|
|
Post by joew on Mar 12, 2007 22:11:53 GMT -5
That the administration lied may be widely accepted among its political opponents, who have a powerful motive for accepting it as established, but it was not the conclusion of the commission which investigated what happened and attributed the problem to inadequate intelligence.
I have no idea how you can possibly equate the casualties of war to the butchery of a domestic tyrant. Talk about audacity!
I have never thought of myself as a Jeffersonian conservative in that regard. I do like the idea of an aristocracy, or better said, a nobility, in traditional societies. For example, I think constitutional monarchies can be useful, and I'm sorry to see that Great Britain may be moving to an all-elected House of Lords. But in the United States, where all state and federal politics is partisan, there is no aristocracy above politics (which is the only true aristocracy) so the idea has no practical value. The best we can hope for is that reasonable people can persuade the electorate not to follow demagogues. In the age of the TV sound bite, that is no mean task. Does that answer the question?
|
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 13, 2007 0:39:16 GMT -5
Name me one thing that Iraq ever did as an attack on the US that would justify killing a hundred thousand of their citizens; Men Women And Children. Who in their right mind would go into a war in that part of the world thinking that you would get out with a 'minimum of Casualties". Certainly not his father nor, Collin Powell, nor the CIA or the FBI nor Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson, nor 80% of our retired Generals and half of our military advisors.
Blind patriotism doesn't become you Joe. You're smarter than that. this is not a war, it is an Adventure, and an expensive one in terms of life, World peace, and valuable resources. It has defeated every purpose for which it was entered into. Not to mention the toll it has taken on this country in self respect and it's ability to move forward a civilized efficiant society.
gwb hasn't the compassion that you have in your little finger Joe, so please don't defend him. And as we speak he is planning some nefarious buisness in South America instead of investing in the America that has coddled and nursed him. Another adventure, no doubt, that will serve once again to thwart the common will of the citizens of this country. He has no respect for the rule of law. He is a history major caught up in a delusion of Alexander the Great.
He SMIRKED at the American people in the State of the Union address at a time of solemn seriousness. Now that is Audacity.
The one good thing that will come out of his presidency is that history will hold his legacy up as an example of misguided power. Forever, and to the lasting detriment of this nation.
I know how hard it is for proud people to admit that they were wrong, that the faith that they hold in their way of life has been shattered, but would you cling to excuses and allow it, justifieable or not, by chance to happen again? We have already back slid from the brokerage system of compromise to advertisement and this situation has shocked most of the public into an attitude of severe aquiescent powerlessness. There are no effective protests. there is no patriotic rush to the recruiters to 'Defend' the country. The implications of that leaves the door open to those who would promote an Aristocracy as a road to Empire. This is how it happened to Rome Joe, and we are not so far removed. We are also at a greater disadvantage than the citizens of the Republic of Rome before the first triumvate. Any resistance by us would be met by weapons of mass destruction. We... would be called insurgents and bombed.
The reason I asked about your views as to aristocracy is that Jefferson was for it. That was the basis for conservitism, but the compromise was made in the provision of a party system. I see the neocon adgenda as a statement of intent to subvert that compromise and eleviate the liberal viewpoint. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that, But I fear we may be subverting this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 13, 2007 6:35:32 GMT -5
Dear JoeW,
I am offering you some advice out of respect. It took me a while, but I figured out that some arguments here are more like debating religion than politics. Your points are all common knowledge that are summarily dismissed by those that worship at the altar of HateBushism.
All people that post here have access to computers with search engines, but will not believe anything they find that does not support their beliefs.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed by the US Military ... not true, but believed.
Saddam did not have nuclear ambitions ... not true, but believed.
Saddam was a peaceful tyrant ... not true, but believed.
Bush deliberately lied about the Iraq/Niger connection ... not true, but believed.
Joe Wilson proved Bush lied ... not true, but believed.
V. Plame was a covert CIA agent ... not true, but believed.
Rove outed V. Plame ... not true, but believed.
This is the worst economy in 50 years ... not true, but believed.
Bush stole the 2000 Election ... not true, but believed.
Bush is not smart enough to be President ... not true, but believed.
There is a nearly endless list of Beliefs in the Religion of HateBushism.
I try to stop debating the puddin'heads when I realize that they have crossed over into their belief system, leaving the facts far, far behind. Just for your own fun, go back and read the posts by roges. gailkate and j* with an eye for unsubstantiated claims offered as facts, opinions offered as truths and out right obfuscation of reality in order to assign heinous fault to the Bush Administration.
_E_
|
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 13, 2007 8:04:09 GMT -5
Dear JoeW, I am offering you some advice out of respect. It took me a while, but I figured out that some arguments here are more like debating religion than politics. Your points are all common knowledge that are summarily dismissed by those that worship at the altar of HateBushism. All people that post here have access to computers with search engines, but will not believe anything they find that does not support their beliefs. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed by the US Military ... not true, but believed. Saddam did not have nuclear ambitions ... not true, but believed. Saddam was a peaceful tyrant ... not true, but believed. Bush deliberately lied about the Iraq/Niger connection ... not true, but believed. Joe Wilson proved Bush lied ... not true, but believed. V. Plame was a covert CIA agent ... not true, but believed. Rove outed V. Plame ... not true, but believed. This is the worst economy in 50 years ... not true, but believed. Bush stole the 2000 Election ... not true, but believed. Bush is not smart enough to be President ... not true, but believed. There is a nearly endless list of Beliefs in the Religion of HateBushism. I try to stop debating the puddin'heads when I realize that they have crossed over into their belief system, leaving the facts far, far behind. Just for your own fun, go back and read the posts by roges. gailkate and j* with an eye for unsubstantiated claims offered as facts, opinions offered as truths and out right obfuscation of reality in order to assign heinous fault to the Bush Administration. _E_ That was worm wood and this is a test. All of it is a test. What I think you have to ask yourself, Joe W., in your heart of hearts (you never really did say whether you believed Bush and Powell and Rice and Cheney when they were spinning their yarn in the run up to war) which belief system would you really like to live in? Who are your people? The ones who laugh and joke and worry about their tax bill when an ambulance shows up at a park to pick up a collapsed homeless person, the ones who call people they disagree with faggots and the ones who laugh along and want to colonize the world -- we can bring medical care to South America, schools to Iraq but our uninsured and the City of New Orleans are on their own, or the one that says certain words are not in my vocabulary and even the homeless and unemployed are entitled to a hospital bed and our care and concern. It wasn't my idea to go here, but if this is where Ed wants to go, and I understand this is sometimes gray and people are not always what they seem, but let's get big picture. Who are the haters and who are the lovers in the room? |
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 13, 2007 8:54:38 GMT -5
Thanks for the additions, J*:
"What I think you have to ask yourself, Joe W., in your heart of hearts (you never really did say whether you believed Bush and Powell and Rice and Cheney when they were spinning their yarn in the run up to war) which belief system would you really like to live in?
___ For the puddin'heads, it is not about what they said, it is about what it is believed they said.
... the ones who call people they disagree with faggots ...
Did not happen, but it will continue to be believed as an actual event that happened and spread the word until it becomes "common knowledge".
.. and want to colonize the world ...
Whaaaat? Maybe make it a better place and is that so wrong?
... but our uninsured and the City of New Orleans are on their own ...
___ The House, the Senate, the State of Louisiana and City of NO are not responsible or able, only President Bush on his lonesome can save them.
I am surprised you did not throw in the deliberate destruction of the Twin Towers. You must be slippin'.
... and the drum beat of HateBushism goes on.
_E_
|
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 13, 2007 10:26:48 GMT -5
If Joe and the Puddenheads had lived in the same dorm (made possible by a fluke in the space-time continuum) they'd have shared some fine late night bull sessions, no doubt fueled by pizza and paisano. Their discussions would often have been heated, at times even contentious, but never contemptuous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Mar 13, 2007 10:37:14 GMT -5
Hey, you've happened upon a great name for a rock group: "Joe and the Puddenheads"!
|
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 13, 2007 10:57:22 GMT -5
... but never contemptuous. You talkin' 'bout me? Show me contempt, Darlin'. _E_ |
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Mar 13, 2007 17:27:17 GMT -5
... the ones who call people they disagree with faggots ... Did not happen, but it will continue to be believed as an actual event that happened and spread the word until it becomes "common knowledge". There is videotape of Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a "faggot," shown on most major news channels, but still readily available on YouTube in case you missed it.... but our uninsured and the City of New Orleans are on their own ... ___ The House, the Senate, the State of Louisiana and City of NO are not responsible or able, only President Bush on his lonesome can save them. Regarding the uninsured, federal assistance is needed because federal law (ERISA, Medicaid, Medicare) severely restrict what states can do to resolve the problem of the uninsured.
Regarding destruction of the Gulf Coast by Katrina, the destruction was so massive -- more then 250,000 homes destroyed or severely damaged - that it is beyond the scope of the state, although leadership at the state level by Gov Blanco (which would have been a lot better had the Republican Bobby Jindal won the 2003 election) was clearly lacking. Because 20 - 25% of our nation's oil and gas supply funnels through Southeast Louisiana, and because it is the source of one-third of our seafood, and because the port is critical for shipping goods on the Mississippi River to and from the midwest, it is in everyone's best interest to see that the Greater New Orleans area is restored sufficiently to meet these needs. I lived in New Orleans growing up, and I have been back as a volunteer several times since Katrina, and I can tell you that the destruction is worse than Afghanistan, which has been "bombed back to the Stone Age," but not flooded.
As for the claim that more than 650,000 Iraqis are dead as a result of the US military - you can quibble about whether the result is direct or indirect, but Gilbert Burnham, MD of the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health published a well-done study in The Lancet last October, proving that there were 654,000+ excess deaths over the time period May 2003 - July 2006 comoared to the baseline, 91.8% of them due to violent causes. The Lancet is a prestigious peer-reviewed British medical journal and Dr. Burnham is an internationally respected researcher who has published widely on healthcare in conflict zones. Having spent the bulk of the last two years studying public health and how to evaluate and interpret the medical literature, I concluded his study is well-done and believable. His results are also corroborated by several other studies._E_ |
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 13, 2007 18:34:04 GMT -5
Kristin, you definitely get to join Joe and the Puddenheads, but there's no need to wear yourself out citing facts. I finally figured out that Edsfam only shows up to sneer, snipe, inflame; he has no interest in discussion. I gave up responding. But for you, oh conflicted lib-conservative, friend of reason and humble voice of the open-minded, I make an exception.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Mar 13, 2007 19:10:32 GMT -5
Kristin, you definitely get to join Joe and the Puddenheads, but there's no need to wear yourself out citing facts. I finally figured out that Edsfam only shows up to sneer, snipe, inflame; he has no interest in discussion. I gave up responding. But for you, oh conflicted lib-conservative, friend of reason and humble voice of the open-minded, I make an exception. You know, there used to be such a thing as a "Liberal Republican." And even now, I think the official party stance is one of smaller government and fiscal responsibility (ie, balanced budget). But in the 1984-upside-down-style world of today, it was Clinton who delivered the budget surplus and successfully enacted Medicaid Reform ("Welfare to Work") which I believe was modelled after Governor Tommy Thompson (R) of Wisconsin's state program. Meanwhile today's "Republicans" grow ever larger budget deficits and government agencies. Did anyone else read Garrison Keillor's book "Home Grown Democrat?" IIRC, in it he made a statement that Richard Nixon was the last Christian Republican. Nixon's HMO-enabling legislation of 1972 was his first pass at achieving universal healthcare in the US, a noble goal, and it started 35 yrs ago with Nixon, of all people. Doesn't matter if edsfam listens or not, I remain a zealot, and I'm still a scientist who cites facts. Can't help it. There are many others who do not fully comprehend the awful situation in NOLA, so repetition never hurts (basic principle of adult pedagogy, from a former medical school professor  ). And I was skeptical about the cited 654,000 excess deaths in Iraq, until I reviewed the article myself. Later this year I will pay over $700 per credit hour (twice what it costs at UW) to take Dr. Burnhams's online class in Refugee Healthcare at Johns Hopkins as one of my electives; there is nobody more knowledgable than he when it comes to healthcare in a conflict zone. |
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 13, 2007 19:29:34 GMT -5
About those hundreds of thousands of deaths, I think it's important to note that there is no real system for reporting deaths. Unless the victim is taken to a hospital, there may be no formal report. And there was no system at all in the early days. Furthermore, I understand that bodies are often buried within a day by the family, with no reporting. And more than half the population is under 15 - these little ones don't necessarily have papers or jobs that might report them missing. The Lancet estimate is sound and scientific.
|
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 13, 2007 19:39:28 GMT -5
I want to respond to the comments that were directed my way earlier today, but it will have to wait. Meanwhile just a word about the death toll. My recollection is that when the article was published, NPR reported on some serious questions about the validity of the numbers. Regardless, a lot of people have died, and a lot have been injured, many at the hands of insurgents and Iraqi militias and others at the hands of coalition armed forces. Noncombatant deaths are never a good thing. In fact, IMO, combatant deaths are not a good thing either.
|
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 13, 2007 22:05:38 GMT -5
... the ones who call people they disagree with faggots ... Did not happen, but it will continue to be believed as an actual event that happened and spread the word until it becomes "common knowledge". There is videotape of Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a "faggot," shown on most major news channels, but still readily available on YouTube in case you missed it.My response is as follows.. Please provide the transcript of the statement where Ann Coulter called John Edwards faggot. I challenge you to prove to me that she directly called him a faggot. I saw the clip several times and she did not call him a faggot. I am an engineer and designer, everything I do is ruled by strict laws of physics and science. The work I do is very exacting, without room for "close is good enough". I do not make up facts and words mean exactly what they say. No inference is allowed. _E_ |
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 13, 2007 22:22:46 GMT -5
... and further more
I never said the situation in NOLA was not bad, my complaint is with those that lay the blame for all the problems at the feet of the Prez. as if he is the sole provider of any help for the situation.
It has been this same mantra from the Left since Katrina happened, " Oh why oh why is George Bush so mean to New Orleans". To some people, all problems, no matter how uncontrolled or unpredictable are the result of Prez. Bushes failed leadership, absolving all others of any negligence.
... as to the death count in Iraq,
Thousands of Iraqis have fled to neighboring countries, like Syria and Iran. Just because the people in the house next door are no longer there does not automatically make them "dead", just not there. I am suspicious of "facts" that are the result of asking questions of unreliable reponders.
_E2_
|
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 13, 2007 23:38:12 GMT -5
… What I think you have to ask yourself, Joe W., in your heart of hearts (you never really did say whether you believed Bush and Powell and Rice and Cheney when they were spinning their yarn in the run up to war) without accepting your pejorative characterization, I believed what they were saying, which was perfectly consistent with what mainstream news media had been reporting I believe that we should provide medical care to the indigent. You will have noted, I am sure that I posted references to columns in which writers denounced Anne Coulter's use of the word "faggot." You will also have noted, I hope, that numerous right-wingers denounced it. OTOH you will also recall, I hope, that when GK used a stream of invective far more hate-filled and more sincerely to characterize Republicans, there were attempts to excuse his inexcusable words. I am to this day still unaware of any left-wing or Democratic organization which has denounced him for his intemperate and vicious language. So if you want to suggest that bad-mouthing the opposition is a right-wing phenomenon, I disagree. And if we have to renounce everyone who ever makes an intemperate remark and every organization which tolerates it, we will end up with very few people we can associate with. Again, for the record, I do not approve of Anne Coulter's use of the word "faggot," but it is no reason to abandon my conservative principles. I do not believe you are correct in characterizing our poicy as "coloniz[ing] the world," and I believe that contrasting our efforts to improve the lot of poor peoples abroad with what we do domestically runs the risk of falling into a false dichotomy. We need not cease doing good in one area merely because there is a problem elsewhere. Furthermore, edsfam rightly points out that there are levels of government in our federal system which can and should be dealing with much of our domestic needs. Overreliance on the federal government is both unconstitutional and unwise. Wanting to see local problems dealt with locally is not heartless. No doubt, there are haters among people of all political stripes, including any who have allowed their political disagreements with the current administration to move them to a deep and abiding personal animosity for its leaders. One would make a great mistake if one were to characterize either of our major parties as a party of hate or the exclusive party of love. One would similarly make a great mistake if one were to characterize conservatism or liberalism as a philosophy of hate or as the exclusive philosophy of love. |
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 14, 2007 1:41:40 GMT -5
Ed first let me say that that picture you posted long ago of your grandson? bathing in the kitchen sink is still one of my favorite photo's Thanks That is a long list of disagreements you posted above and I don't think I have the tiome to disprove all of it but heres #1. If you are wrong on this you could well be wrong on all, but time will tell that history. //Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed by the US Military ... not true, but believed.// The Lancet study conducted by Johns Hopkins in 2004 and 2006 is a very in depth and complex piece of work. I spent a couple of hours looking over the updated study and I can't say that I understand the statistical calculus of it, but they include the pre war death rates and the yearly death rate increases since the war started. They also calculate, through georaphical regional random door to door interviews. deaths due to violent and non violent causes. here is the linkthis is the summary: In Iraq,as with other conflicts, civilians bear the consequences of warfare. In the Vietnam war, 3 million civilians died;i n the Democratic Republic of the Congo,conflict has been responsible for 3 ·8 million deaths; and an estimated 200 000 of a total population of 800 000 died in conflict in East Timor. 33 –35 Recent estimates are that200 000 people have died in Darfur over the past. We estimate that almost 655 000 people —2 ·5%of the population in the study area —have died in Iraq. Although such death rates might be common in times of war, the combination of a long duration and tens of millions of people affected has made this the deadliest international conflict of the 21st century, and should be of grave concern to everyone. At the conclusion of our 2004 study we urged that an independent body assess the excess mortality that we saw. My concern is not to bash bush. It is to sort out the truth. Much of what I have glossed over and not recorded indicates that politics in the past 8 years (2years of the Clinton Admn) has been conducted with little concern for the constitution, international law or the will of the people. Weather the people know whats good for them or not is immaterial. It is the will of the people which this nation is founded on and that which we are trying to spread throughout the world. If the People need to have their conciousness raised then we should be spending billions here to achieve that not in Iraq. They or Iran are no threat to us as long as we have a good interrelationship with our allies. Don't forget we killed 3million Veitnames and achieved nothing. (Not to mention Korea) China had clearly stated in 1948 that they wanted nothing to do with Vietnam. And Ho offered a democratic solution in 1963. Do you really think that the fractured culture's of the Middle East have the resources to threaten us. Half of them are our allies Think hard about that. 9/11 was a result of this countries incompetance and anyone in the airline industry will tell you that. The cockpits of those planes should have been secured and air marshals in place as soon as DB Cooper did his thing. Al Queda should have been reined in long ago. But this belong in another thread. I appologize. I will post other data as I can |
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 14, 2007 1:47:03 GMT -5
I once again refuse to discuss the pawn Libby!
|
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Mar 14, 2007 2:11:37 GMT -5
I once again refuse to discuss the pawn Libby! Rook takes pawn. |
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Mar 14, 2007 6:25:14 GMT -5
Let's take a small break here to take care of a matter.
I received a complaint asking me to basically police this thread and not allow a certain "kind of post" for reasons contained in the following questions. I need to know what you think.
Please sincerely answer two questions (yes or no):
1. In your opinion, has there been any post on this thread that has contained any vicious attack(s) on another poster?
2. In your opinion, do the posts on this thread endanger the spirit of free speech of this website?
I appreciate your answers, and we can get back to the subject at hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 14, 2007 6:50:38 GMT -5
Rook is easily distracted by shiny object and flies beak first into a window. |
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 14, 2007 7:25:56 GMT -5
Let's take a small break here to take care of a matter. I received a complaint asking me to basically police this thread and not allow a certain "kind of post" for reasons contained in the following questions. I need to know what you think. Please sincerely answer two questions (yes or no): 1. In your opinion, has there been any post on this thread that has contained any vicious attack(s) on another poster? 2. In your opinion, do the posts on this thread endanger the spirit of free speech of this website? I appreciate your answers, and we can get back to the subject at hand. 1. No. If you want to see vicious, I can cut and paste vicious. No one here is vicious. It is sometimes necessary in this life to disagree and inform and there are times when that disagreement should not be taken personally. In terms of gender, it is sometimes difficult for me because there is still a lot of pressure for a woman to go along with a man who is wrong rather than embarrass him and damage his ego by proving him wrong. I would prefer that Ed stop disparaging people with the term Pudding Head and Liberal used disparaging and that he stop attempting to reduce any disagreement with Bush Policy as "hatred." It makes him look bad. Other than that, a sense of humor goes a long ways. 2. No. Except the complaint and this poll has a stifling effect. If people are sensitive to the heat politics generates, they should avoid bringing up the subject of Bush and they should avoid the politics thread that has already been relegated to a back booth out of respect for those sensitivities. Other than that, they should discuss the subject in the tone they wish it discussed. To say we can't discuss a subject because people get upset is a tool of the status quo. If things were going my way, it sounds like a plan. If I'm not happy with the way things are, to say we can't talk about it because you will get upset, is not an act of kindness or community. |
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 14, 2007 7:42:47 GMT -5
//No doubt, there are haters among people of all political stripes, including any who have allowed their political disagreements with the current administration to move them to a deep and abiding personal animosity for its leaders. One would make a great mistake if one were to characterize either of our major parties as a party of hate or the exclusive party of love. One would similarly make a great mistake if one were to characterize conservatism or liberalism as a philosophy of hate or as the exclusive philosophy of love.//
Big picture, you go first, characterize the philosophy of conservatism. Boil it down to a bumper sticker and then I'll discuss liberalism.
Now picture yourself on a boat of exclusive conservatives. Consider what you might talk about. Look at the justice department. Bush wanted to fire everybody. Will there be tests one day for who is conservative enough? And now picture yourself among Garrison Keillor fans, the ones in Birkenstocks (not me), you know the type, the ones who say you go first in the line to the cafeteria. Which group would you really want to spend a week with?
|
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Mar 14, 2007 8:51:17 GMT -5
Let's take a small break here to take care of a matter. I received a complaint asking me to basically police this thread and not allow a certain "kind of post" for reasons contained in the following questions. I need to know what you think. Please sincerely answer two questions (yes or no): 1. In your opinion, has there been any post on this thread that has contained any vicious attack(s) on another poster? 2. In your opinion, do the posts on this thread endanger the spirit of free speech of this website? I appreciate your answers, and we can get back to the subject at hand. While I haven't found anyone's posts to be vicious as vicious is defined, I have to comment on J*'s reference to Ed's "Puddinghead" remarks. Ed isn't a vicious person. I believe the above-mentioned reference to some folks is a mannerism of speech, rather than an attack. If "Puddinghead" remarks continue, will Ed go the way of JTOS? I hope not. For the most part, people discuss all matters with feeling, but are respectful to others. A very few absolutely refuse to see that the opposing viewpoint has any validity to it, but that's a personal preference that is not germain to free discussion. Open mouth and closed ears don't go far. I'm enjoying this forum very much and I am proud that the contention of our "Old Place" is not present. No threat to free speech is present here. I think we're good! ~B~ |
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 14, 2007 9:56:34 GMT -5
I'm happy that Brutus is happy. I didn't complain to Trusty but I've complained loudly in the past and I think there are good reasons to enforce courtesy. (Sounds paradoxical, doesn't it?)
I disagree with J* that the complaint and the poll have a stifling effect. The flow of the discussion has been interrupted, but I don't see how Trusty could have done it differently.
Here's a copy of the rules on a major network blog. The name of the network and the commentator will give some people apoplexy, but I hope you'll swallow hard and read them. If MPR had been willing to enforce such rules, the explosions on the old CB would never have happened.
I don't know that anyone here is vicious. But I do know that some will put me down with scathing superiority rather than simply say, "I disagree, Gail, and here's why."
Rules Of Engagement
The E-Etiquette Guide For 'Couric & Co.'
NEW YORK, Sep. 5, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) We're eager to hear what's on your mind and get your comments, but we have a few ground rules that we'd like you to abide by — and we'll be following them, as well. This will insure that we are all on the same page, and behaving ourselves.
There's legal language nearby. Here's the plain English: no libel, slander, lying, fabricating, no swearing at all, no words that teenagers use a lot that some people think aren't swearing but we do, no insulting groups or individuals, no ethnic slurs and/or epithets, no religious bigotry, no threats of any kind, no bathroom humor, no comparing anyone to Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot. We expect lively debate, but comments should be polite and civil. No shoving or shouting. Please.
Yes, what is not allowable is subjective. But it's our blog. We're providing the field, the football and the goal posts. We can move them at will, or take them away.
"Couric & Co." and CBSNews.com absolutely reserve the right to remove posts we think break any of the rules or the spirit of the rules and we reserve the right to ban individuals from commenting. We will use language filtering programs to block certain words and we will use human editing too.
Comments should be limited to the topic of the original "Couric & Co." posting. Let's stick to the subject at hand, keep our attention on what's in front of us, and avoid wandering into oncoming traffic, OK?
We require everyone who comments to register and provide a real e-mail address. No exceptions. And posting comments or e-mailing "Couric & Co." is not the same thing as complaining to CBS News or notifying CBS News of a problem — legally, there's a big difference.
Very important: If you see a comment that you feel is inappropriate, let us know by clicking on the "comment complaint" button. Thanks.
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Apparently someone here was troubled enough to complain and that person had every right to do so. I do believe that people who don't like certain threads can just ignore them. But what if some people really want to participate - after all, we are intelligent citizens of the same beloved country - but they simply cannot bear the splenetic tone?
|
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 14, 2007 10:03:09 GMT -5
…Big picture, you go first, characterize the philosophy of conservatism. Boil it down to a bumper sticker and then I'll discuss liberalism. Now picture yourself on a boat of exclusive conservatives. Consider what you might talk about. Look at the justice department. Bush wanted to fire everybody. Will there be tests one day for who is conservative enough? And now picture yourself among Garrison Keillor fans, the ones in Birkenstocks (not me), you know the type, the ones who say you go first in the line to the cafeteria. Which group would you really want to spend a week with? In interfaith dialogue there is a principle that the parties should not contrast the best of their co-religionists with the worst of the others'. It seems to me that your characterizations show liberals at their best and conservatives at their worst, so I'll just say that, surprisingly enough, other things being equal, I'd rather be with pleasant people than unpleasant people. Bumper sticker for conservatism — "Respect every person." Obviously there is a lot more to be said, and "Love God and your neighbor" is an even more basic principle, but then liberals might think that conservatives shouldn't see that as distinctive of conservatism. At a somewhat less fundamental level, as we move into the area of politics we might get "Government can't fix everything." So I've given you even more than you asked for: three instead of just one. How's that for generosity? |
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 14, 2007 10:20:05 GMT -5
Hammer smashes Rook
|
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Mar 14, 2007 10:27:24 GMT -5
I wonder what ellington would have to say about this topic??  ~B~ |
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 14, 2007 10:27:28 GMT -5
á Bruté You lurk?
|
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Mar 14, 2007 10:28:10 GMT -5
I duz ~B~ |
|
Dopey Member
).
