Pre-Inauguration Thread
So far so good. Everyone is excited over the arrival of our Messiah :) Bush has just commuted the sentences of the 2 ex-border agents convicted of shooting an illegal
. Are more pardons coming?
Someone mentioned the cool scenario of Bush pardoning everything that moves in his administration, then resigning with one hour left in the presidency. Cheney becoming the 44th President and pardoning Bush thus completing the circle. Heh.
Y'all excited?
Submitted by Ender on Mon, 2009-01-19 14:50
Tags:

Comments :
On my Super Bowl prediction from 6 weeks ago....
I predicted here that it would be Pittsburgh and Carolina.... and if Jack Delhomme wouldn't have been in the tank and paid off by the mob, my prediction would've come true.
As it is... I was half-right. But at least it was the most important half.
Go Steelers!
I survived the Bush Administration
I'm an AFC guy - 3rd generation Charger Season Ticket Holder...
..and I would usually be conference loyal...but the Cardnials are such a underdog, and I luv Kurt Warner...
So I'm taking Arizona and the spread.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I have to go with the Cards too
Although Kurt Warner's excessive God man-love is getting a bit upsetting. Maybe Leinart can finish the season and I'd be happy.
If I was a betting man, I'd definitely take the over in this game.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
No pun intended, seriously.
It's in the cards that Matt Leinart is to be a flop.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Please elaborate...
I think he's a stud, and will hopefully pan out...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'm a Niners fan, I'll take Arizona. But I think Pittsburg's D
Might overcome the Cardinals O.
It will be a fun game to watch.
Please, kindness, PittsburgH is spelled with an "H"
Show the proper respect for the city that houses the greatest franchise in all of professional sports.
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Go Riverhounds! :)
n/t
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Delhomme almost throws picks all the time, what's new?
Steelers are just lucky that McGahee is a magnet for memorable huge hits in big games.
Every year it's proved even more that Findlay High School's head coach must have been a genius to put Big Ben at WR as a junior, so that the head coach's son could play QB.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
My two cents here:
First of all, it's not surprising that G. W. Bush pardoned the 2 ex-border agents who were convicted of shooting an illegal alien. Whatever reservations I have about the number of illegal aliens coming over the border, they didn't deserve to be shot and killed.
Secondly, No....I've got to admit that I have no excitement over the Inauguration of Barack Obama, since politicians are politicians, imho. I'm just not into the idea of sitting around watching hours of boring speeches, concerts, etc.
Have you followed that case...
...because it was the biggest cluster f^c& of justice ...!
They should have never been tried, and then our government never filed the right paperwork to holdover the lifelong scumbag criminal, so he walked out of prison, a free man.
I would have been outraged if he had not pardoned them.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
technically it was a commutation
not a pardon. They're still guilty but their sentence has been reduced.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yes I See....
I was just reading the article...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
He wasn't killed.
IM - they didn't deserve to be shot and killed.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4LOL! Most excellent point!
...and one that made the whole thing that much more ridiculous!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'm sure he won't do this ...
Ender - Someone mentioned the cool scenario of Bush pardoning everything that moves in his administration, then resigning with one hour left in the presidency. Cheney becoming the 44th President and pardoning Bush thus completing the circle. Heh.
... but wouldn't it be amusing to watch the Democrats if he did! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This is it!
The most powerful nation on the planet transfers control, peacefully and with the consent of the people.
Come on, you know you're proud of the US right now ;-)
Yes indeed
Also cautiously optimistic -- there are trying times ahead, we face uncertainty abroad and economic turmoil at home, but I think we will pull through stronger for the challenge.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
High Five
We did it! We are awesome!
I'm only half stupid
Feels kinda like the day the Berlin Wall came down...
...here's a cartoon from Spain:
The world is rejoicing today.
I survived the Bush Administration
You certainly are having fun... ;-)
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I am proud of the fact that we finally have a black President.
And that he got there not because he was given a pass, but because he won it fair and square. His political rivals (on both sides of the aisle) did not give him an inch and he still prevailed. To me this is a critical point and one that I have asserted has been possible for years. The calls of racism here have been completely overblown for years at this point. Do fringe groups still exist? Yes. Is it a widespread problem that the average American is a black hearted racist? I don't think so.
This election and the fact that Obama made it there in spite of his color (rather than because of it) simply confirms that view, IMHO.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Good post, GR. I agree completely.
America is growing up.
I survived the Bush Administration
Black hearted?
Nah.
However, there is still that bit of latent racism that exists in a lot of rural whites' hearts (and also in ghetto-trapped blacks'). Most of that comes from simply not ever knowing or meeting any blacks in day to day life. Fear of the unknown is where that hatred comes from.
Still to this day the question "Do you live in a good area?" is basically code for "Do you have a lot of non-whites living nearby?" Or at least it has been in my experiences.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Correct
Obviously, today's historical significance shows the progress we have made as a nation. We awoke to King's dream.
It is a time to reassess our racial relationships and be proud of all that we have fought for. Does that eradicate our history? No, but it lessens its effects. Does that mean we should let our guard down when it comes to racism and bigotry? Never. If the turbulent times of slavery and the civil rights era were a wildfire, Obama is definitely the sign that the fire is 100% contained, but that does not mean there are not still hotspots out there that may flare to uncontollable levels if left unchecked.
The next fronts of the culture war will be fought over homosexuals. Obama gives me hope that this war can be won in a generation also.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
And the last one
Will be acceptance of atheists.
Right now there are more gays in Congress than atheists and the atheist just "came out" a few years ago (Pete Stark, D-CA if you're wondering).
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I don't think you can equate
I don't think you can equate religous discrimination to skin color. Skin color is just that, color. Religion ( or lack of) otoh is whole wordview, a whole way of looking at the world.
Does that matter?
equivilencies aside, if there is nothing wrong with atheism then it seems fair to expect equal representation.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Who said there's nothing wrong with atheism NT.
NT.
And to follow up
Who said there's anything wrong with slavery?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
And to follow that up, who
And to follow that up, who said anything about slavery.
Stinerman is just walking through the back door the you opened
The book the you implicitly cited to say there was something wrong with atheism.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Actually I didn't even say
Actually I didn't even say there was anything wrong with atheism. Rather I implied that there could be, and as to the Bible you brought that up. I know you think it makes you real smart that you know the Bible allows forms of slavery... but I've got news for you this is old news. Especially to yours truly who has read the Bible three times.
You're cherry picking the Bible.
Atheists: stop taking Bible verses out of context.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Who said anything about the Bible NT.
NT.
?
ie, the gist of what seemed to beimplied was.
The Bible gives me and majority of Americans my/their worldview.
Who's to say that nothing is wrong with the blind leading the blind if that keeps them from receiving the Holy Ghost?
Who said anything about Mathew 15:14 or John 3:16? Is that not close to what you meant?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
It's a syllogism
if there is nothing wrong with atheism then, whether or not religion equates to world view, atheists should not be discriminated against.
The first question is whether you agree suchan if-then formulation is tue, the second is whether you agree it applies to the issue at hand.
If you disagree with the first question then we have a fundamental disconnect in how we see representative government. If you agree with the formulation but disagree that it applies (i.e. that there is something wrong with atheism) then we're entering into a religious debate, which I got the impression you'd rather avoid in this setting.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Okay I'll try and quit beating around the bush
"if there is nothing wrong with atheism then, whether or not religion equates to world view, atheists should not be discriminated against." Agreed. But then even if I decide there's nothing wrong with an atheist as it relates to how he would carry out his duty, someone else might disagree, and it wouldn't be discrimnatory for them to do so. Just like I might think a conservative world view is a good thing (generally) for governance, I would consider someone to be a bigot if they thought having liberal worldview disqualified them for office.
"If you agree with the formulation but disagree that it applies (i.e. that there is something wrong with atheism) then we're entering into a religious debate, which I got the impression you'd rather avoid in this setting."
Of course I think there's something wrong with atheism. However, that doesn't mean I don't think atheists couldn't perhaps make good leaders, if somehow they came to the same values that I have. I am rather skeptical, though, when I think of atheist regimes I think of Communism and the French revolution. All clear as mud.
Are you sure that isn't discriminatory?
The difference between voting based on religious affiliation versus voting based on liberal or conservative outlook is that those latter options are political philosophies. They directly bear on the policies that the politician is likely to enact, and hence are directly material to whether they do what you want them to. On the other hand knowing a person is an atheist really doesn't tell you anything about what policies they support. In that sense religious conviction is closer to say skin color than political inclination.
Isn't discrimination the act of making a judgment based on criteria that have nothing to do with the actual judgment (i.e. asians can't drive, jews love money, blacks play sports, etc.)?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Maybe, but I think religion
Maybe, but I think religion could give one strength to do their job and guidance when things aren't clear. But like I said I probably would vote for an atheist if he or she had the same values as me politically. That does seem rather unlikely, though, which probably explains partly the lack of atheists in congress, atheism does seem to lead to people having different political values.
There are likely a lot of closet atheist politicians
Blaming atheism for Pol Pot or Stalin is like blaming the Amish for Usama bin Laden, because they both believe in the same god.
Jingoistic-xenophobic-patriotism mixed with absolute conviction that one is right is more to blame.
Pol Pot, Hitler, and the members of the French Revolution were raised Catholic. Also, Hitler never claimed to be a non-believer, he as at least a deist or pagan at the "worst" anything less would be un-Germanic.
Stalin was raised Eastern Orthodox.
No one really blames teaching kids a non-Protestant religion for creating mass murderers.
Also Stalin/Pol Pot didn't think they were commanded to do their actions because they had no deity.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Yeah well, I didn't say
Yeah well, I didn't say anything about Pol-Pot or Hitler. However, the french revolution was rooted in the idea of almighty power of reason, and quite frankly reminds me of the thinking of a lot atheists today.
The citizens of Jericho would be please that they aren't alone
...and the Crusades and Holocaust were also rooted in the belief in an ultimate truth that the followers were willing to kill for. See a pattern?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Of course if one doesn't
Of course if one doesn't believe in an ultimate truth worth fighting for, what do they have worth living for?
Don't get sucked in...you just give some platform for them...
...to air their otherwise benighted ideas.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Who said anything atheist regimes?
:-)
Yes, it would. That is the definition of prejudice. That person would be pre-judging someone based on a particular belief they hold. There is an intersection between faith and politics mostly because a faith will inform one to how their politics should be carried out.
Forgive me if I'm speaking too much for you, but I'll assume that you think abortion is wrong at least partly because of your faith. Fair enough. However, if someone comes to the same conclusion using a different faith (or lack thereof), it shouldn't matter. What you're really looking at (or rather should be looking at) when in the ballot box is the end-game rather than how he got there.
To put it another way, the fact that a particular candidate does or does not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was born of the Virgin Mary is of no use in deciding whether or not one should cast their vote for him. These are purely theological issues and have absolutely no bearing on one's politics.
This is actually quite disheartening. Perhaps you do not know enough atheists and have a poor impression of them. Personally, I know quite a few, and I can assure you that they are, on the whole, good people. Atheists are as diverse as Christians. In fact they are just like any God-fearing person you'd meet on the street except that they don't believe that God exists.
I'm reminded of a time when a friend of mine mentioned a Jewish friend of his. I can't remember how the conversation got there but he said "and there are people who think she is part of a conspiracy to rule the world". This made me wonder ... how many Jewish people do I know? The funny thing was that I didn't know because I didn't really care to what religion my friends ascribed. If I found out tomorrow that Brutus converted to Hinduism, it would not (and should not) matter to me because he's still the same Brutus that was on my football and wrestling teams. Of course, I'd think his beliefs were incorrect, that is to say, not true (just as you think my atheist beliefs are not true), but he'd still be Brutus and he'd still be my friend.
Most of us are not out to create a global atheist caliphate. We just want people to take us at face value.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
"Yes, it would. That is the
"Yes, it would. That is the definition of prejudice. That person would be pre-judging someone based on a particular belief they hold. There is an intersection between faith and politics mostly because a faith will inform one to how their politics should be carried out.
Forgive me if I'm speaking too much for you, but I'll assume that you think abortion is wrong at least partly because of your faith. Fair enough. However, if someone comes to the same conclusion using a different faith (or lack thereof), it shouldn't matter. What you're really looking at (or rather should be looking at) when in the ballot box is the end-game rather than how he got there."
I pretty much agree with that, which is why I say I think I would vote for an atheists if they had the same values as do I. I seriously doubt there's very many ( I mean ask yourself how many of your atheist friends are pro-life) which means that some of the reason for people not voting for an atheist may indeed be about the endgame- the fact atheists don't share the same values as they do. However, none of this deals with the fact that an atheist would not have the same strength or guidance to draw on. But then I think God equips everybody with reasoning ability, so this might not be a problem for me.
"This is actually quite disheartening. Perhaps you do not know enough atheists and have a poor impression of them. Personally, I know quite a few, and I can assure you that they are, on the whole, good people. Atheists are as diverse as Christians. In fact they are just like any God-fearing person you'd meet on the street except that they don't believe that God exists."
I apologise if I seemed to bashing atheists as people, its not that I think they're bad people, its just that the historical examples I've seen of governments which worship human reason, and have no religion to limit them in their excess tend to be very bad. I don't think atheists are bad people at all -except in the sense that we're all bad sinners. You would be right in guessing that I don't know any atheists, except for on the internet. And the only bad trait that seems to run among atheists is arrogance and disdain for religion. I don't how much you can blame people for not voting for people who think they are insane, as has been stated of believers on this site. Would you vote for someone who said atheists were insane?
To be fair
Most historical examples of governments which do have religion aren't so hot either.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Tis very true
It seems to me that governments from protestant countries have the best record, but of course that's far from perfect.
Pro-life atheists
I'm pro-life to a point. It is my opinion that there is a particular point during gestation in which the "baby" becomes "alive" to the point that it has all the rights that the rest of us do. Where is that point? I'm not sure, and the answer to that question has eluded me for years. However, I think it does exist.
Constitutionally, I do not believe the Federal document speaks to abortion in any way, so legality should be reserved to the states. I would press my state representatives to outlaw 3rd trimester abortions, but keep them legal for certainly the 1st trimester and probably the 2nd trimester depending on where one would find that line. The only exception I'd recommend is for health of the mother. Rape and incest can and ought to be "nipped in the bud" as it were in the 1st trimester.
It is funny that you ask that because I probably have voted for politicians who have less than glowing reviews on atheists. As far as I know, every last politician I have voted for is a Christian. As far as I know, I have never had the option to vote for an atheist. However, the personal faith of the politician in question wouldn't come into play, so it'd be a wash in the end in any case.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well voting for a Christian
which of course you would have to do, and voting for one who calls you insane are two different things. I just don't think there's many people who will vote for people who call them insane - thats not to say all atheists consider theists to be insane.
We agree about the courts when it comes to abortion I think
and about the courts in general. That's my number one issue, so you agree with me on my number one issue, ironicaly we probably vote complete opposites since its not your number one issue.
It is not
It isn't even on my top ten.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Have you ever though about it from this perspective?
To your post;
I'm pro-life to a point. It is my opinion that there is a particular point during gestation in which the "baby" becomes "alive" to the point that it has all the rights that the rest of us do. Where is that point? I'm not sure, and the answer to that question has eluded me for years. However, I think it does exist.
Constitutionally, I do not believe the Federal document speaks to abortion in any way, so legality should be reserved to the states.
Maybe think about this...
"Article VI of the United States Constitution states that three things are the Supreme Law of the Land: "This Constitution ... the laws of the United States ... made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties ... made under the authority of the United States." Conspicuously absent from this list is a court opinion.
At the time that the Constitution was written, it was universally understood that court opinions were not laws. Therefore, under no circumstances could it be contended that federal court opinions are "the laws of the United States" within the meaning of Article VI."
Please read more...
The US Congress and local legislations make laws, courts enforce them, we have lost ourselves in a world of jurors prudence!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Just because the courts are at the end of the legal system,
doesn't mean they "enforce" the laws, and words are just words, someone has to decide what the laws mean to be able to find if someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not many laws are quantitative.
There's also a reason why overly ambiguous laws are thrown out.
I'm going to hire you to paint my house and if you try stepping on my property, I'll get you arrested for trespassing.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Maybe later...sort of multi tasking at the moment...
...but if you want to argue activist judges should be making law in this country, I'd love to discuss that with you.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
degrees of severity
Which of these two statements sounds more extreme to you:
1) people who believe x are clearly insane, OR
2) people who believe X are hated by the one true god who is the judge of all that is good and will be consigned to endless torment.
To my mind the second is vastly more judgmental and frankly horrible. The first option allows for an affliction, i.e. something that is not automaticaly the person's fault. It isn't necessarily a personal failing. The second statement on the other hand is explicitly saying the belief is evil, whats more it says that an eternity of torment is the just and correct punishment (because a perfect god of course cannot be wrong in His judgment).
On top of that a great many atheists do not in fact say that religious types are insane, whereas the central doctrine of christianity ex[plicitly states the second choice above (time and again).
So while you don't expect christians to vote for people who call them insane, do you have any problem with atheists being expected to vote for those who consider them literally evil?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You've got a good point
Which supports what I said that if the tables were turned, no Christians would be getting elected, but of course atheists don't usually have a choice.
As to number two, I don't believe God hates atheists, neither do I believe in an eternaly burning hell fire. I really don't see how people live with the prospect of their friends or familly or perhaps themselves, or anybody for that matter, burning forever in hell fire. This belief makes God out to be a tyrant by any definition of tyrant that's any good.
I honestly hope
that if atheism become more mainstream that faith will simply not be an issue in politics. If my senator is devoutly christian I really don't care, unless he's injecting his faith into the political arena. That I do have a problem with. Put it this way- he can pray to whomever he wants, he can have whatever religious books he wants on his shelf, and he can confess (or whatever) to any priest he wants, but his oath of office should be sworn on a constitution, because that, not any religious text, is the bible for our country.
As for the second matter, I think that's commendable of you. Unfortunately I think it also puts you at odds with Christian dogma. Hell is a pretty central belief to christianity seeing as it is integral to the story of creation as well as the role of Christ as savior. Would you agree with me that a cursory at least semi-literal reading of the bible supports the statement I gave?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Tlaloc geeze...
Faith is, and always has been a part of the human condition dude.
It is and always has been a part of the American experiment.
It always will be, but when and if atheism ever becomes a non issue in politics, it will be because it has found some degree of "mainstream" place in society, as it will have then found representation in politics...
You are really on a roll on this atheist deal, huh?
BTW - Faith does no denote an old testament perspective, some oppressive hierarchy, or what have you ...for heavens sake... ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'm not sure what your point is here
faith is a fairly universal human trait, certainly, particularly if you want to argue that atheism or agnosticism is just another form of faith. But that's not really the point. the point is about the domination of our secular government by a small handful of faiths to the exclusion of others, when those faiths have no material bearing on the ability to do the job.
I actually hadn't planned to start any religious topics since it was a semi-touchy area for JM (and i honestly respect that people have some things they just don't want to argue in certain venues, or at all), but the topic keeps coming up regardless (obviously the overtly religious inaguration plays a part).
I certainly agree that not all people of faith are christians nor are all christians fundamentalists. However the fact is that fundamentalists are the most overtly political faction of christianity at this time.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
"actually hadn't planned to
"actually hadn't planned to start any religious topics since it was a semi-touchy area for JM (and i honestly respect that people have some things they just don't want to argue in certain venues, or at all), but the topic keeps coming up regardless (obviously the overtly religious inaguration plays a part)."
No worries, nobodies called me crazy yet. :-). No seriously I don't mind discussing religion here, I just got burned out once from one of the conversations. I think I'll try and avoid debating the core issue of religion's truth, but I don't mind discussing religous doctrine, or the issue of religion in politics ... I know those two issues do intersect, but there's also a point on this issue where we can agree or at least debate - at least if we accept the other's premise and debate them on the ground of that premise. I am not particularly interested in debating the premise, one has to be open minded to changing their premise in order for it to change, in which case I would love to discuss it with them, but nothing going to be won by just debating.
Faith...fairly universal...?
faith is a fairly universal human trait.
Fairly? Huh?
the domination of our secular government by a small handful of faiths to the exclusion of others.
You mean the small handful of faith's that represent the overwhelming majority of citizens in our nation?How Surprising, or not?
To the exclusion of what religions? Those small fringe element religions that are just making headway in our country, or all religions/anti religions because you believe we should be this homogenized country.
Odd?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Stop buying into his obvious strawmen.
Our government is neither secular nor dominated by any specific faiths. Seperation of church and state, people. It's there and always has been.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The surprising aspect
is not that christians make up a majority of congress and presidents, that is to be expected as the nation is majority christian. Just playing the odds roughly 70% of our government officials should be christian. But playing those same odds about 14% of those officials should be atheists. Another 4% should be pagan. Another 4% should be hindu.
But they aren't. They aren't even close to that. As before the number of atheists in the entire history of the US congress is 1. It should be ~ 75 to match the demographics of the country for just the current congress. Now does it have to strictly match the demographics? No of course not. But when it is radically and consistently skewed from the demographics in a way that penalizes a significant minority you have to start asking questions.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
"As for the second matter, I
"As for the second matter, I think that's commendable of you. Unfortunately I think it also puts you at odds with Christian dogma. Hell is a pretty central belief to christianity seeing as it is integral to the story of creation as well as the role of Christ as savior. "
It puts me at odds with most Christians yes. However, it does not put me at odds with the Christian doctrines of creation and redemption, as a matter of fact I would say my beliefs make sense of Christianity than what an everlasting hell does. I believe in eternal death, where sinners are destroyed to never live again. This is the result of sin, because sin separates us from God who is the source of life. Christ died on the cross so that we could be saved from sin and death by acepting his grace, through confession and repentance of our sins. In other words you just replace eternal hell with death and I believe what other Christians do in regards to salvation.
"Would you agree with me that a cursory at least semi-literal reading of the bible supports the statement I gave?"
It would support the idea of a hell that burns "forever". The key word here is forever, the greek behind this not only mean forever, but can also mean " unto an age" or I think basically imply until something has finished its course, or until death. We see this usage of forever even today in our own languange. The Bible is very clear that the penalty of sin is death, and that the dead know nothing ECCL 9:5, therefore it follows that sinners do not live in hell for an eternity, and we should take the other interprtation of the word forever.
I should clarify that I do believe in hell, I just beleive that its going to be short, though perhaps Hitler will roast a bit longer.
Just out of curiosity
and I mean that literally, I'm not trying to argue your spiritual beliefs, just trying to get a better sense-
You said earlier you had a hard time with the idea of people imagining ther friends burnign in hell, but from what you say here it sounds like you do believe sinners go to hell, they just don't remain there indefinitely. Was it just the eternal part that bothers you about the more conventional christian faith, or am I misreading your comments above?
As for your view of the afterlife, I would agree that it makes more sense given the assumed traits of the christian god, but as before it is not the standard view of the afterlife in any of the major faiths I'm aware of. Catholics have Purgatory in addition to the Heaven/Hell dichotomy, but I don't know of any faiths that get rid of hell or even use an abreviated hell as you seem to suggest. The point being only that when I vote for a christian I have every reason to assume his faith says something very similar to my second statement above.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yes its the burning forever
Yes its the burning forever that bothers. It seems reasonable that some extreme pain for the wrong they've done. However, the idea of a never ending hell is something I don't understand how people live with let alone reconcile to the idea of loving God, not thats why I don't believe it - I also don't believe its scriptural.
"but I don't know of any faiths that get rid of hell or even use an abreviated hell as you seem to suggest."
The Seventh - Day - Adventists (my church) believe in the after life the way I've described it. I think Jehovah Witness also believe in anihalation of the wicked, and I'm not sure what the Mormons believe.
Interesting
I'm not that familiar with seventh day adventists (obviously), I'll have to research them a bit.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Ahura Mazda almost likes your views on hell, Allah too
...and the Greek word for "soul" can be meant to mean breathing.
One of the local papers today had an article from 1915, I had the hardest time reading the thing, it was using words in ways I've never seen them used before. Imagine if someone today had to translate that thing into Spanish and then years later translate that into Mandarien. And then picture someone trying to understand the original article as it was meant to to read.
I've always liked the take on heaven and hell from Zoroastrism, everybody goes to heaven, just some people take a pit stop before that. Same thing with Islam.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Atheists aren't evil
They are just not yet saved.
And though I say that a bit tongue in cheek, I think it is a more realistic way to characterize it. Honestly, I don't think there is that much difference between how an intolerant religious person views an atheist, and how an intolerant atheist views a religious person. Both see the other as not having seen the true light, so to speak. And I think both would believe that it is possible for the other person to eventually come around to the "correct" belief.
Edit: Perhaps "intolerant" is not the correct word here, but I'm not sure what is.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
What's all this talk about oppressed atheists?
Since when are the atheists oppressed? Whose jack boot is resting on their necks?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It isn't overt
And you knew what I meant, but I'll enlighten you all the same.
Fact: An atheist cannot be elected President in this country.
At last check a majority of Americans would not vote for a "well qualified member of their own political party" if that candidate was an atheist.
Can you honestly say that doesn't bother you? Oh, our friend GoRight has some great ideas on the economy and how best to tackle education. However, he doesn't believe in God, so screw him. I'll vote for the other guy.
People will defend this as a "values" thing. However, if you replace "he doesn't believe in God" with "he's black" or "he's jewish", it's suddenly a different story.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Of course if atheists were 86% of populations
I bet you we would never ever see a Christian president.
I will take that bet
We've elected Jews (1.7%), Buddhists (.7%), and Muslims (.6%). Why haven't we elected what I will charitably call "non-believers" (~10%)?
However the point is that most people would consider voting for a Jewish President.
Or a black President.
Or a latino President.
Or even a homosexual President.
But not an atheist President.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Meh.
I honestly don't believe this. When it comes to the ballot box I don't think your religious status matters one bit. Just like I have always maintained that in recent times (recent being loosely defined) people would be willing to elect a Black man or woman. Two years ago the political wisdom was that a Black man still couldn't be elected in this country. Now we know that is just not true. The same goes for atheists, IMHO.
I would probably be best described as agnostic, but if I had to pick one way or the other I would most likely be atheist. I don't feel particularly discriminated against. Of course I don't try to shove my beliefs down other people's throats. Many prominent atheists clearly do (and that is not prejudice talking, it is a simple statement of fact).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4They aren't orthogonal
Agnostic simply means that you don't believe that the proposition "There is a supreme being" can be proven true or false. Atheist means that your belief is that there is not.
I identify as an agnostic atheist. Given the supposed powers of a supreme being, it would be impossible to prove via the scientific method whether or not he exists. However, I believe that there is not one, but this is just a belief because the evidence is incomplete.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Actually ...
Agnostic means that I don't take a position either way on the subject, at least in my use of the term. I believe in the obvious. From a scientific point of view it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God. Given this there is no logical reason to believe one way or the other, hence I am an Agnostic. I simply don't make a choice because there is no logical basis on which to make such a choice.
Atheists, on the other hand, HAVE made a choice for which there is no logical or scientific basis. In this sense their belief is every bit as irrational (i.e. not based on sound logic) as that of any other religion. Their belief is based solely on faith.
So, as I said, I identify myself as Agnostic but if I HAD to choose I would most likely be Atheist simply because I prefer not to believe in things for which there is no logical proof. I recognize, however, that this does not mean that those things do not exist.
For these reasons I believe that Agnosticism is the only position that can claim to be logically self-consistent.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Semantics
Words change meaning. People use them differently
Closer to the original uses.
Theist = believe in a deity/deities
Atheist = Without any deity. Not, that there is no deity.
Other terms made up to clarify misuse/different use of the term atheist
Strong Atheist =makes claim that there is no deity
Weak Atheist = does not believe in any deity
I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it is unprovable that it's not real.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I will agree, to once again witness the transfer of power...
...was quite moving...
...I am so proud of our Founders, the Constitution, and the remarkable system of government we are fortunate enough to be the inheritors of.
The oath was interesting this time around...?
Beyond that, out of respect for the owner of the day, I will remain silent. ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Roberts had ONE job to do today, and he f-ed it up...
...but it was kind of cute and endearing.
Later at the luncheon, you can see Roberts and Obama joking together. I'm guessing Roberts was apologizing and Obama was saying "Don't worry about it... you can get it right for me in 2012".
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
OMG, you're right.
Obama didn't actually take the oath prescribed directly in the Constitution! Constitutionally speaking, then, I guess he still isn't President! Wait for the lawsuits! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I know...
I don't know if I should laugh or cry...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Actually... being the constitutional scholars you two are.....
... you should realize that Obama became President at 12 noon... regardless of whether or not the oath was administered.
And... for the record.... Obama got the words right..... John Roberts, who may be the least qualified Chief Justice in a century, got it wrong.
Obama waited for Roberts to correct himself... and then they proceeded with the proper wording.
I survived the Bush Administration
Geeze...
I meant because of all the lawsuits and BS that will ensue...
EZ Bro!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
They'll be thrown out with all the birther nonsense....
I AM EZ, bro....
For the first time in 8 years, I have a President with a higher IQ than me.
That's an awesome thing. ;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Rewriting history already?
Despite your claims to the contrary and the complicit media, if you actually listen to what he says carefully he did not say it correctly. Note that when he did finally finish that section that his last word was faithfully, which is incorrect. This happens at 26 seconds into the clip. :)
Do you dispute the obvious? At the very least he had an extra faithfully in there where it shouldn't have been. :)
As to whether he is constitutionally required to take the oath, I suggest that you read the constitution
, it's in there:
So, technically speaking, he did NOT actually take the word for word oath prescribed in the constitution! :-P
I guess that means that Biden is actually acting President right now and he probably doesn't even realize it. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Indeed you are right
He also added "so help me God" to the end of the oath as has every single President since FDR.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Strangely silent today, PM?
Any commentary in response? Any admissions you would like to make here oh boastful one? :)
(This is only meant as a good natured ribbing.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Charlotte cartoonist nails it...
My final post on the silly oath thing:
I survived the Bush Administration
Nailed nothing.
We already have demonstrated that you were wrong when you claimed that Obama got it right and Roberts didn't. You were wrong on both counts. The video tape doesn't lie and you just can't deal with the truth.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Are you going to claim that Roberts got it right?
Actually.. they BOTH got it wrong... and it has been rectified tonight.
But Roberts was the one at fault for it going wrong... that is ALSO clear to anyone who has seen the tape.
I survived the Bush Administration
If only the president and the court would show so much concern
for the words of the rest of the constitution.
+4
n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wow... you gave a +4 rating to a comment that
..was an indirect slam at Bush.
(by my reading).
I'm proud of you G.R.!
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Geeze, man, don't you know that Bush is no longer President?
n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You're right... but...
we'll be feeling the after effects of his Presidency for a very long time.
I survived the Bush Administration
True.
I still feel safe. Don't you?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Perfect reply! LOL!!!
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Absolutely.
PM - Are you going to claim that Roberts got it right?
In fact I already have. Don't you read these comments
we keep typing at you to correct your mistakes and misrepresentations?
PM - But Roberts was the one at fault for it going wrong... that is ALSO clear to anyone who has seen the tape.
On the first pass, yes. On the second pass, no. On the second pass it became obvious that Obama was having trouble repeating even short phrases that were being spoken directly at him. The man has the attention span of a goldfish, apparently.
If he had just followed what Roberts said the first time no one would have even noticed or cared. It would have been a minor technicality and his day would not have been ruined. No, my friend, this debacle is completely of Obama's own making.
PM - it has been rectified tonight.
And so it has
:
It should be obvious to all that this entire media flap was caused by PM's comment here
, and that the Obama administration fears my Consitutional analysis here
! That "out of an abundance of caution" quote is obviously a clear and direct reference to my comment! :)
So much for your attempted taunt here
, eh? And for your boastful (but clearly incorrect) claim here
, which I then corrected here
., and now the Obama administration admits I was correct here
.
Wow, who would have thought. The Obama administration reads SC and fears the legal prowess of GoRight! :)
UPDATE:
And a reading of the article provided by Stinerman
reveals the following:
Proof that even Obama recognizes that he has the attention span of a goldfish! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Actually, PM, I like your tag line.
You're right, you DID survive the Bush Administration. Thanks to Bush there were no further attacks on American soil by foreign terrorists.
Bush to PM: You're welcome.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You're right... I did...
But 4500+ of America's bravest didn't.
Al Qaida killed 3000 Americans..... Bush, not wanting to be beaten by Al Qaida in anything, managed to kill 50% more by sending them to a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Bush wins!
I survived the Bush Administration
How old are you?
What do you do?
What are your dreams?
How was your day today?
Well listen...
Because you may have just misunderstood the main event of your lifetime.
How's it feel to have the benefit of hindsight?
Again...the senate, house, UN, and American people all supported the war.
...but it is convenient to forget that huh?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Well... not that it's any of your business
I'm 41.
I work at a D.o.D. laboratory and have a government Q clearance.
My dreams are the same as yours... to live a long life, enjoy the company of my wife and children, see my children succeed in life, and die a happy man.
My day today has been great. The President of the United States is LITERALLY my boss... 8 levels above me, but my boss nevertheless.
For the past 8 years, I've worked for a very shitty boss. I'm excited about my new one.
I survived the Bush Administration
You provided a lot of superfluous detail...
...but in typical liberal fashion didn't address the objective issue at hand.
We'll see how you like your new boss when he cuts your budget, and perhaps your job!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Superfluous detail in response to superfluous questions
*shrug*
As for this:
"We'll see how you like your new boss when he cuts your budget, and perhaps your job!"
Not likely.
I'm indispensable. ;-)
ps. As long as there is a Nuclear Navy, I'll have a job. But... Bush's recession might cost my wife hers soon.
I survived the Bush Administration
Are you a civil servant or military?
I only ask because if your are the former you represent even more proof that the career professionals in the government have been infiltrated by hard core liberals. If the latter, you are probably an outlier but I thank you for your service either way. :)
This does explain your desire to gloat so much, though, and your tag line.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm a scientist, working at a lab
That's all I can tell you.
...or else I'll have to kill you.
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Response #2: "I survived the Bush Administration...."
".... but my 401K didn't."
ba-dum-bum.
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Spoiled brat...
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You can thank Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for that...
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Interesting....
From January 2001 to January 2007, neither Frank nor Todd controlled any committees in congress.
Not one.
The GOP ran the executive branch and the legislative branch.
If so many Republicans saw this financial mess coming back in 2004 or 2005 as you have said, why the hell didn't they do something about it when they controlled all the levers of power in Washington?
Sorry..... Bush and the GOP are 100% responsible for any legislation or executive orders that did or did not happen during that time frame.
Democrats, even demonized ones like Frank and Todd, literally had no power to do ANYTHING for six years.
Ask yourself why ANWR was not opened up for drilling? Don't blame Democrats, don't blame environmentalists, don't blame Clinton.. Your team literally had 6 years to make it happen if they wanted to. Nothing stood in their way. Why didn't it happen?
You can't pass the buck for anything that did or did not happen from January '01 to January '07.
All of it, good or bad, rests on your team.
Be a man. Accept responsibility for the things under your control.
I survived the Bush Administration
Oh those poor Democrats.
They never knew how to block passage of anything when they were the minority. Yea, right.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I've seen some naive posts in my time...
...but that one wins a prize.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Bush could've opened ANWR for drilling with an executive order
He didn't even need congress for it.
Why didn't he do it?
You were played.
I survived the Bush Administration
This isn't true
The law establishing ANWR requires Congressional approval to drill in ANWR. No such approval has ever been passed.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Look at the executive orders that Bush had during the 8 years...
He never bothered to let anything like the law or congress get in the way when he wanted something.
In any case... he had a 55-45 majority in the Senate until 2006..... and there were easily enough blue-dog Democrats to get him a 60-vote margin if he and the Republicans really wanted this.
The whole ANWR debate was a deflection tactic.
Bush never had any intention of drilling in ANWR, and the oil companies weren't that interested in it in any case. They make record profits when it is perceived that the supply is tight.
The ANWR "debate" was out there in order to find a way to blame Democrats for rising oil prices. Of course, the past 3 months have proven that the run-up of oil to $147/barrel had NOTHING TO DO with actual supply restrictions, but speculators manipulating the price.
If Bush wanted drilling in ANWR... REALLY wanted it.... it would've happened.
I survived the Bush Administration
You should get Miss L's phone #...
...you two make a perfect pair.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Again.... no substance to your response
Not surprising.
Like SL said.... your entire argument breaks down to this:
"If a liberal is for it, it must be bad."
No critical thinking. Just knee-jerk reflexivity.
So many years getting your "education" from talk radio has robbed you of your ability to examine situations and arguments critically. It's LIBERAL=BAD, CONSERVATIVE=GOOD. No examination of the actual facts.
MissLiberties can speak for herself, and does so quite well.
I survived the Bush Administration
Look who's talking! LOL!
I responded to SL, why don't you respond to what I posted there instead of just bashing GW for every conceivable problem in the world!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Hmmmm....
The guy was the most powerful person on the planet for the past 8 years.
Are you saying that someone in that position has no bearing on the good and bad that occurred in the world during that time?
None? Really?
Your saint, Ronald Reagan, asked the famous question:
"Are you better off now than you were four years ago"?
If that test was the be-all and end-all for evaluating Jimmy Carter's presidency in 1980, then the same standard applies today, doesn't it?
Are you better off now than you were on Jan 20, 2001?
If you answer yes, you are a member of a very exclusive club.
The bottom line is this:
George W. Bush failed the Gipper's test. By every possible objective measure.
Now... either Reagan's simple method for grading the performance of a President is flawed, or George Bush was a colossal failure.
So which is it? Was Saint Ronnie wrong or did Bush suck? Only one of those two things can be true.
I survived the Bush Administration
Actually, they can both be true! :)
n/t
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Haha....
I meant was Ronnie wrong about using "are you better off..." as the standard for measuring presidencies.
Of course he was wrong about a lot of things.... but I think his simple litmus test of a presidency is a fair way of measuring presidencies.
Are you better off now than you were when a President took office?
If answer=yes, re-elect. If answer=no, throw the bum out.
I survived the Bush Administration
Everything you're saying is embellishment or overstatement...
Bush was indeed a POTUS, he can be held accountable for many things, there are however far more things he can not be.
Ronald Reagan was an astute politician, not unlike Barry, maybe that's why they both asked that question when it suited them.
And just because it was asked by a great man during an election, does not make it empirical evidence of anything, GW did not kill the economy, and if you are intent on whipping that dog, you are suffering from a deeper seeded political disorder than I first suspected.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Super
We'll apply that same standard to the new President.
Obama won't be held responsible for the screw ups that happen on his watch. Great stuff coming from you!
I'm only half stupid
Oh yes, he will, as will GW, be held to account...
...for what he is actually responsible for.
...get it....
Imagine that..?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
But in your world view...
Bush is responsible for NONE of the bad things that happened during his term:
- 9/11
- Katrina response
- Economic collapse
- Loss of American prestige and influence around the world
But Bush is responsible for ALL of the good things that happened during his term:
- No attacks since 9/11
- Economic expansion until 2007.... (but not responsible for the bottom falling out in 2008)
You can't have it both ways, RW. You can't absolve him from everything bad that happened, but shower him with praise for any good that occurred.
By the way... since 9/11 happened 8 months after Bush took office, but was Clinton's fault in your view.... I expect you to remain consistent and blame Bush for anything bad that happens during Obama first 8 months. Deal?
Your entire argument boils down, ridiculously, to this:
- Everything bad that has happened in our lifetimes is the result of liberals/Democrats, even when they were out of power.
- Everything good that has happened in our lifetimes is the result of conservatives/Republicans, even when they were out of power.
That's intellectually dishonest of you, and it frankly makes discussion with you as pointless as trying to convince a cult member that their religious beliefs are insane.
Politics has become a religion to you.... You are one of the 27% in this country who think Bush did a good job. Because to admit he did not is to admit your error in supporting him twice. It would be to admit that your world view might possibly have some flaws.
1/4 of the population in this country is dealing with severe cognitive dissonance.... their eyes see the destruction that Bush's actions (and, as often, inactions) have caused to the US's standing in the world and our economic system.... but their hearts won't let them accept that their leader had anything to do with it.
You're intelligent enough that there is hope that the "light bulb" will go on in your head and you'll realize that not everything you've taken as gospel from talk radio the past two decades is true.
...at least I hope you're not beyond redemption.
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
You say Bush is responsible for...
EVERYTHING!
Of all your declamatory rhetoric, only one is true;
Bush is responsible for...
- Loss of American prestige and influence around the world
But he afforded us...
- No attacks since 9/11
You are every bit as partisan and sound as idiotic to me, as I evidently do to you, so leave the uni-lateral character assasination out of it if you know whats good for you.
Let's look here...
- 9/11
- Katrina response
- Economic collapse
It would be absurd to blame Bush for 9/11. But I would luv to hear you try.
Katrina was a failure of a federal government program to respond, he was as bummed as we all were, and rectified it as demonstrated in the largest evacuation in United States history of over 3 million people who were relocated during oncoming hurricane Gustav.
The economic collapse, I have expressed my position throughout the site, so I won't waste bandwidth here doing the same, but how you get your finger pointed at Bush is beyond me.
I rarely listen to talk radio.
The rest of your points are pointless...so...
Go put my tax dollars to work and quit sluffing off...kidding ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I usually side with PM on these things
But you're really starting to make sense to me RW. I may have to reconsider my positions.
This comment is not necessarily the opinion of skymutt. But it should be!
Absurd?
You say it would be absurd to blame bush for 9/11. I'm not sure why. Obviously Bush didn't commit the act (with all due respect to the 9/11 truthers out there) but it did occur on his watch, and it happened after he was warned that AQ was planning something.
Personally I don't blame Bush so much for 9/11 as for the reaction to it. That reaction has done us far more harm than AQ could ever dream of doing.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Bush is getting a raw deal.
We all know it was Clinton's lax attitude that brought this on us. I mean, I'd defend Bill through thick and thin but the facts are the facts.
This comment is not necessarily the opinion of skymutt. But it should be!
Who stole your second "t"?
Begone false god! Pretender to the wise and powerful throne of skymuttitude!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Huh?
Everyone knows skymut is spelled with one t. What are you trying to pull here?
This comment is not necessarily the opinion of skymutt. But it should be!
OK, but...
With only one "t" I am forced to pronounce it with a German accent: sky-moot.
"Now is the time on Sprockets vhen ve dance!"
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Actiually, that seems appropriate.
I like it.
This comment is not necessarily the opinion of skymutt. But it should be!
for some reason
"Sky-moot" made me die laughing.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Nothing stood in their way?
Hmm...it's funny how that all changes when the shoe is on the other foot. I have to call hyperbole on this one Prime.
Similar discussion on just one bill
last year....and all the blue bars were very quick to point out that despite having a majority, it was not the Democrats' fault this failed to pass, but the Republicans.
Also you've been given quite a pass on your anectdotal evidence of the evils of Republicans (based on your daily experiences at your job) because I know how excited you are about the new Administration. But if I'd posted something like that, I'd have been called on it right away.
Ok... so he'll execute the office TWICE as faithfully!
Works for me.
You know what ELSE works for me?
This:
THAT'S more like it.
I survived the Bush Administration
Put on you seatbelts ladies and gentlemen....
...there's Barack...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
LOL
Diversion. Just can't admit I was right, eh? :)
I wouldn't have even said anything but you were just SOOO sure of yourself I couldn't resist.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ok.... I admit that you are right
"right" in the political sense. ;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
LOL
I guess I just have to settle for that. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You should cry....
...because a right-wing judge who is unqualified to hold the position of Chief Justice couldn't even recite 37 words properly with the world watching.
Thank goodness Obama bailed him out.
I survived the Bush Administration
Keep up the good work...
...earning that blue on your bar...
Man?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Actually, you have that backwards.
If you listen to the above video closely you will also hear the last version spoken by Roberts as being "faithfully execute the (prest) Office of the President of the United States." Which is (mostly) right. His last stated version begins 22 seconds into the clip.
Now there is no doubt the Roberts messed it up to begin with, but you don't have to re-write what actually happened, do you? :)
Besides, dude, it's just a joke.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh my you're right! How will
Oh my you're right! How will ever deal with this crisis! If the Chief Justice can't perform this most vital part of his job, how will the nation carry on. We should get Obama to be Chief Justice as well as president, that way we won't have to worry about such travesties.
Oh and sure this has everything to do with him being a rightwing judge as you imply.
I'm very proud
I'm a big fan of what Obama is trying to do in terms of uniting the country and being the president of all the people. I am very pleased with what I see so far.
The real tests lie ahead though. Our country is headed for even tougher times and Obama is going to start catching heat for how he deals with things. The real measure of him will be how he deals with the honeymoon being over. I think he will be able to handle it based on how he handled the Rev. Wright situation, which was a potential disaster I thought he handled spectacularly well. But you never know how someone will react when the pressure really gets ratcheted up.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
It was impressive
in the 18th century when that kind of thing was rare. These days its much more the rule than the excpetion in the first world (and even common in the second world).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Obama's gotten to work Day 1 alright... ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Oh geeze. Are you looking forward to 4 years of this?
First Lady Michelle Obama's inaugural outfit by Cuban-born Isabel Toledo
[...]
“Mrs. Obama is an unusual woman with great fashion instincts and innate style. And she has always supported lesser-known designers like Thakoon, Narciso Rodriguez and Isabel Toledo.”
Michelle accessorized the dress with unusual green gloves from J. Crew and green shoes.
Necessary considerations for her inaugural outfit:
(A) It had to be warm. The upper part of the coat and the back of the sleeve are lined with a pashmina for extra warmth.
(B) Sophistication counts. The fabric and color are also very sophisticated with a layer of lace over wool. The color is called lemongrass.
(C) It’s not a suit, unlike most of the other first ladies' outfits. Mrs. Obama chose a sheath, a style that that skims and flatters the body.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh geeze yerself! :)
Did you moan about it four years ago
? Somehow I doubt it.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Without being partisan about it...
...and I know as much about womens fashion as you know about ...nope...not going there...but she looked just shy of hideous IMO.
I mean...Lemon and lime?
Yikes?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Let's not get too overboard on this ...
I was just trying to make light of the level and type of the coverage, not her actual clothes.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Thats fine, I am just saying....
... she looked kinda F - U - N - K - Y . . .
...IMO.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I saw a photograph of Michelle Obama's Inauguration outfit.
There's ONE word that describes Michelle Obama's Inauguration outfit accurately: Ghastly.
She's a very attractive-looking, statuesque woman, and the outfit that she wore didn't do her a bit of justice. Plus the style and the material with which it was made is really t he el-cheapo kind.
Oh yikes...it gets weirder...
A vintage Wilma
, off the rack no less...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Play by play...
OBAMA & CHIEF JUSTICE FLUB OATH OF OFFICE... NERVES AS AMERICA SWEARS IN 44...

Video... 




OBAMA AIMS TO BUCK UP NATION...
Bush Mocked As He Arrives on Dais...
Backstage: Carter Snub Clintons...
Clinton and Cornyn wrangle in Rotunda; Confirmation delay...
Kennedy and Byrd both leave luncheon with medical trouble...
Kennedy Collapses; convulsions... Developing...
for more
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
For those
For those inaugurally-inclined, http://swordscrossed.org/diary/20090120/inaugural-bigotry-and-scapegoating
With all Americans putting their best foot forward...
...in an effort to make this the national gala full of merrymaking, jubilation, and conviviality that it deserves to be...
How do these sort of bad actors get front row seats...?
Kinda makes you wonder?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Bush should be grateful...
...in some societies, he wouldn't have left office to merely the cascade of boos, jeers, and mocks.
....he'd have left under the cover of night in disguise.
Seriously, though.... proper decorum says he shouldn't have been booed or jeered like that.
But I wonder if he NOW understands how hated he's become by 3/4 of the people of this country.
I survived the Bush Administration
I think that's a bit of an overstatement, PM.
PM - But I wonder if he NOW understands how hated he's become by 3/4 of the people of this country.
Disapproval ratings do not equate to hate.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ok.... "disliked"
;-)
Hated by 1/4.... disliked by 1/2
Still worshipped by a delusional 1/4.
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Still think it is over stated.
Hated by 1/4 I can agree with. Maybe even 1/3 if we accept that 1/3 of the population are hard core liberals.
But for the rest I don't even think you can say that "disapproval" equates to "dislike". I can like someone personally, but disapprove of their positions on political topics.
You're a "prime" example. I like you well enough but I clearly disapprove of your choices on political topics. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Seems like he's got some fans to me!
This was yesterday, hours after a bunch of wacko liberals embarrassed their country by Jeering him!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yep..... and most of them are in Texas
Look... he's not a bad man personally..... but he got booed for the same reason the head coach of the Detroit Lions or Pittsburgh Pirates gets booed.
Because he sucked at his job.
Get over it. I'm sure he has.
I survived the Bush Administration
Naw, he was boo'd....
...by a bunch of liberal ingrates..
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
+4
n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh.. they were ingrates alright...
By definition, an ingrate is someone who is NOT grateful.
What on earth would they have to be grateful about?
I survived the Bush Administration
If you have to ask that question...
...I mean if you really can not think for yourself outside the liberal crucible, that you honestly have to ask that, I feel sorry for you.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I know that YOU are grateful for the past 8 years...
What I can't figure out is WHY.
When Bush came in.... $150 billion yearly surplus.
When he left.... $800 billion yearly deficit
When Bush came in.... Dow Jones was at 10,500
When he left... 8,200
When Bush came in.... 4.5% unemployment rate
When he left.... Almost 7.5% unemployment rate (and rising)
When Bush came in.... The U.S. was respected around the world and looked to for leadership
When he left... well... You can read the newspapers around the world as well as I can.
George Bush is to Republicans what Jimmy Carter was to Democrats... only more so.
He has killed the GOP for a decade... at least.
I survived the Bush Administration
Yeah we all know the president is responsible for everything
from the rising of the sun to the tides of the ocean. Also I wouldn't be complaining about deficits Obama's promising to make that worse. So far Obama looks like Bush on steroids when it comes to economics - yet more spending and more tax-cuts.
+4
n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Fair point
However, I will point out that conservatives were more than happy to point out that Iraq was the Democrats' baby as well since a good many of them voted for it.
I will expect you to extend the same courtesy to the Republicans who vote for these bailouts and deficits.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
That's not a fair statement regarding the economy
Obama really doesn't have much of a choice regarding the deficit. I don't know of any economist who advocates prioritizing deficit reductions during an economic freefall. Bush ran big deficits every year of his term even as he was bragging about how strong the economy was.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
But we all know that the way to raise revenue ...
is to raise taxes, right? So just raise the taxes to pay off the debt. Simple, right?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well
You can't consistently spend $5 for every $4 you bring in on a sustainable basis. At some point, taxes are going to have to go up or spending is going to have to go down. There was no reason that Bush couldn't have called for that day of reckoning during his term, but instead he kicked the can down the road.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I completely agree.
And since liberal fiscal policy says that the way to increase revenues is to increase taxes, right? So what's all this talk about cutting taxes? That would be fiscally irresponsible from a debt perspective according to liberal dogma so they should stop trying to be Republicans and just raise the darn taxes already.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well then
I guess those who were saying Obama is TEH LIBERALIST SENATOR EVAR were maybe wrong?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
No, not really.
His record is still his record in the Senate. I don't think his current flippy floppy rhetoric changes that.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Isn't Obama talking about kicking the can down the road also?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from I hear, Obama's talking about trillion dollar deficits for years to come. He's talking about cutting taxes and raising spending and then some more raising spending and some more... Sounds to me like Obama' s policy is Bush's on steroids, when it comes to kicking the can down the road.
:)
Obama's not planning to kick the can down the road, he's gonna put it in a government owned truck and drive it there.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4True but with one difference
Obama is coming into office facing a certain recession and very possible depression. Bush saw a minor recession at the start of his term and then had pretty smooth economic sailing until the gas spike in 2007-2008. Bush also came into office with a suprlus, Obama is coming in with a huge deficit.
This is not to say that I necessarily agree with Obama's economic choices (we'll see what exactly they are when the rubber hits the road here) but he has some legitimate cause to deficit spend until the economy turns around. I would very much like (although wouldn't bet on) us seeing a blanced budget once the economy does recover.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well I don't know anything
Well I don't know anything about economics, so maybe what Obama's doing is necessary to prevent Great Depression II. However, my gut tells me that eventually we're going to have to pay up, and we may be in trouble with a 10 trillion dollar ( or whatever the number is now, I'm losing track) debt that's increasing at the rate of a trillion dollars a year. I worry that Obama may just be doing what's best for four years down the road rather than the real long term.
I don't really disagree with that
The bill certainly will come due eventually, in the form of continuing interest payments if nothing else. And I would dearly love to run down the debt over the course of a few decades. I've said a number of times that I would support a carefully written balanced budget amendment, but I've also said that such an amendment has to include a clause that allows deficit spending in case of formally declared war or emergency.
to make an analogy that's closer to where you and I probably live it's perfectly true to say that people in general shouldn't run up a lot of creidt card debt and should put some money away for savings. But when someone's just lost their job it is reasonable for them to run up a bit of debt just trying to get by until they have another income. Once they do then they should pay off what they owe and start trying to be more dilligent about savings. September 2008 the US lost her job. It's still not clear if she can colect unemplyment until the job situation gets worked out.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Obama is kicking the can down the road for now...
...because the can MUST be kicked down the road, in fact the can is rolling downhill under its own momentum right now. If we get to the bottom of the hill while Obama is still in office, we will see if Obama still continues to kick the can. Maybe he will stop kicking the can, we just don't know yet.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Liberal economic dogma clearly tells us ...
that what we need is a big dose of high taxes and federal make work projects, just like FDR (patron Saint of liberals everywhere). The more people on the government dime the better. That way we can just raise taxes and spend our way to a higher GDP, right?
That trickle down voodoo economics doesn't mean squat. Totally discredited. And everyone knows that tax cuts actually hurt the economy, not help it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4First you have to raise taxes on the people...
..who pay the most tax already....
SO...
you can give tax cuts to those who pay none. LOL!
How the American people not get him on that one I will never know.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
And the crucible clinches down another knotch...
click, click, click...
Bush did what he, the senate, the congress, the UN, and 70% of the American people thought he should do. You see he doesn't have the privilege you and politicians of your ilk have of creating their own revisionist account of history. It cost money, but we have been safe ever since. But you are not grateful for that we know.
The Bush administration warned, Greenspan warned, and Republicans in Congress warned for years we had better get a handle on this thing before is spins out of control, and Barack, Dodd, Franks, and the liberals flipped out time after time. So The DOW, unemployment, those are balls sitting on your side of the court my friend.
Now climb back in your crucible and stop considering outside facts, they may confuse you.
click, click, click....
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I have a rock
I have a rock. I found this rock on 9/12/01. Ever since I found this rock we have never had an attack. How do we know it isn't my rock that has kept us safe
?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
You can believe in your rock if you want to ...
but my money is on Bush on that one. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You've tried that one before...
..it was as sucky a argument then as it is now....
..no wait...it sucks more now. ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
It's really not RW
it's a simple matter of logic. You cannot prove that nonexistent attacks didn't occur because of bush, in the same way that you can never prove that there are no pink geese. Logically it cannot be done. Furthermore going beyond formal proof to simple statistics we find that Bush was the only modern president to see a successful foreign attack on our soil. Yet somehow you want to credit him for not making that mistake *twice*. That's a tough sell.
Finally you can look at the motivation for the attacks. It was not to try and kill all of us, obviously there's no way they could do that. The point was to send a psychological message, to hurt our economy, and to provoke us into mis-step. It accomplished all three. Even if AQ were capable of a follow up attack on a scale approaching that of 9/11 (and there's no reason to believe they ever were in such a position) there was no need. they already had us charging around the world, inflaming the locals and wasting stupid amounts of money and exhausting our armed forces.
When your enemy plans to harm himself don;t stand in his way. AQ didn't stand in our way as Bush hurt us tremendously.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
We thwarted dozens of domestic attacks...
...and put them in prison...
...where they we soon be released by BO so they can get back to what they were planning to do in the first place!
The rest of your thoughts are contrary to what I believe, so we can just let you have them.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Nonsense
A. Please provide evidence that ANY domestic attacks were thwarted. Since there were "dozens", as you say, I'm sure it wouldn't be too much for you to provide a link to information about one or two of them.
Or are you just repeating something you heard on Sean Hannity's show?
B. There is nothing in Obama's executive orders that says the prisoners will be "released". Please, stick to facts.
C. John McCain, who you so vociferously supported during the election, has issued the following joint statement with Lindsey Graham today:
"We support President obama's decision to close the prison at Guantanamo, reaffirm America's adherence to the Geneva conventions and begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees. Numerous difficult issues remain...We believe the military commissions should have been allowed to continue their work. We look forward to working with the President and his administration on these issues."
I'm sure I'll get some nonsense answer about McCain and Graham being RINOs... but you voted for the guy.
Must be disheartening.
I survived the Bush Administration
Where have you been?
Don't you know the GR, RW wing of the party basicaly hates John McCain? Of course they voted for him - we do live in a two party system, but that doesn't mean they like him, and GITMO is one of the reasons they dislike him so much.
Small correction.
I didn't vote for McCain. I voted for Palin. If I could have scratched McCain off I would have. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sheesh...
They really let you near nuclear secrets?
A. Please provide evidence that ANY domestic attacks were thwarted. Since there were "dozens", as you say, I'm sure it wouldn't be too much for you to provide a link to information about one or two of them.
Or are you just repeating something you heard on Sean Hannity's show?
Here
, here
,...need more?
B. There is nothing in Obama's executive orders that says the prisoners will be "released". Please, stick to facts.
I never referred to his EO, I simply stated what he has indicated he will do, and claimed what will happen
when he does.
C. John McCain, who you so vociferously supported during the election, has issued the following joint statement with Lindsey Graham today:
"We support President obama's decision to close the prison at Guantanamo, reaffirm America's adherence to the Geneva conventions and begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees. Numerous difficult issues remain...We believe the military commissions should have been allowed to continue their work. We look forward to working with the President and his administration on these issues."
They just said they don't like it, but they're trying to work with the new POTUS. What would you have expected...?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Let's go down the list, shall we?
from your first link:
1) Richard Reid, the attempted shoe bomber. Well he wasn't exactly thwarted by anything Bush did. He was thwarted by AQ's lack of technical knowledge which resulted in a bomb that wouldn't explode.
2) Padilla is poster boy for the idiocy fo the Bush administration. Padilla was initially arrested because the government said he was part fo a plot to murder americans by planting a dirty bomb. After holding Padilla (an american citizen arrested on american soil) without charging him with anything they finally charged him to try and head off another spanking by the SCOTUS. What did they charge him with? Conspiring to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas. In other words nothing even remotely like what they claimed he was being arrested for. According to the government case arresting Padilla did nothing for the safety here in america.
3) the Lackawanna Six never actually tried... well.... anything. The FBI picked them up because they thought their emails might contain code words to an attack but no evidence of such an attack was ever found. They were convicted on charges of providing material support to Al Qaeda.
4) Iyman Faris was actually a double agent working for the FBI. The plot he supposedly foiled (destroying the brooklyn bridge with a blow torch) was so unbelievably stupid that it thwarts itself.
5) The "Virginia Jihad Network" was typical of the "terror" plots we've thwarted- clueless nohopers who were more a danger to themselves than anyone else. These were the guys who played paintball to get ready for the real thing. Oh and they planned to attack India, not the US.
6) Barot might have been competent and stopping him was a good thing. But it was a good thing done by the brits, not us. Scratch another one.
7) It's unclear whether Siraj actually was a terrorist that the NYPD stopped or if it was a case of grotesque entrament by police who paid a less than reputable source 100 grand to give them somebody, anybody to justify their new counterterrorism efforts. But what the hell it's the closest thing to an actuall success so far, I'll spot you that one.
8) Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain also appear to be victims of an overzealous attempt to seek out terrorism where none existed. Arif was cleared of 20 of the 30 charges the government tried to pin on him and it seems likely the remaining charges may be dropped in appeal.
9) Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat, same as above. A highly questionable confession (unless you really believe Al Qaeda trains by wearing teenage mutant ninja turtle masks and doing pole vaults).
10) These guys are in the nohope category. They wanted to do big things but screwed up robbing a gas station.
11) Another nohoper. He was eventually charged with possessing a hand grenade. Apparently he was going to blow up us oil pipelines with it. Yeah.
12) It isn't clear if these guys had the ability to do any of the things they threatened but it is a moot point- the FBI said they were caught because of tips from the muslim community. Unless it is Bush who is the crypto-muslim it's hard to see how he gets credit for this one either.
13) These guys are indicted for videotaping buildings. Scary, neh? I'm glad bush is keeping us safe from terrorist cameramen! Personally I'm guessing the case falls apart when it comes to trial. Operating a camera just isn't a crime unless your name is Andy Warhol.
14) More nohopers. These guys wanted to blow up the sears tower but didn't have so much as a pistol by way of weapons and explosives. These might have been the dipshits who got caught because they sent off the photos of themselves training to be developed.
15) Assem Hammoud was picked up by lebanese security forces.
16) The liquid explosive plot is not something a bush supporter wants to mention or even pretend ever happened. The brits handled that one and almost lost their court case because we screwed up badly and pushed them to make arrests before they had much of any evidence. As it was almost all the charges ended up being dropped. It was a HUGE F(*&up by the Bush justice department.
17) KSM is another case of our guys screwing the pooch, and he was captured by the ISI anyway.
18) ah yes, the Fort Dix Plot. You got to admire the moxy of a small group of guys with no real combat experience who think that with rifles and a few handgrenades they could attack an army *base*. Serious cojones...but no brains. Once again, nohopers.
19) The JFK plot was a joke and required no thwarting as it was preemptively thwarted by physics itself. Another case of guys with the intent but not the capacity for terrorism.
20) I don;t even know what this one is referring to tbut the article itself makes it clear that it was the germans, not us, who dealt with these guys.
So once you actually run through some details that list is pretty pathetic. The majority were losers that were no real danger. The ones who were actual threats we didn;t have much to do with (or if we did it was usually our stupid handling that ruined things for others).
How much did Bush spend on counterterrorism to rack up this pathetic list?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Gee...
So many; No hoper's...Stupid plots...Entrapment...Partial prosecutions....Questionable Confessions...Foreign Captures...Unworthy Targets...Suspect evidence...Lack of Combat Experience...Mishandled investigations...Terrorist Intent But Lack of Capacity...and Pathetic Attempts...
On things like; Aircraft...American Citizens...The Brooklyn Bridge...Targets in India...Metropolitan areas...The Sears Tower...Fort Dix...JFK Airport...etc., etc.
With things like; Shoe Bombs, Chemical Bombs, Grenades, Liquid Explosives, Rifles and Hand Grenades, etc., etc.
Makes you wonder why we even worry about terrorism...
LOL! You sure go to some pretty far lengths to rationalize these things...but...
...Thanks for proving my point by expending such exhaustive labor to disprove it...LOL!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
And again, WHOA!
B. There is nothing in Obama's executive orders that says the prisoners will be "released". Please, stick to facts.
I thought you guys considered holding these people without due process or habeas corpus a "bad" thing. Now you're defending that?
If he's not going to give them due process, and he's not going to release them, and he's going to prevent them from petitioning the courts, what is it that you think he IS going to be doing with them?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's hard work
cleaning up after the Bush years. It will take some time and some sorting out, no doubt.
The message here is that the US won't just point it's finger at someone, and detain them indefinitely with no trail. That so 16th Century.
The closing is a message to the rest of the world. It is a start at rekindling good will with the US as the shining example. It will make our diplomatic efforts go much more smoothly in the long run.
I'm only half stupid
Again - You miss the facts...
Do you do it on purpose?
Anyway...
Obama just stopped the due process altogether that was taking place, now their trails are really indefinite.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I differ with you in one respect, Prime Mover:
The United States had NOT had the respect of the rest of the world since World War II.
Obama's speech was really good.
Hit the right notes, told folks they have to get serious and be part of getting out of the financial thing. It's a good start.
I don't need the advice of the POTUS, thanks.
n/m
Notes from a grumpy, contrary skeptic:
I've admittedly not shared in all the excitement, either over the campaign, the Election, or the Inauguration, so I've made a point of NOT becoming involved at all and refusing to watch the Inauguration festivities on television. Politicians are politicians, in my book.
First of all, I'm not that politically saavy.
Secondly, what "childish" things does Obama expect ME to give up? Memberships to good movie theatres? Attending movies? Bicycle riding? My love for WSS? Not on your lives, people.
Thirdly, I read the Inauguration speech, even though I didn't watch the Inauguration festivities on TV, and I'm admittedly not that impressed. Imho, it's little to no different than what all of the other presidents of the United States have said and promised at their Inaugurations.
Fourth: I resent the fact that certain unnamed, unidentified posters here on SC take it so personally that I differ with them on certain things (I think these people KNOW who they are, so I won't mention any usernames)
Hey, just scanning your posts this evening...
....you seem a little down. I hope you feel more like yourself soon.
You are not alone in your assessment of the speech, it seems it is being met with rather lackluster review at best.
I found myself grasping on to this portion of it;
"America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans".
But soon, reality set in, and I resigned myself to the fact that it was Barack Obama speaking them, and unfortunately for America it is very unlikely he will ensure that passage takes precedence over his policies which ignore the very truth he touched upon in that remark.
Anyway, chin up old man... ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
hey...Thanks, Red_Wing.
I do happen to be a woman, however.
Seeing is believing. What Barack Obama actually does now that he's in office remains to be seen.
Sorry mam...
I think we know what he's going to do...unfortunately.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
To be honest, Red_Wing:
There are certain people on this board (I think they know who they are, so I won't mention names), who are nasty enough to absolutely denigrate everything I say, because they can't stand being disagreed with. (does miss(bitchy)liberties come to mind here?) I should just ignore the little bitch, but I can't, really.
Some comments
I haven't shared the excitement either, as you may recall, that said I hae a couple comments.
1) as for "childish" things, we currently follow a model of using as many resources as posible as fast as possible. Not you specifically but humans in general. This is in fact a very childish way to behave since it is entirely egocentric with no thought to others. It needs to change as we are eating through the world's natural resources.
This planet had a fantastic treasure trove of fossil fuels for one that we have squandered unconscionably. The earlier we start adjusting our behaviors, and the smarter we do it, the less we have to give up. We should have started fifty years ago but we didn't.
2) Haven't read the inaguration (or watched it) but I've generally agreed eith the criticism that Obama is good at delivering a speech but his speeches generally lack originality or concrete plans.
3) I sort of know what you mean about taking things personally, but its just one of those things people do. They get emotionally invested in things they want to be true, and they don't like hearing negatives about it. It sucks but it's pretty fundamental to human psychology so you have to try and deal with it.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
My several cents here:
For starters, I've been a proud owner of a 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid for the past several years now, and I'm happy about it, because it's a pretty fuel-efficient car. With rare exceptions, I only need to gas up once or twice a month, as opposed to once a week, or whatever, plus I don't really drive all that much, living in the city and all. Once a year, I make a road trip/pilgrimage out to the midwest to visit relatives, and I've also driven to neighborning states for screenings of my alltime favorite film, West Side Story, plus I drive 20 miles during spring/summer/early fall weekends for bikerides out in the country.
I don't make long commutes every single day, so I don't use up that much gas so fast. It's a hell of a lot easier, imho, when I'm going out of state, to just throw my stuff in the truck of my car and just take off. Since I don't commute long distances every day like many people do, I don't feel guilty about using the gas. Flying is a royal pain in the neck--I like being in control of myself and being on my own schedule, and being able to get up and stretch my legs and snack when I want, plus the air on planes, etc., isn't all that good, either. I don't have lots of patience waiting in line and being frisked at the security gates.
Also, my car operates on REGULAR gasoline, as opposed to PREMIUM, or higher octaned gasoline, so it's not as expensive to gas up. I wouldn't even be caught DEAD in one of those huge gas-guzzling SUV's, either.
Also, there's no way I'll give up having my own opinions, despite their sometimes being irritating to other people, nor will I give up going to movies, annual memberships to a couple of movie theatres (basic o, weather permitting, even to a neighboring state for a screening of WSS, on occasion.
Also, regarding President Obama's call for taking responsibility for what's going on here and abroad--forget it!! First of all, I'm not qualified to do that, and, secondly, why should I take responsibility for trying to rectify something or other that I didn't cause? I shouldn't, imho.
The signing of a bill to make funding for abortion rights and contraceptives available to developing countries is right--and it's good that President Obama did that, but regarding the possibility of him sending more of our troops into Afghanistan....uh uh....NOT a smart idea! That could well get us into a bigger and more dangerous quagmire than Iraqis and Americans ever even DREAMED of.
I do not think...
......that going to the theater is an example of a "childish thing" as Obama would define it. However, I think that holding to the somewhat silly belief that he is somehow asking you to do so could perhaps be considered a childish thing, and I say that with all due respect. Look, this is a man who simply asked us to do little things like inflate our tires during the campaign to save a little energy-- I don't recall him asking the American people to give up driving altogether, do you? If we extend the tire inflation example, the message is this: do the little things. Turn off a light you're not using. Drive the speed limit. Do multiple errands on the same trip. Put weather stripping on a drafty door. Recycle. Make a conscious effort to do what you can.
Or, for an other example: I do not think that Obama would consider your having or expressing your opinion as a childish thing. Constantly thinking that people are asking you to hush up? That's a childish thing.
Not feeling guilty about your gas use after a road trip? I don't think there's anything childish about that. Instead, I think that an example of a childish thing would be a an overall attitude that asks "why should I take responsibility for trying to rectify something or other that I didn't cause?"
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Thanks, skymutt.
I definitely agree that turning off a light or lights that I'm not using, keeping my tires inflated properly inflated, recycling, driving the speed limit, and doing multiple tasks on the same trip are all things that I agree must/should be done, campaigns or no campaigns, as a matter of common decency and practicality. Keeping one's car properly maintained overall is also quite important, all of which I do.
However, I admit to one thing: I can be and sometimes AM somewhat forgetful about turning off a light in a room that I'm not using. That's one thing I'll have to be more attentive towards. Yes, I also recycle (the building I've resided in for the past 21 years has a recycling program), and, yes, I do multiple errands on the same trip.
Regarding my question, which is considered childish: Okay, the adage "Think globally, act locally" comes to mind. I have, on occasion, donated clothes that I no longer want/wear to the American Friends Service Committee, who in turns gives them to people either here or overseas who don't have enough. Our building also donates to Project Soup every year, and we have the choice of donating non-perishable foods, money, or both. I've chosen to donate non-perishable canned foods every year, which helps also.
I have to admit, though, skymutt, that the one thing I positively can't/won't do is to really get out on the front line and really risk my limb and life for whatever. First of all, I'm honestly not qualified to do that, and, for example, I would NOT want to engage in the kind of thing that the late Rachel Corrie, or even David Wilson did; supplanting oneself in front of a moving train or going over into one of the most, if not THE most war-torn parts of the world, supplanting oneself in front of a huge, 60-tone hunk of moving metal machinery t o act as a human shield to make a point and possibly get killed or maimed in the process. That, to me, has never made sense. Not a smart idea, imho.
Yet, I agree that people can start in their own back yards by doing seemingly small stuff, like you mentioned above. Thanks again, skymutt.
I'm glad that you drive a fuel efficient car
but that's not really the point. In the first point even if you do the majority do not. Second there is some certain level of sustainable energy use based on our technology level and population. Your usage (or mine or anyone's) may be above that line, and if it is you have a simple choice- change or explicitly place yourself above everyone else, not to mention the human race as a whole.
You sound like you are doing better than most, that's good, but it really isn't clear if it is good enough. Now you may not like to hear that, pretty much nobody does, but the simple fact is that we've spoiled ourselves rotten for generations, partying on a huge bounty of cheap fossil fuels. Well parties end and you have to get up in the morning and deal with the hangover. Our hangover is coming and it is going to suck. But putting off only makes it worse.
As is often the case, the sooner we start making healthy changes the less we need to interrupt our normal lives. If you exercise a few minutes a day when you first start to get paunchy that may be enough if you wait until you are really overweight you'll have a damn hard time and probably have to make drastic diet and habit changes.
We're way past paunchy from oil-gluttony, but we're still getting fatter every year. We need to make changes now, while we might still be able to maintain a decent standard of living, rather than later when sustainability means a pre-industrial civilization.
WRT opinions- I don't think you need to give up having opinions, I just hope those opinions are open to changing due to new information.
WRT- responsibility. We live in a (nominally) democratic republic. We all have a small measure of say as far as what the government does. The flip side is that we all have a small measure of responsibility as to what the government does. That's just the way it works. In the words of Rush:
You're American (correct me if I'm wrong about that), hence you bear a little responsibility for what America does. Over the last 8 years I've had to internalize that there is a very small but non-zero chance that I or someone I love will die in a terrorist attack. Part of that process of acceptance is acknowledging that I bear a small measure of responsibility if they do. My government pursues policies that make it more likely, and though I disagree I haven't done everything I could to change the government's actions which means i have to an extent encouraged them.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Regarding responsibility:
Yes, I am an American, but how does that make me responsible for what my government does or doesn't do? What, really, then, am I supposed to do? Going out on the front lines and risking arrest, jailtime, beatings or worse, to me, has never been the way I've wanted to go. I think that going out, sitting or lying in the middle of a busy main thoroughfare and blocking traffic to make a point and risking arrest, jail, beatings, or worse, in order to make my point, is a stupid idea. The people invoilved in the Civil Rights movement ended up taking drastic measures, and were intimidated, beat up, and even killed in cold blood, doing what they felt was necessary. It's agreed that citizens born and raised up here on United States soil were facing dire oppression and being denied even their most basic human rights, such as the right to vote, etc. What's unfortunate, however, is that the people who committed the lynchings, snipings and beatings are still at large the and haven't been brought to justice, which is disgusting. There is still some unfinished business, if the ghettoes and prisons in this country are any indication, and it's SHAMEFUL, imho, that, in the richest, most powerful country in the world, people STILL have to live like that, and attend ultra-lousy, rundown schools---in the 21st century, no less! In many places, especially here in the northeast, there are still places where people who're of the "wrong" color don't venture, except at risk to limb and life. THAT, to me, is totally wrong, especially because it hasn't been rectified, at all, really.
However, the people who're doing not-so-smart things in order to protest our war on Iraq, et c., do NOT fall into the same category. Sorry, but I think there's a line to be drawn here. Yet, at the same time, I can agree to do whatever one feels they're capable of doing, even if it's a seemingly small thing such as e-mailing or telephoning my Senator/Congressperson's office, or even attending an occasional meeting in my community, all of which I've done on occasion.
Many of the automobile manufacturers are now making smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, and hybrids, too, have become much more popular. Here, at least in the Bay State, I've noticed quite afew of them on the roads. Not that I ever, ever intend to purchase an SUV, but there are even some SUV's that're coming out in the form of hybrids. Both of these are important steps forward, and, there will be cars that're run solely on electric, which may or may not happen during our lifetimes. Better and safer cars are being made, also, which is another big step forward.
That being said, I will continue to keep doing what I'm doing.
Partipatory democracy
It makes you responsible (not in in total, in fact only in 1/300,000,000 of the total) because you have the power to shape the policy of the country, not control it, but to nudge it a little. Rosa Parks didn;t do that much really, she just refused to sit at the back of the bus, but that was enough of a nudge to make changes in consciousness. And there were probably a million others who were just as brave and principled but who didn't become famous for their efforts. But if they hadn't bothered then the atmosphere wouldn't have been right when she did.
I have strongly considerd refusing to pay my taxes, but eventually I decided I wasn't willing to do so when it meant likely imprisonment and being separated from my family. That was my choice and it means I have to take ownership of the fact that I paid some small part of the Iraq war. I am responsible, in part, for its continuation.
Can you tel me more about the line you draw between the civil rights movement and the iraq war protesting? I'm not clear on what criteria you are using.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'm not against protesting our Iraq war per se, just some tactcs
I'm not against protesting against our Iraq war per se, but I AM against certain tactics that protesters have often used, such as the business of sitting or lying in the middle of a busy main thoroughfare, bridge, ramp, or highway or city street blocking traffic, causing unnecessary delays, people to be late to appointments (I don't mean manicuring, etc.) or to work, and making it more difficult for emergency vehicles (ambulance, fire, police) to get through and causing dangerous, unnecessary delays. Unlike the Civil Rights workers and African-AMericans in the American South and the North, as well, for example, the people protesting against our Iraq war, etc., had not suffered from, or were protesting against dire oppression and denial of human rights of citizens born and raised in this country. Neither was the late Rachel Corrie, nor was David Wilson.
Blocking traffic and illegally occupying buildings, is, imho, totally counterproductive. Such tactics make people more angry and alienate tons of people from the causes at hand.
Well then, Tlaloc,
Why the hell should * I* risk my limb and life, arrestst, jailtime, beatings, death, or being separated from my family, friends, my house, my work, etc.? You tell me THAT?
I don't consider myself an accessory to our Iraq war, or the I/P conflict, or the racial conflict in this country, because I never caused them, nor did I vote for the people who've opted to keep all that going. Do me a favor, Tlaloc: DON'T blame me!
Also, due to the way in which I was hardwired together, I AM NOT qualified to go out and risk lim, life, etc.,. to get out on the front line, nor am I the least bit INTERESTED in even ATTEMPTING to develop the capacity and qualifications to do so. What's so great about martyrdom? Nothing, as far as I can see. How's all that for homesty.
I'm don't take part much, I don't care to get deeply and radically involved--I was born with the unwillingness and inability to do so. If it means that I'm smallminded, so be it. That's how I was born.
Like ants around drops of ice cream
Very cool sattelite image
of the Inauguration yesterday.
h/t Marc Ambinder
by way of Andrew Sullivan
.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Nice!
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
THIS is happening in every U.S. gov't office in the world today
Is it me... or is the sun a little brighter today than usual?
;-)
ps. I promise that my gloating will be done soon. ;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
It's raining...IN SANTA BARBARA, CA
hmmm.....
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
It's definitely just you.
And what do you have to gloat over anyway? :-P
Actually, it's an ironic picture you chose there. Obama is now in charge of Gitmo. That's pretty funny, actually, having Obama's face plastered on Gitmo.
Why are those prisoners still being held captive? When is he going to release them like he promised? Why is Gitmo still open, didn't he promise to close that place? HE PROMISED US CHANGE!
Obama has now officially continued to hold all of those people prisoner without a trial for 1 day. I'll keep a count for you.
UPDATE:
Now that I think about it I bet those poor bastards are still being tortured too. Obama's out partying with his friends while those poor innocent and misunderstood people are being horribly tortured and scarred for life. Oh the humanity!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Um..... Somebody didn't pay attention to the news today...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html
I survived the Bush Administration
You do realize that this makes my point even stronger.
Those poor souls were finally getting some action to move their cases along and now Obama has ordered that progress to be halted. Now he has ordered them to be held without trial for at least another 120 days. I thought he was supposed to be getting those people out, not holding up their release and their legal proceedings.
That heartless lying bastard. Don't you feel duped right now? He said he was going to make things happen to get these people their due process and now he is doing the exact opposite ... halting those very proceedings in their tracks.
Just can't believe a word the man says, I guess.
And what about those 60 that have been cleared for release already? Why are they still sitting there? If no other country is willing to take them why doesn't he step up to the plate and fly them to DC? Release them right there on the Whitehouse lawn for all to see. I mean he certainly could, right? Especially in light of the fact that we already know they aren't ever going to be charged with anything.
And what's all this "review" business about? Don't you see that for what it is? A delay tactic. Something to keep people like you strung along. It isn't like these people haven't been reviewed up the whazoo (possibly quite literally if we are to believe the torture charges) already? I guess Obama must want to torture them a little himself.
What the hell has he been doing throughout this whole transition period anyway? Sitting on his arse? Making plans for his gala?
(Shakes head in disgust)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4LOL... I actually gave you the wrong CNN link
Here's the right one:
"Obama to close Gitmo"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html
I know you haven't seen a President do what he said he was going to do in a very long time. But it DOES actually happen sometimes.
I survived the Bush Administration
You are being duped and you don't even see it.
Sure, he'll close Gitmo ... in another year. Let's just keep everyone locked up for another year while he suspends any and all action on their due process that the liberals have been demanding?
Dude, open your eyes. He's playing a shell game. He'll close Gitmo but while he has you distracted with that shiny bauble he's already making plans to come up with new ways to torture them, continuing the suspension of their rights, creating whole new categories of them where he plans to not release them and not prosecute them. Do you really NOT care if he just tortures them and holds them indefinitely someplace else?
Sounds kind of like a hollow victory to me.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Same Sh!t - Different Grade...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Hey, what do you know?
I have a pair of gloves exactly like that.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Who is that he is hugging?
Actually, now that I am looking closer at the picture, who is that?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4