I am glad to return the bog back to its traditional roots. I prefer to post without high maintanence friends. Gay issues are not a high priority and I seldom post on the subject without 167 or someone else changing the topic.
I also spent way too much time on Falwell and Robertson. I am neither Christian nor conservative but the rhetoric had gone too far.We have socities that kill Gays and the liberals are upset over boycotts at Disney.
The very people who claimed this site was a hate site had zero problem with hate . Thehypocrites have zero problem with hate as long as it is aimed at President Bush and Falwell.
People should stand upto the left when the attacks get ridiculous. If you think the greatest problems in the world are Bush and Falwell then you just aren't playing with a full deck . B whom I respect will come down disagree and make valid points.
There is a problem with some on the left and the over the top rhetoric about jooos
orchestrating the war for Israel , Bush is a terrorist change zero minds. In fact such sophomoric rhetoric pushes people away.
The problem with alot of liberals is they have forgotten what a moderate is. There are political extreemes but elections are won by talking to the center. The presence of the blame America first and only crowd has been the Jim Jones cocktail for the Democrats.Rather then look at the message the Dems blam Fox News and Religious Christians. The truth about the demise of the Democrats is its failure to moderate and present a positive vision or solve a single problem. Bush lied troops died gains zero votes among moderates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
B
I find it hard to get worked up about Ambasador Wilson . His wife was not a field agent and has not ben one for a long time. Right now the government gets a tad absurd with the security .
If you read the posts about ethnic profiling part of the confusion was
I was told never to say where I work. Thus when the police asked me I told them I live over there. My supervisor explained that when I am asked again and it is a matter of time to respond.They take security very seriously.
B I disagree about Karl Rove and at this point he is moot. The President has three more years and will ride off into the sunset.
The problem I have with your side of the aisle is a lack of vision. I am differentiating patriotic liberals from the extreemists.
The key to Iraq is how fast we can get the Army ready. I just am not as optomistic about Afghanistan because it is an artifical creation. The Pashtuns are large enough to have their own home land like the Kurds but Pakistan would never allow it.
A Pashtun homeland would cut the legs out from alot of the anarchy in Sothern Afghanistan. The remaining nationalities would have a greater chance at a functional state.
The question that I have asked is where do we go from here. The Democrats should have proposed an alternate vision. We have a problem this is how we plan to deal with it.
There is some truth that extreemists on both sides of the aisle block progress. Before London
I allready had my eyes on the future. The question all of the regular folks should ask is what do we want for the future.
I may have to violate another taboo
and do a post on insurance reform.
This is not a sexy topic but a lack of choice and over regulation
is killing the system.
I, for one, would be interested in some discussion of insurance reform, particularly in health-care reform. Right now, I'm trapped in no-man's land since my car accident of May 17: my health-insurance carrier doesn't want to pay any bills related to the accident, and the cabbie who rear-ended me may have only minimal coverage and likely has few assets to support a payout to me. I'm supposed to wait for a settlement some two years down the line and just suck up all the bills until then. I've contacted three attorneys, and none of them wants to take my case because there's little in it unless the state's insurance commissioner steps in and goes after the cab company for the negligence of allowing their driver, who owned his own cab, to drop his commercial coverage.
Meanwhile, I'm in absolute physical agony and am unable to work full time.
b,
You assume motives of retaliation and revenge from Rove and the administration, when no such motives existed. The administration simply wished to counter Wilson's assertions and point out that the "vehicle" that provided for Wilson's "investigation" was self-originating and therefore "suspect". The e-mails from Rove to the now "ethically liberated" journalist disprove motives of "revenge".
Why do YOU assume ill motives? Liberal paranoia knows no bounds.
-FJ
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it's a duck. It blows my mind the hypocracy of many republicans. I can't believe you are defending a traitor who outed an undercover CIA agent and LIED to the public that he had NOTHING to do with it. It really solidifies my belief that many republicans don't care about democracy because they hate dissent. They would rather stay in power at all costs then be held accountable to the people. Reminds me of Nixon, a lover of democracy.
FJ, if you honestly believe that there was no ill motive than you are NOT living on planet earth and nobody can help your myopic view of the world. And if outing a CIA agent is merely showing that the "vehicle" may have a motive is absolutely ridiculous. Thanks for proving that anyone who criticizes this is unamerican. Oh wait, I thought we lived in America where politicians were supposed to be held accountable by the public. I guess you would rather live in Iran where you must agree with the government or be killed.
- B
(writing from someone elses computer)
B,
Please, descend from your high horse and speak with us mortals.
from Reuters...
"Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying he had been sent by the CIA in 2002 to investigate the Bush administration's claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa -- a claim that the administration used to justify going to war in Iraq. Wilson said he found no evidence to support the claim.
The Newsweek article said an e-mail Cooper sent his bureau chief after briefly talking with Rove stated that "it was, KR said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd (weapons of mass destruction) issues who authorized the trip."
The e-mail did not suggest that Rove used Plame's name or that he knew she was a covert agent, the article said."
Now please explain to us how this constitutes undeniable "proof" that Rove intended to "OUT" Wilson's wife as RETRIBUTION for some act on Wilson's part.
You've gone from A to C without passing through B.
You've done it to Rove... and you've done it to me.
Try applying Ocham's Razor for a change. Duck's can be misleading.
-FJ
B,
More on the Evil "Rove"...
msnbc story
-FJ
b,
I've got no problem with punishing Rove for disclosing that Wilson's wife worked for the agency. What I've got a problem with is you whacko paranoid freaks spinning your conspiracy theories about "targetting" political enemies for deliberate destruction. You got the motives ALL WRONG and you simply can't admit it. And targetting ROVE is precisely what YOU've just been caught doing. So no, I don't "agree to disagree". YOU were wrong.
And by the way, in most countries, they SHOOT those that speak out against their government during times of war. I wonder WHY those countries take such DRASTIC measures? Could it be because of the possible HARM they are doing to their homeland's hard won efforts? Could it be because they are showing unconscionable lack of common sense and good judgement?
-FJ
ps - I'm more liberal than you'll ever be. Only I've got enough sense to know when to be conservative as well. During war, "that's the time!"
"A time for EVERY season, under heaven" (Ecclesiastes & Turn- turn turn by the Byrds)
I hate resorting to name throwing, but it seems like that is what you have resorted to, with that in mind, you are a tool!
-B
B
Time for a refresher in the Wilson affair. Wilson a former Clinton official vehemently denied his wife had anything to do with the selection. This has turned out to have been false from moment one. His wife should have been fired for the violation of Nepotism. Wilson himself has listed his wife's profession on the internet long before Rove.
Rove's comments were an explanation
to a reporter who wanted to know why a Clintonista was sent on an important mission by the White House. He never was sent by the administration and lied through the entire episode. Moreover the Brittish still stand by the yellow
cake stories.
About Nixon hold on . Nixon was a war time president who did molre for this country then any President except Reagan. The behavior he was pursued mercilessly
for was trivial. Later it was eclipsed by the Clinton scandals.
Filegate with Hillary's hands all over was much more serious then Watergate.
Nixon passed more liberal legislation then Clinton. He also was a pragmatist and sought real solutions. Next time you tell us to get over Clinton you should get over Nixon.
Even if Rove did exactly as you describe the behavior is not traitorous. Plaime was not a field agent and there was no damage nor intent to damage anyone. Plaime should be sitting on the unemployment line as she clearly used nepotism and her motives were
less then sincere.
Keep the hypocracy coming, I love it!!!! The more defending you guys do over this behavior the more irrational your side can be.
-Beaks
No doubt Nixon did some very good things for this country, but he also did some very bad things. Are you actually defending breaking into a political opponents office to bug them is trivial? That is the basis of democracy. But I guess democracy doesn't matter in a time of war, huh? We should just conform and do what "they" tell us to? Well, f@8k that, that is undemocratic and unamerican.
-B
B,
Ouch! All I can say is "You must have seen me standing naked in the shower". And you know what they say about sheds? You can judge the size of tool by the shed built to keep it under.
Now take off the filters for a moment, take a deep breath and ask yourself this question, "What names did I call you?" I may have cast a few dispersions upon your "attitude" and some more general ones of "paranoia" shared amongst liberals in general (which you may have identified with), but I don't think I called you any names.
-FJ
ps - Do you remember a WH leak called the "Pentagon Papers"? Ever wonder why Liddy's unit were called the "plumbers"?
pps - Which are we B, a "republic" or a "democracy". And if we're NOT a democracy, does that mean nobody is required to keep you informed as to what's going on?
B
That is strange because when Hillary had files of 100 GOP activists nobody blinked. That was far more serious then Watergate.
Do you feel the same way about the Pentagon papers or is morality selective. Nixon was a Giant compared to Clinton as a President and as a man. Then there was the matter of Marc Rich , cattle futures, travel gate and contributions from China all of the above were way more serious then Watergate. However Clinton selfishly sacraficed his party rather then yeild to Gore. Gore would have had the advantage of incumbency but with the Clintons it is all about them.
Even President Clinton said the days of judging Nixon by Watergate
alone should end.
all right...here goes...deep breath...ok, calm now.
FJ- when you say "liberal paranoia knows no bounds" you are directly speaking to me. Also the comment "you whacko paranoid freaks" is directed towards me. Secondly, when you say things like "come down from your high horse and speak to us mortals" when all we were doing was having a debate cheapens everything we have been saying. It is comments like that why democrats and republicans will never see eye to eye.
I have had tons of great civil debates with Beaks and this is the first one in which I lost my temper (if you can call it that.) I don't find that a coincidence at all. It says to me that beaks tone of debate is civil, yet yours brings out the worst because it is combative and not open to listening to other perspectives. You have your view of the world and nothing will shake it. That's fine, but then don't debate anyone because your not going to change anyone's mind.
-Beaks, sorry for the uncivil speach, it was out of line. But let's get to the pentagon papers. That exposed a huge lie that the American government was putting on the citizens on why we were in Vietnam. The Valerie Plame situation has nothing to do with getting the "truth" out. It is about discrediting a dissenter.
Context matters.
We are not talking about Clinton. Why is it that anytime somebody brings up something bad the republicans do they always bring up Clinton? It is a diversion and takes away from what we were talking about.
Lastly, Gore distanced himself from Clinton, not the otherway around.
-B
B
Seriously are you saying with the Pentagon papers the ends justify the means.Plaime and her husband lied from day one and she should have been terminated.
Lets compare Filegate to Watergate.
Hands down filegate was far more serious but the media gave Hillary a pass.
B do not worry about the rhetoric I do not take that seriously at all.
Craig Livingstone was hired by Hillary . FBI files just mysteriously end up in the whitehouse. If you beieve for a second that this is a phony scandal I will sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Maybe the vast right wing conspiracy put them there. The press gave Hillary a pass.
While we are on the subject What administration used the Rico act against political opponents ? Thats right the Clintons used the Rico act against anti abortion protesters. Did you worry about government harassment of political opponents. I am prochoice but that was disgusting. Yet nobody said a word but let Bush do that to Code Pink.
The Rico act was intended to prosecute organized crime. I hope
you are not going to excuse that
abuse of power as well.
b,
Yes, my tone got rather abrasive. But let me offer a few quotes of your own, written all before I had penned my first line...
"we currently have traitors in the white house"
"we are no better then an Iranian theocracy"
"this behavior the most treasonous you have ever seen"
"hypocracy [sic] of many republicans"
"lack of caring on the right"
"those on the right don't care about democracy"
a quote from Plato's "Meno"...
SOCRATES: In order that I might make another simile about you. For I know that all pretty young gentlemen like to have pretty similes made about them--as well they may--but I shall not return the compliment. As to my being a torpedo, if the torpedo is torpid as well as the cause of torpidity in others, then indeed I am a torpedo, but not otherwise; for I perplex others, not because I am clear, but because I am utterly perplexed myself. And now I know not what virtue is, and you seem to be in the same case, although you did once perhaps know before you touched me. However, I have no objection to join with you in the enquiry."
-FJ
This may be difficult to understand for people inclined to vote Democrat or otherwise unquestioningly think whatever the mainstream media tells them to think, but a rather interesting way to look at this Karl Rove / Valerie Plame "crisis" is to apply a little bit of what we Republicans call "thinking for yourself."
Karl Rove has cooperated fully with the investigation, even to the point of signing affidavits authorizing all concerned to release and disclose fully whatever and any records or documentations of interviews they have with him.
Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter, is sitting in jail for refusal to answer questions in a grand jury investigation seeking the source of her information on Valerie Plame.
Is Judith Miller sitting in jail to protect the identity of Karl Rove?
I'd bet on a snail winning the Kentucky Derby first.
Farmer John, (please)
Could you explain to me the significance of this portion:
"As to my being a torpedo, if the torpedo is torpid as well as the cause of torpidity in others, then indeed I am a torpedo,"
As I would understand it- in paraphrase:
As to my (causing sluggish mindedness), if the (person causing sluggish mindedness) is (sluggish minded) as well as the cause of (sluggish mindedness) in others, then indeed I am a (person that causes sluggish mindedness), ....
I hope it reads better in Greek!
That sentence drags its fingernails across the chalkboard of my mind!
Mr Beamish,
I hope the liberals pursue this to the bitter end. That's why I've been keeping my mouth shut.
The more they continue to act like the aggrieved party the more cynical they seem.
Chuckie Schummer (et al), let it be known, when GW won in 2000 that they would obstruct everything the Republicans did. At that time they said it was because he wasn't "legitimate"(ly) elected. Now they are just carrying on in the same vein.
This is just another attempt to "Bork" someone in the administration. Endless shovels of mud, hoping something will stick.
Warren,
What we have is aftermath and bad blood leftover from one of the dirtiest political campaigns in American history - one in which the mainstream media blurred the lines between itself and the Kerry campaign. Remember Rathergate. Joe Wilson wrote an article in the New York Times critical of Bush (and in contradiction of his own reports to the CIA) that the Senate Intelligence Commitee found to be false on all counts. It was later found that Wilson was working for the Kerry campaign when he wrote his bullshit article. Wilson's website was once part of the Kerry campaign's web operations. Valerie Plame herself is publicly listed as a donor to the Democratic Party, using a CIA front company as her tax shelter (yes, liberals, this is illegal AND unethical).
So, the Rove "scandal" makes me laugh. It's going to bite an already politicized left-wing media on the ass, again, when they have to admit that they been caught lying to try to damage Bush, again.
I reckon smarter people'd stop misunderestimatin' the guy by now.
Thank God our political rivals are Democrats.
Warren,
You need an ancient Greek perspective... for there is obviously a slight "translation" issue.
The ancient Greek perspective you need to be aware of comes from idea of a duality - separation between mind and body... you are attributing all of the torpidity to "mind", whereas the torpidity (stiffness) is temporary and all of physical "body".
In other words, if I fuel enough doubts in your mind to keep it from action based upon its' previously held judgement/ opinion, it will cause you to not act on what you previously thought to be true... it will render you physically "stiff" or inactive... UNTIL you've resolved these doubts of mind and come to a different conclusion/ judgement/ opinion that allows your body to resume action, without having to think further, upon them. We resume action only after a new conclusion has been arrived at.
And so, while the body displays "inactivity", the mind is "racing"... and when the mind has decided and "stops"... the body resumes physical movement and action on the basis of the new decision.
And so I read the passage this way...
As to my being a (torpedo - source of doubt in mind that causes bodily inactivity), if the (torpedo - source of doubt in mind that causes bodily inactivity) is (torpid - doubtful in mind therefore bodily inactive himself) as well as the cause of (torpidity - doubtfullness of mind and subsequent bodily inactivity) in others, then indeed I am a (torpedo - source of doubt in mind that causes bodily inactivity), but not (other "wise": bodily active knowing something you don't and therefore having "no doubts" of mind myself");
Make sense?
-FJ
warren,
Of course, context would have helped you figure that out... from Plato "Meno"...
"MENO: O Socrates, I used to be told, before I knew you, that you were always doubting yourself and making others doubt; and now you are casting your spells over me, and I am simply getting bewitched and enchanted, and am at my wits' end. And if I may venture to make a jest upon you, you seem to me both in your appearance and in your power over others to be very like the flat torpedo fish, who torpifies those who come near him and touch him, as you have now torpified me, I think. For my soul and my tongue are really torpid, and I do not know how to answer you; and though I have been delivered of an infinite variety of speeches about virtue before now, and to many persons--and very good ones they were, as I thought--at this moment I cannot even say what virtue is. And I think that you are very wise in not voyaging and going away from home, for if you did in other places as you do in Athens, you would be cast into prison as a magician.
SOCRATES: You are a rogue, Meno, and had all but caught me.
MENO: What do you mean, Socrates?
SOCRATES: I can tell why you made a simile about me.
MENO: Why?
SOCRATES: In order that I might make another simile about you. For I know that all pretty young gentlemen like to have pretty similes made about them--as well they may--but I shall not return the compliment. As to my being a torpedo, if the torpedo is torpid as well as the cause of torpidity in others, then indeed I am a torpedo, but not otherwise; for I perplex others, not because I am clear, but because I am utterly perplexed myself. And now I know not what virtue is, and you seem to be in the same case, although you did once perhaps know before you touched me. However, I have no objection to join with you in the enquiry."
-FJ
Farmer John,
Now I understand.
You were right, I was assuming it refered to the mind only.
I am now un-torpified! :^)
Thank you.
Mr Beamish,
Guess who just happened to show up with the, "clairvoyant", Joe Wilson for a "Press Conference"?
Chuckie Schummer!
What an amazing coinceidence.....Not!
Warren,
Guess who just happened to show up with the, "clairvoyant", Joe Wilson for a "Press Conference"?
Chuckie Schummer!
Well that changes everything!
This is now no longer a Democratic smear job orchestrated by grandstanding party hacks. This is now a Democratic smear job orchestrated by grandstanding party hacks that hold elective office.
You can hear the mainstream media groaning at the inclusion of Schumer. The difference will be obvious. The tone will change as people begin asking why Schumer is involved. Some blogger might take us down memory lane to visit Schumer's past crusades against Republicans and how they ended, without consequence.
Ahab had better luck with Moby Dick.
The harpoon was darted; the stricken whale flew forward; with igniting velocity the line ran through the grooves;- ran foul. Ahab stooped to clear it; he did clear it; but the flying turn caught him round the neck, and voicelessly as Turkish mutes bowstring their victim, he was shot out of the boat, ere the crew knew he was gone. Next instant, the heavy eye-splice in the rope's final end flew out of the stark-empty tub, knocked down an oarsman, and smiting the sea, disappeared in its depths.
LOL!
Post a Comment