|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 14, 2007 10:38:46 GMT -5
Bumper Sticker for the adventures of the bush administration
"A Wicked Twitch of the West"
Now lets get back to skirting the premise of libel
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 14, 2007 10:42:35 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. A couple have been pretty uncomplimentary, but I wouldn't call them vicious. 2. No. I'll add that as one of the moderators I should be reminded from time to time that if someone does go too far in expressing uncomplimentary opinions of another participant, dand or I should remind them to play nicely. It would be ideal, perhaps, if none of us ever made a personal remark, but from my own personal experience as well as observation, I think that is a level of perfection which many of us are incapable of.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 14, 2007 11:29:07 GMT -5
Hammer was a little flashy dude from the Eighties. Hammer declares bankruptcy and moves in with the Knight. _E_ ps. I've seen vicious ... this stuff ain't vicious.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Mar 14, 2007 11:35:11 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. I agree with joew, "uncomplimentary but not vicious." 2. I don't think so, speaking just for myself I haven't read the private emails you've received, and I'm mindful that some have left the discussion board due to dissatisfaction with the content. I miss them, and regret the departures. Some of these discussions revolve around life and death matters, so strong opinions are expected, and I prefer them to apathy. Just for perspective, on the AOL news screen, I click "Post your thoughts" every once in a while. Ignorance, viciousness and stupidity abound. Our discussions here are refined and sedate in comparison. Trusty, since you have access to all the opinions and information, I'll take your guidance on what is and isn't appropriate here.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Mar 14, 2007 11:38:09 GMT -5
What I learned in Kindergarden and Elementary School still stands me in good stead:
I'm rubber and you're glue Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
or:
Sticks and stones may break my bones But names will never hurt me.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 14, 2007 11:44:56 GMT -5
So there Eddie Take two insults and post us in the morning. Docs orders
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 14, 2007 11:47:06 GMT -5
You walked right into that one Doc!
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Mar 14, 2007 11:54:32 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. Right on target. In the midst of conflict, many or even most deaths go unrecorded. And as you note, in Muslim countries where the custom is to bury the dead within 24 hours of death, there is little opportunity to report and record the death. Not to mention that it is dangerous to go outside the home to report at City Hall, or wherever. Burnham's study involved cluster sampling interviews, where (Arabic-speaking, Iraqi) researchers went out to homes and asked family members about who had died, when, and under what circumstances. This produces higher numbers of reported deaths when compared to numbers recorded in "official" sources. Given past history with the technique in other areas and the fact that multiple studies have reached the same conclusion, it's likely these numbers are the most accurate.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Mar 14, 2007 12:02:53 GMT -5
You walked right into that one Doc! We were pretty smart back in Kindergarden, n'est-ce pas? That was before we got all that booklearnin'
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Mar 14, 2007 12:31:20 GMT -5
I deeply appreciate your responses and apologize for interrupting the flow of this thread. I really needed your input to help balance out the member's opinions of "vicious posts" and endangering a "free and open website".
I had hoped something could be learned from your input. I have received more PMs from the one who originally complained stating that my "poll" of the issues that were raised was nothing more than a personality contest, so apparently I chose to do the wrong thing, and nothing was learned.
I have also skirted on the edge of what an administrator should do, and will never go there again. I will deal with the complaints as I have done in the past.
The CBS "rules" are good and basically an expansion of the golden rule which is living in all of us. I have not the time, nor the money, nor the desire, to constantly "enforce" what is said here; I count on all of us to keep the quality of conversation on a high level while not sacrificing any commitment for what we believe. This thread is healthy because of the maturity of its passionate posters; it needs no outside enforcement. For that, I am deeply grateful.
Thanks again for your input. Let's continue with the thread subject.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 14, 2007 12:55:25 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? ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Respect every person? Great slogan. How is anti-gay marriage respectful? How is mandatory prayer in school respectful of disbelief or doubt? How is a clean air act that grants more leeway to polluters respectful of every person. How is not being able to utter the word Democratic respectful or saying that if you are against a war you are for the terrorists or swift boating a true American war hero because you disagree with his politics respectful? How is suggesting that every justice department prosecutor be fired because they are not partisan enough (they should not be partisan at all) respectful of every person? Love God and your neighbor as yourself is another great goal. If I saw that as the Republican's true vision, I'd switch parties. I used to believe that both Republicans and Democrats wanted the same things, a fair and just society, only they differed on how to obtain them. I don't believe that any more. Not the new and improved Republican party. You can not conform policies of aggression, war, torture, invasion of privacy, indifference to poverty and intolerance to other people's choices to the mandates of love your neighbor. All I see is self-love and I don't see how you reconcile your ideals with reality unless you shut your eyes and disengage your brain. How do you not say that held up against your stated standard, your party is an utter failure?
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 14, 2007 13:13:03 GMT -5
Trusty I have posted very little on this thread and haven't read half of it so I am unqualified to answer your questions. I do though feel qualified to add a little humor to them. If you don't mind.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 14, 2007 13:35:14 GMT -5
I deeply appreciate your responses and apologize for interrupting the flow of this thread. I really needed your input to help balance out the member's opinions of "vicious posts" and endangering a "free and open website". I had hoped something could be learned from your input. I have received more PMs from the one who originally complained stating that my "poll" of the issues that were raised was nothing more than a personality contest, so apparently I chose to do the wrong thing, and nothing was learned. I have also skirted on the edge of what an administrator should do, and will never go there again. I will deal with the complaints as I have done in the past. The CBS "rules" are good and basically an expansion of the golden rule which is living in all of us. I have not the time, nor the money, nor the desire, to constantly "enforce" what is said here; I count on all of us to keep the quality of conversation on a high level while not sacrificing any commitment for what we believe. This thread is healthy because of the maturity of its passionate posters; it needs no outside enforcement. For that, I am deeply grateful. Thanks again for your input. Let's continue with the thread subject. Whoah! Let it not be said that you have ever wasted a breath (or a tap, slap or flurry) here. There is alway room for introspection to restore healthy levity. Ihope also that the complainant has also assesed their observations and asked themselves if, in this or any other heated debate, if their expectations were reasonable. Maybe you could add a heat meter to these threads or warnings like "Caution this thread may contain content not suited for casual conversationalists!" I haven't seen anything inflammatory to anyone but the subject matter. OOh Sh**t! That usually means I should take a look at my own self. Better re-read
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 14, 2007 13:36:57 GMT -5
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…. … Respect every person? Great slogan. How is anti-gay marriage respectful? How is mandatory prayer in school respectful of disbelief or doubt? How is a clean air act that grants more leeway to polluters respectful of every person. How is not being able to utter the word Democratic respectful or saying that if you are against a war you are for the terrorists or swift boating a true American war hero because you disagree with his politics respectful? How is suggesting that every justice department prosecutor be fired because they are not partisan enough (they should not be partisan at all) respectful of every person? Love God and your neighbor as yourself is another great goal. If I saw that as the Republican's true vision, I'd switch parties. I used to believe that both Republicans and Democrats wanted the same things, a fair and just society, only they differed on how to obtain them. I don't believe that any more. Not the new and improved Republican party. You can not conform policies of aggression, war, torture, invasion of privacy, indifference to poverty and intolerance to other people's choices to the mandates of love your neighbor. All I see is self-love and I don't see how you reconcile your ideals with reality unless you shut your eyes and disengage your brain. How do you not say that held up against your stated standard, your party is an utter failure? Nice shotgun approach. Overload. You've given me way too much to respond to in the time I have to devote to this message board, although, given sufficient time, I believe that I could adequately defend most of what you mention and maybe admit to one or two gotchas. Suffice it to say that we disagree: I do not accept that, taken as a whole, your examples prove that conservatism as such lacks respect for every person or opposes the greatest commandments.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 14, 2007 13:42:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Mar 14, 2007 15:56:07 GMT -5
//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?//
1. Vicious? No. 2. Is free speech endangered? No. But I reserve the right to respond in kind when some jerk calls me a "puddinghead."
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Mar 14, 2007 15:59:05 GMT -5
I don't get it.
Because Clinton/Reno fired all the US Attorneys to serve partisan purposes, it is OK for Bush to fire some in retaliation?
All serve at the appointment and pleasure of the President, but one would hope all administer justice impartially.
As a WSJ subscriber, I found this piece referred to below their usual standards of accuracy, although it is labelled "OpinionJournal."
John McKay is a moderate Republican of long standing in Washington State, not a Democrat. Maybe it is the "moderate" descriptor that is offensive?
As a supporter of Dino Rossi (the Republican in the contested Washington gubernatorial race mentioned), I followed the news of the investigations of voter fraud quite closely. They were thorough and no prosecutable offenses were found.
It is not true that Mr. McKay failed to investigate and appropriately prosecute vote fraud. The final vote was certified by Republican Sam Reed, after extensive verification of the accuracy of the final count.
Somebody did not do his fact-checking, casting doubt on the validity of the entire column.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 14, 2007 19:28:38 GMT -5
From Froomkin: Washington Post: "It's become clear, most recently and pointedly with the release of e-mails between Mr. Sampson and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers, that Mr. Gonzales's assurances can't be trusted. . . . "As we have said previously, the administration is entitled to prosecutors who reflect its policies and carry out its priorities. It is not entitled to treat federal prosecutors like political pawns -- nor is it entitled, any longer, to the benefit of the doubt about the propriety of its conduct. "Mr. Gonzales can make self-serving declarations about his belief in 'accountability,' as he did at a news conference yesterday; he can proclaim his plans to 'ascertain what happened here . . . and take corrective actions.' Nothing in his record gives any reason for confidence that anything will change in a department under his leadership." New York Times: "In firing the prosecutors and replacing them without Senate approval, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took advantage of a little-noticed provision that the administration and its Republican enablers in Congress had slipped into the 2006 expansion of the Patriot Act. The ostensible purpose was to allow the swift interim replacement of a United States attorney who was, for instance, killed by terrorism. "But these firings had nothing to do with national security -- or officials' claims that the attorneys were fired for poor performance. This looks like a political purge, pure and simple, and President Bush and his White House are in the thick of it." Los Angeles Times: "[D]on't blame [Gonzales] for the lack of principled leadership at the Justice Department. Blame his boss. President Bush appointed a man clearly unqualified for the job.. "The fact that the White House was complaining to the Justice Department that David Iglesias, the well-regarded federal prosecutor in New Mexico, was insufficiently committed to taking up voter fraud cases that Republicans cared deeply about is rather alarming. Alarming, but not surprising -- not so long as Gonzales is attorney general." San Francisco Chronicle: "These latest incidents underscore the obvious: Gonzales must resign. The nation needs an attorney general who can restore confidence in the administration of justice." Philadelphia Inquirer: "[T]he nation needs an attorney general whose first loyalty is to the rule of law, not to his old pals in the White House." What About the 'Good Soldiers'? New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman writes: "The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they would not go along with the Bush administration's politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance. " Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 14, 2007 19:34:34 GMT -5
And Kurtz: Purging Prosecutors Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 14, 2007; 12:26 PM The administration's mishandling of what the blogosphere is calling Purgegate almost boggles the mind. After all, the president is perfectly entitled to name any U.S. attorneys he wants. They are political appointees. But the White House is not entitled to dump perfectly good prosecutors because they aren't investigating Democrats aggressively enough. And the administration isn't entitled to sully the reputations of perfectly good prosecutors by saying they are being replaced for "performance" reasons, when the actual reason is to make room for political hacks or, worse, politically compliant lawyers. It was the administration's lack of candor that turned this into a scandal, complete with incriminating internal e-mails, the resignation of Alberto Gonzales's chief of staff, and Sen. Chuck Schumer demanding that the AG himself step down. It didn't help, of course, that Republicans Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson waited days to admit they called the U.S. attorney in New Mexico to say, Hey, how's that investigation going , and do you think any Dems might be indicted before Election Day? As an old Justice Department reporter, I can tell you: This thing reeks of the politicization of justice. And how about the great judgment of would-be Justice Harriet Miers? Here's the White House acknowledging that Bush mentioned complaints about vote-fraud investigations (which invariably means too many Democrats voting) to Gonzales, his longtime Texas pal, last October. D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's staff guy, wrote of the firing of New Mexico prosecutor David Iglesias: "Domenici is going to send over names tomorrow (not even waiting for Iglesias's body to cool)." Now that's compassionate conservatism! Miers's deputy had written that Domenici's chief of staff was "happy as a clam" over the firing. Gonzales took some press questions yesterday and tried to stick to a mistakes-were-made line while insisting he knew little about the details. He kept saying that Sampson's job was to "drive" the process. But Sampson, after all, worked for him . . . www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 14, 2007 19:36:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 14, 2007 19:51:18 GMT -5
I agree with Dr.K that any ruthless behavior on the part of Bill Clinton isn't reason to excuse it in Bush/Gonzales.
This seems to me what deserves investigation (although I doubt any of us has time to do it): At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.
WSJ mentions Carter and Reagan, but not the number who were allowed to keep their positions or for how long. It doesn't mention the record of Bush I. I've said before that all of us who have worked in government know that new administrations routinely replace appointees with their own choices. This may not be a good idea - I happen to think it is not - but it's S.O.P.
What's coming out about the eight is highly suspicious, and presumably Myers inquired about firing them all- even though they had been appointed by Bush. Internal emails suggest that everyone prepare for the fur to fly. It looks very much like a purge for political reasons and no one can approve of that.
Once again, I'd like to say that i don't think Bill Clinton was a saint. I do think he was infinitely more dedicated to the good of this country and our allies than GWB.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 14, 2007 20:28:52 GMT -5
Gail I will say it before Ed has the chance to accuse us of believing it...AhhhHH ah ah ah mennnnnn....
|
|
|
Post by Gracie on Mar 14, 2007 21:32:44 GMT -5
Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Mar 14, 2007 23:49:46 GMT -5
No matter how he is finally wedged into the appliance, Gonzales is toast.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 15, 2007 12:17:29 GMT -5
Since ya'all missed the point .... 1.) In an earlier post J* contended that Democrats are more respectful than Republicans. As evidence she offered up the firing of 8 Prosecutors by a Republican President as proof of this greater respectfulness. To counter this assertion, I offered up the firing of 93 Prosecutors by a Democrat President. By my calculation, ( using a TI-1706SV hand-held calculator ) I was able to figure out that Republicans mathematically out-respectfulness Democrats by a slim margin of 1062.5%.The equation can be provided ... but it may be over the head of some of the English Majors in the audience. 2.) I am still waiting for a transcript of the Ann Coulter / John Edward / F-word-2 that proves the alleged insult actually occurred. 3.) I don't know how much more of the fake indignation by the Democrats I can take. Senators Schumer, Leahy and especially Clinton look a little stoopid expressing outrage and demanding more respect than they are due in every news cycle for every event that occurs. _E_
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 15, 2007 13:11:06 GMT -5
Oooo weee, that 1706 has a memory module doesnt it Ed. That should help.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 15, 2007 13:19:19 GMT -5
Since ya'all missed the point .... 1.) In an earlier post J* contended that Democrats are more respectful than Republicans. As evidence she offered up the firing of 8 Prosecutors by a Republican President as proof of this greater respectfulness. To counter this assertion, I offered up the firing of 93 Prosecutors by a Democrat President. By my calculation, ( using a TI-1706SV hand-held calculator ) I was able to figure out that Republicans mathematically out-respectfulness Democrats by a slim margin of 1062.5%.The equation can be provided ... but it may be over the head of some of the English Majors in the audience. 2.) I am still waiting for a transcript of the Ann Coulter / John Edward / F-word-2 that proves the alleged insult actually occurred. 3.) I don't know how much more of the fake indignation by the Democrats I can take. Senators Schumer, Leahy and especially Clinton look a little stoopid expressing outrage and demanding more respect than they are due in every news cycle for every event that occurs. _E_ I linked to several credentialed commentators who thoroughly analyze the abuse of power by Bush in this situation and dispel the a.m. radio talking point about Clinton that you are predictably and pathetically making in defense of the "mistakes that were made." Like what, leaving a trail and getting caught? I don't know why you continue to assert that Ann Coulter did not insinuate that John Edwards was a faggot unless you are trying to be cute or stoopid in terms of literal mindedness and trying to assert that her comment that she can't really talk about the person in question if she can't use the word faggot is somehow technically different than coming right out and calling him a faggot. Is that something Fox News is trying to sell? NY Times March 4, 2007 By ADAM NAGOURNEY WASHINGTON, March 3 . . . Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference before an overflow crowd on Friday, Ms. Coulter said, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.” The video and the audience response: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxgVuB3TyaU
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 15, 2007 13:36:15 GMT -5
And it's a strike on an attempted bunt!
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 15, 2007 14:34:07 GMT -5
sigh ... and so it continues ...
"I linked to several credentialed commentators who thoroughly analyze the abuse of power by Bush in this situation and dispel the a.m. radio talking point about Clinton that you are predictably and pathetically making in defense of the "mistakes that were made." Like what, leaving a trail and getting caught?"
What in the world do the links have to do with the 1062.5% respectfulness margin? Are you doin' that fancy lawyering thing ya learn't at the University, where ya' deflect the question by ranting on and on about something other than the question?
Mayhaps ya' could 'splain how Clinton fired 93 out of 94 Prosecutors for purely political reasons and not a single news service wants to address it. Not the process or the methods, but the justification of the firings.
2. ) Could Ann C. have been refering to the Edwards bloggers that were sent to rehab for using derogatory, insulting and inflamatory language?
_E_
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 15, 2007 14:39:15 GMT -5
|
|