 at 5:05 amCar Loan
Qualify for a car loan to come across a small truck in 20 hours by working with a unimagiable community.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:28 amWhat Are The Names Of The Online Banks
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:05 pmNiven
I just wanted to say that the quality of your site is exceptional. On top of all that it really complements the content that is provided by your site.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pmJack
Interesting site.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:00 amAlice
As a result, TrackBack spam filters similar to those implemented against comment spam now exist in many weblog publishing systems.)
May 29th, 2008 at 9:23 pmlawyers usa
The wonderful things around the net and blogs is it allow you to type in an area of law or a lawyer or firm name and pretty much immediately find out if they are good at what them do.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:18 amCock Dog Dick In Pussy Sucking Dick
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 31st, 2008 at 12:28 amprovision half life 2
With the application of robotic systems, telesurgery was introduced as the surgeon could operate from a site physically removed from
May 31st, 2008 at 9:04 amSaving Money At The Gas Pump
Thanks for this post!
May 31st, 2008 at 4:05 pmAnti Virus Antivirus Filing Bankruptcy
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
May 31st, 2008 at 8:29 pmPollyanna
You always have a choice, even if it is only a choice of your attitude
June 1st, 2008 at 10:21 amjet power tool
June 1st, 2008 at 4:00 pm\”2005,12 11\”
tramadol
June 5th, 2008 at 9:26 am\”2005,12 11\”
soma
June 5th, 2008 at 9:26 am\”2005,12 11\”
soma
June 5th, 2008 at 9:26 amWorld Map Map Of Africa Australia
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 5th, 2008 at 3:27 pmTawana
inspires them. In this sense everything that comes from love is a miracle.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:24 amDistance Learning Colleges Deck Plans
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pmCheap Flights First Class Interantional Flights – Tickets Airfares Travel Cheap Air Flights Go American Airlines
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 8th, 2008 at 3:54 pmJournalism Wall Street Journal Viewpoint Media Player
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 10th, 2008 at 5:57 amBasketball Play Basketball Games Soccer Moms
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 12th, 2008 at 5:07 amKuvashan
I just came across your blog and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here. I also have websites & blogs so I know what I am talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great w…
June 17th, 2008 at 8:13 amNutritional Supplements Vitamin World Cholesterol
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 17th, 2008 at 6:30 pmMy Trusted Cracks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
June 18th, 2008 at 6:24 pmunited arab emirates culture
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:43 amburt reynolds
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..
June 19th, 2008 at 7:13 amfree arab movie
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
June 19th, 2008 at 7:44 amnancy agram before
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
June 19th, 2008 at 10:22 pmDavis
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:23 amBest Buy Cheap Wedding Invitations Online Shopping
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 20th, 2008 at 12:36 pmasp web hosts
I can’t believe that I missed your point, I will have to do some research on this.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:56 amAmerican History Aztec Gods American History X
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 29th, 2008 at 8:28 pmquit smoking
Very handy info. Good work. :)
June 30th, 2008 at 5:01 amBetter Business Bureau Work From Home Businesses Businesses For Sale
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 30th, 2008 at 5:20 amJack
I love your Free Mp3 Download. They really look very nice. The articles provided are long enough to provide great content but not so long as to be totally engrossing, if you know what I mean.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:12 pmJobs Welding Jobs Tug Job
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 pmJoe
I just wanted to tell you that your site is really awesome and is of a fantastic quality. The content is great and I will be returning.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:45 pmStock Market Stock Prices Mutual Funds
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
July 5th, 2008 at 1:06 amInformation Learn Quit Smoking Today
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are ~ Theodore Roosevelt
July 5th, 2008 at 8:46 pmInvesting Line Make Money Online Quote Stock
After reading this post, I am not sure I understand what you are trying to relate. Please expand on your thoughts a little more. Thanks
July 6th, 2008 at 1:19 amvalium
valium pill
July 6th, 2008 at 8:43 amPayday Loans Online
July 7th, 2008 at 12:23 pmBad Credit Loans Auto Loans Mortgage Refinance
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for