Talk about a broken clock being right twice a day:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_ pf.html

And these are the guys who beat up Mr. Nixon with "All The Presidents Men."

Herbert Milhous

No question about it, San Fran Nan is not a very bright light bulb. And wait until the scandal over funneling government funds to her husband's company hits the fan. It's coming.

Quote from the editorial:

"Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq."

Ah yes...very lefty sounding.

Herb, if you could more honestly represent your sources, I could take you more seriously.

(Oh, I forgot. ALL the press is liberal.)

Sources? SOURCES? I quoted from an organ of the left's propaganda machine. And even THEY disagree with the democrats on this.

And if it's ok for Mrs. Pelosi to free-lance on foreign policy, then don't gripe if the Republicans give it a try during a democrat administration.

We could dust off "Henry the K" and really have fun.

Herb

I'm saying that it's clear this editorialist is not pro-Pelosi, and almost certainly not liberal.

I'm not disputing the incident, just your constant need to pigeonhole everything and everyone. Why not just report the incident and let the thread sort it all out?

Is nothing worth discussing with you if it doesn't somehow score points for your home team?

"We could dust off "Henry the K" and really have fun."

Today, William Kristol, a hyper-conservative writer for the Washington Post, is the leading Straussian in the United States. Henry Kissinger had a vision that ran completely against the grain of the work of Leo Strauss, and since it could not stop him in the moment, in the years since "Henry the K" was in office, the movement has worked hard to erase every bit of progress he made in foreign policy.

So, Herb, I implore you, study history, distance yourself from the Neoconservatives, and preserve what little legacy the true GOP can still claim. Or, you will continue to look just as foolish as the rest of your party, who followed like sheep, and are now so much mutton stew.

What Pelosi did by going to Damascus looks like a sincere gaff, but in the bigger picture, she was trying to cultivate some peace, and that is never a bad thing in a hotspot.

As weak as diplomacy has been painted by this current adminstration, historically, we are a people of negotiation. In fact, as a man who wanted to unify the world through dialogue and dollars, Kissinger might have done the same damn thing.

"So, Herb, I implore you, study history, distance yourself from the Neoconservatives, and preserve what little legacy the true GOP can still claim."

Ending slavery.
Actually voting to enact civil rights, unlike democrats who didn't.
Starting the EPA.
Placing more minorities in a presidential cabinet than any other admininistration in US history.

Not a bad legacy, and hardly one that can be readily erased.

But from what I can tell, Mr. Kristol is an even-handed, very polite, mild-mannered guy with conservative, not radical views. Richard Perle is maybe a bit more strident, but these people are hardly the raving whackos portrayed by the left. All are apparently labeled neo-cons.

I'm open to learning more, as I know nothing of Leo Strauss. The fact that I like "Henry the K" since he's opposite of a guy you dislike, should show I'm not on the fringe.

Herb

Herb writes:
Sources? SOURCES? I quoted from an organ of the left's propaganda machine. And even THEY disagree with the democrats on this.

It was an unsigned editorial, not an article.

While I see nothing wrong with Pelosi and her companion Republican congressmen going to Syria, I agree in this case that she's not handled the trip particularly well and that her attempts at diplomacy are way out of line and inappropriate. The Bush administration and the State Dept. have a right to be angry about this. (Good job, Nancy, giving them ammo to attack you.)

Andrew

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/05/post-editorial-pelosi-syria/

We all agree that Wiki is a nice neutral spot to start on Leo Strauss, right? There is an extensive list of things to explore right here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

Contrasting him with Kissinger is an interesting exercise. They were both German immigrants, with a vision of order and control, but the ideas they proposed to achieve those ends were almost polar opposites. To oversimplify, but put their contributions in context: Strauss planted seeds for the future based on old ideals; Kissinger reaped a new world of possibilities.

No need for links, editorials or anything else. The President conducts foreign policy, not Members of Congress. Her political grandstanding was clearly out of line.

Bull.

Many members of congress travel overseas to get better informed.

Also, since our constution, mandates the role of congress to be one of oversight, clearly taking a look see to better grok reality over there is completely and totally justified.


Oh, and Herb himself posted stats that debunk the "liberal press" bit.

The shrub is just pissed that he must now endure people actually doing the jobs they were put there to do! The rubber stamp has worn out!

Finally, had this Resident President actually done a better job, none of this would be up for discussion. He gets what he gets.

>>>"Many members of congress travel overseas to get better informed."


Bull, yourself. Carrying false messages from Isreal to Syria is not "getting better informed".

Missing, you are burying you head further and further in the sand these days. Republicans can do no right, Democrats can do no wrong in your vision. What's wrong with that picture?

1) Pelosi passed an incorrect message from Israel to Syria. Pelosi said yesterday that she gave Syrian officials the message that Israel is “ready to engage in peace talks.” The Post falsely claims, “The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message,” misinterpreting a statement from the Israeli Prime Minister’s office that simply reiterated its position that talks with Syria will not take place until Syria has taken steps to end its support for extremist elements. There is no evidence that Pelosi failed to communicate this message. In fact, Pelosi’s delegation specifically pressed the Syrian president “over Syria’s support for militant groups and insist[ed] that his government block militants seeking to cross into Iraq and join insurgents there.”

2) Pelosi is attempting to “establish a shadow presidency.” This claim is directly contradicted by the Post’s own reporting this morning, which states, “Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi’s dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip.” Pelosi herself has “described the trip as little different than the visit paid to Syria the same week led by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA),” and she went to great lengths to express her unity of purpose with President Bush on terrorism issues. The Post’s own reporting today also cites several instances of members of Congress meeting with foreign leaders during the past 30 years. As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, in contrast with Pelosi’s trip, previous congressional actions abroad attempted to directly undermine President Clinton.

Did 'ya see the link Amus posted by chance?

Like I said, well within her rights.

Man, it's gotta sucked to just get completely spanked like that huh?

Herb: "Actually voting to enact civil rights, unlike democrats who didn't."

Jeez Louise... Okay, let's do this one more time Herb. Pay attention:

1964 Civil Rights Act
Vote totals, by party

The original House version:

* Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (79%-21%)

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Summary: A solid majority of both parties approved the act in each house of Congress. At least 18% of members of each party in each house voted against it.

Additional summary: On this issue Herb is a pinhead.

>>>"Did 'ya see the link Amus posted by chance?"

I guess, Missing, you thought you'd run that one past us.

That site is a radical far left propaganda spewer.

Run by the likes of:

Tom Daschle
John Podesta (ex Clintonista)
As well as an ex-John Dean staffer

Do I need to go on?

Thank you Edsel! It is hip deep this afternoon.

Deane, maybe you are right. Our congress should never ever leave the United States and our territories. After all, they do a whopping hell of a lot of good for us when they go to exotic places that our own citizens call home:

"The Northern Mariana Islands have also come into the news recently due to their connection to the scandals involving Jack Abramoff and allegedly former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. As a direct result of lobbying by Abramoff and associates, the Northern Mariana Islands received special federal subsidies. As well, Congressman Bob Ney allegedly received free trips to the Northern Mariana Islands from Abramoff, in violation of federal law.

The Northern Marianas Islands are also the site of another controversy involving Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA), Jack Abramoff, and Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) and the alleged links to the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association and the Northern Mariana Islands role in stopping legislation aimed at cracking down on sweatshops and sex shops on the islands in 2001.

The Northern Marianas Islands allegedly harbor the most abusive labor practices of anywhere in the United States. According to the progressive think tank American Progress Action Fund, "Human 'brokers' bring thousands there to work as sex slaves and in cramped sweatshop garment factories where clothes (complete with Made in U.S.A. tag) have been produced for all the major brands."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mariana_Islands

Pelosi has the right to act diplomatically and is urged to do so by our system. It might not have been a perfect step, but it was a step. Our elected leaders take a whole lot of trips on our dollar. I am grateful that this wasn't so she could insure that her constituents still had their our own domestic version of Bangkok.

Littlesongs, nobody said congress shouldn't travel and gather information. That's not what Polosi did. She is carrying messages and trying to provoke action, which she is not authorized to do.

She could go and ask questions if she thought she needed to learn something. Again, that's not what she did.

She was wrong. She is not very bright. She has done one stupid thing after another. She's going to get hers and it will involve her husband. Wait and see.

"That site is a radical far left propaganda spewer"

Substitute the word "right" for "left" in that sentence, and you get all of Herb and Deane's sources.

Some Republicans were going over there to Syria, weren't they?

This era of Bush being only the President for those that voted for him is over. And it's a CHOICE to make that era over. The choice has been made. What risk is left that hasn't been fully realized by Bush's actions or non-actions. It's ALL happening in the worst case scenarios.

I know it looks like Bush is getting undercut by Pelosi. You know why it looks like that? Because he is.

It didn't have to be this way.

radical far left propaganda...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You have some support for that right? Facts maybe. Stories they have distorted? Pointing out some of the people, labeling them as being [bad] somehow really does nothing to establish any credence for your claim.

Good grief. Even middle schoolers can understand the problems with that assertion.

I think Chickenjuggler has it spot on. If we didn't have such a clown for a (P)resident, maybe we would not have things like this happening!

The shrub gets what he gets.

Under different circumstances, I would not have been as keen on Pelosi going to Syria. But given the current reputation of America, I'm hoping that it sends a signal. And I want that signal to be " We are just waiting out Bush. Things have a chance of being better between our countries when someone else will be in power."

It's worth a shot. I'm not willing to bend or break for Syria. However, I AM interested in dialogue. Bush is not. Not one bit. He's shown that, said that out loud and wears it like a badge of honor. That badge is so seriously tarnished that he has painted us into a corner. Pelosi is trying to break us out of the corner.

Now, if Syria does anything that smacks of " not nice " then we'll be able to REALLY say " We tried." But we can't even say THAT with Bush in office.

Bush's mantra of " I respectfully disagree " has worn out it's welcome. If he is going to do whatever the Hell he wants, in the face of a billion people, then someone needs to remind the world that Bush is much closer to HIS last throes than any Iraqi insurgency will ever be.

That does not make us weak. That CAN make us strong. Respected. Peacekeepers. There are LOTS of people in the world that want us to regain what we have lost. I think we will find more support in a tactic like this ( Pelosi's Syrian visit ) than opposition.

When Bush's 2 X 4 is finally taken away, there is going to be a HELL of a mess to clean up. There is NO reason why we cannot start RIGHT FRIGGING NOW!

( For the record, however, I'm not putting all my faith in Pelosi formally being the one to broker world peace for cryin' out loud. But history can point to a few times that someone, other than the President, can lay some decent groundwork towards all kinds of good. Bush just refuses to do it. So someone else is. We'll see. )

"radical far left propaganda..."

That's right and calling the president names is all you've got. Talk about grade school behaviour.

And given that 90% of reporters vote democrat, because you choose to ignore that fact of media bias, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Herb

So, it seems Nancy lied to the Syrians. Now it's Liar Polosi. When that name starts showing up, you'll know where it started. Liar Polosi.

What you guys may fail to realize is that Liar Polosi is not Secretary of State. She is a Representative, elected to represent a few fringe lunatics living in the San Fransisco Bay area.

I was getting ready to ask JUST that -

What do you think was the official reason for her visit to Syria?

What was said? Something that was a lie? What was that?

What's good for the goose...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070405/pl_nm/russia_usa_general_dc

"I AM interested in dialogue. Bush is not. Not one bit."

Dialogue. You're interested in dialogue.

Any dialogue with terrorist states like Syria is meaningless. Like dialogue between Hitler and Neville Chamberlain, these guys will say anything and it means less than nothing.

Herb

>>>"What do you think was the official reason for her visit to Syria?"

IMO, political grandstanding.

>>>"What was said? Something that was a lie? What was that?"

Yes, that's what the uproar is all about. She told the Syrians that she brought a message from the Isrealis that they were willing to engage in peace talks. The Isreali Prime Minister quickly said he told her no such thing.

>>>"What's good for the goose... "

The difference here is that the President of the United States is in charge of foreign policy. Liar Polosi is not.

I heard a great description of Mrs. Pelosi's trip to Syria:

"If Pelosi attempts to take any credit for release of the British hostages, it will be like a crowing rooster taking credit for the sun coming up."

Herb

I would agree with that.

Sort of like Regan getting credit for the Iran hostages getting released.

Sort of.

But our point is not lost on me and I won't fall for that crap either.

So Deane did it surprise you that Pelosi did this? Is it surprising to any of the GOP that this type of politics is happening?

It's probably going to get even more intriguing during the next year and a half to see this president challenged and held accountable like never before. Deane you even said the President of the US is in charge of foreign policy. You are partly correct. I believe the better description is failed policy.

FYI-
Is anyone aware that within the past few weeks a group of American's from different faith backgrounds met with the President of Iran? In case you missed it here's the link.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/312/video.html

Not just because of Pelosi's visit, but other things too - there has been an ACTUAL momentum shift. I'm ok with it.

I know that the republican die-hards don't like it. And their retort will be fear-based stuff like " Be careful what you wish for " and " We're in trouble." But the rest of us are kind of laughing at that now. Those that voted for Bush should be careful what THEY wished for. Apparently you CAN make this stuff up...as you go along! Or you can refuse to answer questions under oath - PURELY for fear of revealing the truth...which would fucking CRUSH you on EVERY level.

We're gong to TRY and fix your mess now. Get on board or get tossed. I don't care.

All those threats of " We'll fight you at every turn and make it impossible for you to win " is going to be your downfall.

Yep.

I find it totally interesting that the scope of discussion from the GOP has narrowed to essentially a bunch of crap. All boils down to "if we could just get what we want, things would be ok."

Yeah, you guys had that and things sucked.

I can't wait for the actual debates to start. We are gonna be hearing about taxes, fixing the civil liberties problems, health care, ethics, ending the Iraq clusterfuck, etc...

Fixing civil liberties will be a glorious era. THAT will give me the most hope in probably my lifetime. THAT is a legacy that I will be proud to explain to my son.

"I can't wait for the actual debates to start. We are gonna be hearing about taxes, fixing the civil liberties problems, health care, ethics, ending the Iraq clusterfuck, etc..."

Yep, we're going to hear about taxes...Taxes going up.

Fixing the Civil Liberties problems...pronounced "Socialism"

Health Care; Government sponsored healthcare = higher taxes. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.

Ethics - Only way to fix this is to either outlaw politicians or shoot them ALL.

Ending the Iraq clusterf*&^ - Something needs to be done. I don't know what. Just pulling out isn't the answer, but I don't know exactly what is either.

What we need is a 100% government overhaul.

1 - NO career politicians. 2 terms then back to the private sector.

2 - They serve for very minimal $'s and cannot vote themselves a pay raise. Salaries should be about $50K max. Pay raises MUST be approved by a national vote. Do a good job get more $'s. Bad job, get fired.

3 - There should be a way to vote someone out in midterm. Get enough people to sign a petition and hold a vote. As above...Do a bad job and get fired.

4 - Absolutely NO corporate contributions to politicians coffers.

5 - NO pork added on to bills. Each bill must stand alone. No adding moving sidewalks for Altoona, PA to a bill about Social Insecurity.

6 - Allow us control over our Social Insecurity accounts and allow us to invest our $'s the way we want to. (This one scares the hell out of politicians. It would take away their cash cow)

7 - Use Social Insecurity for what it was intended. Put your money in, YOU get it out when you retire. NOTHING else.

Those are a few of my suggestions. It's only a start.

Dan doesn't have enough storage on this server to list all the things that need fixing!

"Fixing the Civil Liberties problems...pronounced "Socialism" "

No it's not. That's such bullshit. You say that to shame us me or make me fear. It doesn't work. Would that work on you?

"She is a Representative, elected to represent a few fringe lunatics living in the San Fransisco Bay area."

Back in 2000, when we had a Democracy, it was 181,847 to be exact, but they have families, and the population has grown, so I am sure it is well over a quarter million people. Oh, whoops, I called them people.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2000/states/ca/house/ca0 8/

Folks, if you haven't already, please check the link that Chris posted. It could change your mind on more than a few levels about people. Whoops, I used that "P" word again.

KSKD sums up the GOP pretty well when he says, "All boils down to 'if we could just get what we want, things would be ok.' Yeah, you guys had that and things sucked."

Yes, and they are still pulling an ever increasing amount of air into their buttocks for later release. Then again, sometimes, that is just what people do. Yes, people.

The smash and grab is over. At least, that's what I hope for.

Chickenjugler, I don't say that to shame you or anyone else. If you took it that way I apologize.

I just don't want any more government sponsored socialist programs. Welfare, mass transit, you MUST wear your seat belt because we know better than you, my tax dollars funding art, etc.

The government should provide us fire, police and military and a few other essential functions and then should stay the F%$# out of our lives.

EVERYTHING else can be done better and cheaper by private industry.

But fixing serious-to-me Civil Liberties is not Socialist. By that logic, we were socialist before these problems.

It felt wrong to talk to you like that. Now I know why - I was wrong to assign somethng sinister to you. I was wrong. I'm sorry.

Bill, I like you, so don't feel singled out, this is a more general rant. Man, you hit a sore spot for me. I think you and I both know that "my tax dollars funding art" is nonsense. We have not funded art to a level that would be acceptable to any other civilized nation since the days of the WPA.

Years ago, a few photographs from an exhibition by Robert Mapplethorpe were singled out by creatively bankrupt bigots who would have used the National Endowment for the Arts to fund fifteen ton granite Bibles for our public spaces in a heartbeat.

What is forgotten is that Mapplethorpe took thousands of photographs in his lifetime that were of a far less raw variety, and that he worked for decades before ever getting a dime of public funding.

Trust me, everybody here has seen and liked his stuff. His art graces album sleeves from Joan Armatrading, Laurie Anderson, Peter Gabriel, Philip Glass, Taj Mahal, Paul Simon, Patti Smith and many others.

Usually, being an artist in the United States is a slow death sentence. Anyone who thinks it is some magic ride from fat grant to fat grant must be completely detached from reality. Anyone who thinks that ideas are not stolen every minute for commercial use is smoking the really good stuff. Stealing is, of course, rampant and most artists cannot afford an attorney to fight it.

So, the best tend to work themselves to the bone taking care of details like family, food and rent in addition to the many unpaid hours dedicated to their calling. Heaven forbid they ever have a health crisis.

No other area of expertise requires a completely volunteer workforce, that pays for it's own tools and materials, works long hours for the love of it, and never ever sees a return on huge investments in education or equipment.

The "love of something" is not childish, self-indulgent or foolish. In fact, it is the very reason why the true artists in the radio industry have so often been royally screwed by the folks who own the stations. They take shit because they could not imagine doing anything else.

They in turn play music from other talented folks who also have been royally shafted. They also take shit because they could not imagine doing anything else. Private industry exploits, period. Anything else is a naive and myopic view of our so-called free market economy.

Of course, now we have fully automated stations playing prepackaged performers who have talent thanks to Digidesign, Lexicon and a borrowed melody. Now we can turn nothing into nothing with a profit. Yippee.

If intellectual property for the individual means a damn again, and can consistently feed a family, let me know. I will pass that revelation on to hundreds of thousands of folks across this land. In the meantime, most of them have a college loan to pay for 20 years, a crappy job that does nothing to help them advance, and "public funding" due before April 15.

Remember, although "private industry" benefited greatly from his efforts, the late John Fahey had to live in his car behind a Safeway. Frankly, that is what artistic genius means to most Americans, about as much as a rubber hobo. Whether you are a painter, photographer, or a friendly voice that wakes up a community every morning with a smile, when people are merely a commodity, it is easy to love it, use it, and throw it away.

Thanks for the soapbox, I will now give the remainder of my time to the Representative from California's 8th District...

"The President conducts foreign policy, not Members of Congress."

Not anymore. He got both testicles cut off (aka as a mandate) from the voters last November.

>>>"Back in 2000, when we had a Democracy, it was 181,847 to be exact, but they have families, and the population has grown, so I am sure it is well over a quarter million people. Oh, whoops, I called them people."

Let's see now, 250,000 out of 300 Million. What is that, something like less than .1% of the U.S. population. And that puts her in a position to take over U.S. foreign policy? This broad is so far from reality that even many Democrats and liberal press members are turning against her anti-U.S. circus side show. It was a political stunt that back fired.


>>>"Not anymore."

Skep, the Democrats getting elected to control of Congress by a slim margin does not indicate a change in the structure of our government.

Perhaps you could enroll in some night classes at your local college to gain a little more insight into the workings of government.

Deane- Do we allow the Bush policies to continue?

Was last November a mandate? Slim margin does not indicate such, but it does indicate that the American public are not happy at some level. I'm not totally sold on Pelosi's actions but damnit sometimes you have to be a bit radical to make a point and be heard.

It was a good solid swing.

Notably, the GOP did not pick up a single Dem or Indy seat.

The only thing that kept the Senate close was the number of seats avaliable. Had there been more, the Dem majority would be more solid.

"allow Bush to continue?"

That's my question also. For me, and a growing majority of people, the answer is "No".

The problem with this happens to be this administration being perfectly willing to play dirty ball. Making some changes is gonna require some pushing and shoving. If that bothers you, look at these clowns, because their actions are at the root of it.

>>>"Deane- Do we allow the Bush policies to continue?"

Yes we do. He is President of the United States. Just because the left does not agree with him, there are only two ways to change the direction. At the ballot box, and through peaceful protest. Attempting to set up a shadow presidency or to circumvent the State Department are not ways to do it.

You want to always remember that the chickens will come home to roost. The Republicans will not always be in the White House, probably not after the next election. What kind of precedents do you want to set for the future? Any old way to undermine the Presidency of the U.S.?

Many on the left are caught up in the rush to guzzle Kool-Aid. The world is just a bit more complicated than what the simpletons want to make it out to be.

Deane- But does not our declaration and constitution allow us to question our president's actions? And it's not just the left that is disagreeing with him. Some in the GOP are questioning and many of Bush's conservative base is not happy with his decisions to "stay the course."

It just feels like we're hanging on until the GOP is voted out of office. But is that the right way to run government? I believe this President has lost sight of "We the people." What I hear is "I the President...and what I say goes." So finally "We the people" are speaking out yet you tell me "He is the President."

Bush has not earned my respect so he does not get a free pass just because he is the president.

That's not what I learned in school.

I learned we have branches of government that work together to get stuff done. I learned this was because our founders were worried about the kinds of things that happen when too much power is placed in too few or one pair of hands.

These were things I was taught in grade school.

Recently, when I was getting along with my oldest daughter, I attended many of her political science classes. She enjoyed the discussions --they helped her with the material. I enjoyed the refresher and chance to interact with the other students.

This topic came up and the class was roughly divided into three camps:

those that stated your view, but could not support it with citations from law and history

those that were learning

those that understood this and asked the first group a lot of pointed questions!

C'mon Deane! This is crap and you know it. IMHO, you are just whining over the fact that most Americans remember their early school lessons and are becoming increasingly frustrated with a (P)resident that thinks he is a king.

I watched with great interest as the teacher, who is a Republican and actually favors many of the policies put forward by this administration, engaged the first group and asked them where their justification came from.

To a person, it all was about them getting their agendas advanced.

This guy actually agreed, but took the time to point out how the people were being harmed and that even though the agenda meshed well with his, it was wrong and dangerous --and Anti American, in that this administration does not embody the core ideals that got us here.

Democracy is not a winner take all affair. It is a push and pull that moves us toward a better society and one that works in our interests toward better decisions for all.

The core power driving this comes from us --the people Deane, not the posiitons elected.

The President works for us, not the other way around like the (P)resident seems to believe.

You come here, claiming any number of dodges:

-others here are too simple minded to understand

-you are a member of a special club of people who have inside knowledge

-change the subject

-deny solid facts and carry on

-go silent, only to drag the same crap out another day in the hopes somebody will swallow it then

Our founders made it extremely clear we are to question our government. We are to keep an eye on it, so that it continues to serve us and not itself, or some powerful interests. We are free to believe what we will, free to advocate it, free to act on it, given we do not cause harm to others --any others, in the process.

Our President is not there to dominate us, exploit us, lie to us, dictate to us, or ignore us. He works for us!

There is no "left" that disagrees with this (P)resident. There is only a growing majority of Americans! That's everybody Deane, but for a small percentage who appear to value their own agenda over all else!

You tell me I've gone wrong some how in my political thinking. I submit it is you who has done this! What I write is well supported in history, taught in schools and codified into our law.

What you write is a mere echo of an administration clearly serving their own interests over ours!

Perhaps you, and others like you, do not have the strength of character to honor your country in the hopes all Americans are better served. The simple justification for this lies in the fact that none of us knows enough to call the shots with authority!

That teacher I watched that day was a real Republican. He was old enough to have seen plenty. Old enough to somewhat remember what matters and what does not. He also had the strength of character to admit he preferred things run his way, but also would easily admit he did not have authoritative support for it. In other words, his fellow Americans could be right and that's why we vote and engage one another!

He was not weak however.

You are.

At least have the backbone to admit you would rather see things get done your way no matter what, instead of claiming that others somehow are lesser, or ill-informed people.

"...Bush has not earned my respect so he does not get a free pass just because he is the president."

How is this any different those who said the exact same thing about the impeached Mr. Clinton?

Herb

Here's another way to look at it Deane.

Let's say I was placed in a position where I could dictate things, with little regard for the actual will of the people. In other words, I get to do what I think is best. Heck, let's say I was elected, not selected as well.

What would I do?

I would freaking do what I wanted to do, and I would feel really good about it. Nearly all of us would! (Probably all of us would.)

Would you not have a serious problem with that? I know I would, given anyone I know having the same authority.

There it is right there. The founders grappled with this, having lived under kings, fiefdoms, etc... When they formed this nation, the enlightenment had opened a lot of eyes and sparked a lot of poltitial discussion. Every one of them knew they would too do what they wanted. And every one of them knew they would likely be wrong in doing so.

They had direct life experience supporting what they did. They also had some of the great political thinkers of the time, hashing the matters of the people out to support their actions.

You've got what?

Herb, it isn't. However, Clinton followed the law. He did not bastardize it, pervert it, and leverage it for his own gain like the (P)resident currently is doing.

The greater point is that Presidents don't get free passes! --ever.

"Clinton followed the law."

Talk about a bald-faced lie.

No, he didn't.

And that's precisely why he was impeached for perjury and also why he lost his license to practice law.

Herb

Actually his administration followed the law. When they were required to show in court, under oath, they did.

That's what I meant. Clinton lied under oath, but no member of his administration did what this one has; namely, claim they are above court review.

Read what I write. I said, his administration, and "the law" needs to be put into context given the posts and topic being followed.

Actually, I think that's a new kind of dodge.

Technically, it's a subject change in that the topic then is forced to digress for a messy clarification, but the form of this approach is seen often enough to stand out.

Essentially it goes like this:

Something is posted, something else counters it, discussion starts.

At some point, either we see the original point prevail, or a solid debunk formed.

If it's the debunk, just take something outta context, tie it to one of the regular talking points and blow up the discussion!

>>>"Deane- But does not our declaration and constitution allow us to question our president's actions?"

You're confusing questioning the president's action with someone conducting their own private foreign policy. Very different.


Missing, all I can say to your posts is that you're living in dreamland. The discussion is about Nancy Polosi's improper, and perhaps felonious actions. Nothing more. If you don't agree with Bush, there's an election coming up. Knock yourself out.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/06/bald-faced-republican-hypocrisy-over-sy ria-visits/#more-16018

It happens all the time. This is no biggie.

Oh, and your "living in dreamland' comment means zero, given the sheer number of losses you two have suffered over the years.

"If you don't agree with Bush, there's an election coming up."

Deane, many voting Americans did just that last November. He simply doesn't get it. Nancy is apply a "check and balance" any way she can.

LOL!!!

Do you two enjoy the spanking?

Deane-Fair enough.

With Pelosi, though her actions are questionable as far as foreign policy, I believe her desire was to communicate. (and yes a bit of grandstanding...but that happens in politics all the time)

Sometimes it takes a radical step to get some action started. If I were Bush I'd be pissed off too with Pelosi...it put Bush into a hard place and questioned his own policies which again have been a complete failure in my book.

Bottom line for me. Bush is getting exactly what he deserves for putting us in the position we are in. You can hate it, call it crap, defend it. But when it's all said and done you still have a president that has failed....which is the hardest truth of all.

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism, are incapable of being conquered. A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies."
- Martin Luther King, Jr

I didn't make this clear, but I too don't blame Bush for being pissed about her actions.

I just don't think he has any solid justification for anything beyond that, given his and his parties own.

I don't really care much about this issue, despite Herb's blaring tabloid headline, and really haven't checked it out, but I did see a letter to the editor in the "O" this AM that on her way in, Nan was passing 3 GOP people on their way out from visiting Syria. FWIW...

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/30/syria-hypocrisy/

Apparently one of them was with her...

"The White House today lashed out at Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for daring to visit Syria in the coming days. White House spokesperson Dana Perino:

I do think that, as a general rule — and this would go for Speaker of the House Pelosi and this apparent trip that she is going to be taking — that we don’t think it’s a good idea. …

I’m not sure what the hopes are to — what she’s hoping to accomplish there. I know that Assad probably really wants people to come and have a photo opportunity and have tea with him, and have discussions about where they’re coming from, but we do think that’s a really bad idea.

Not only are the administration’s attacks on Pelosi hypocritical, but the timing suggests they are a partisan hit. ThinkProgress has learned that a delegation of Republicans is currently in Syria. (This has not been previously reported by the press.) Why did the White House wait until Pelosi’s imminent visit to raise this issue publicly, and not make mention of the Republicans already there?

Here’s what the White House isn’t talking about:

Republican Reps. Aderholt and Wolf are currently visiting Syria. According to a congressional official on Rep. Robert Aderholt’s (R-AL) staff, Aderholt and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) are currently visiting Israel and Syria.

Republican Rep. Hobson accompanying Pelosi on Syria visit. Speaker Pelosi will be traveling with a contingent of members of Congress to Syria. The delegation includes Reps. David Hobson (R-OH), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Nick Rahall (D-WV).

Moreover, as the AP reports, “Earlier this month, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey held talks with a senior Syrian diplomat on how Damascus was coping with a flood of Iraqi refugees, the first such talks in the Syrian capital for more than two years.”

UPDATE: Bloomberg confirms our account:

Michael Lowry, a spokesman for Representative Robert Aderholt, said that the Alabama lawmaker will visit Syria as part of a Republican delegation led by Representative Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican. Wolf is the top Republican on the House appropriations subcommittee that funds the State Department.

Perino wasn’t available to comment about that trip."

"Let's see now, 250,000 out of 300 Million. What is that, something like less than .1% of the U.S. population. And that puts her in a position to take over U.S. foreign policy?"

She did not take over foreign policy, nor was she asked by the citizens of California to create exclusive ties with Syria. She cultivated some dialogue, and the usual obfuscation by this administration and the Israeli government was seized upon, and spun into an editorial.

I do agree wholeheartedly about the dangers of our country doing the bidding of a fringe group or insular few. I would guess that 400 billionaires out of 300 million people is an even smaller minority to have control, what do you think?

"A nine-figure fortune won't get you much mention these days, at least not here. This year, for the first time, everyone in The Forbes 400 has at least $1 billion. The collective net worth of the nation's wealthiest climbed $120 billion, to $1.25 trillion."

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_The-400-Richest-Americans_land .html

I consider the wealthy to be a "special interest group" and a "fringe minority" just like the AARP, NRA or any other lobby. Political affiliations are irrelevant as the most powerful PACs exist with an exaggerated mandate and millions to throw around. In turn, they are given undue power in our Democracy. Who is really driving the bus? A cross section of America? Or an insular few?

If it really came down to choosing, we would be better off making a wide variety of folks nestled on a bay as powerful as the wealthiest Americans. I would rather not choose. I believe that 300 million voices must be heard with equal volume, equal value and equal consideration, or we are all living a lie.

I think KSKD, Merkin and Chris have made some very good points. Our very freedoms are at stake and we are calling out a member of the House for doing her job. This is just silly. How about a deep breath?

Nobody hates the GOP here, folks just doubt the integrity, motives and direction of the party. If asked in more reasonable tones, the Democrats on this board, I am sure, would express similar doubts about their own leaders. The big difference is that the Democrats have spent far less time in the last eight years twisting and perverting every facet of American life and liberty, than the Republicans.

"Actually his administration followed the law."

Wrong again.

Sandy Burglar absconded with classified docs in his socks.

You better get your talking points from somewhere other than scare America. You're 0 for 2, and that's just for today.

Herb

I've not gotten them from anybody.

I've written here before I DON'T DO TALKING POINTS. If I'm gonna leverage somebody else, then I post that and explain why it's constructive. If you see it written here, in my own words, rest assured it's MY OWN FUCKING WORDS, written BECAUSE I CAN SUPPORT THEM, not because others have done the work for me.

Bite me.

It's gonna take a short book to constrain, what would otherwise be a general statement that compares this administration and past ones where being investigated, checked by other branches of government is concerned. When it's all said and done, the greater point, which actually might be meaningful, will be once again completely lost.

And I do believe that is a deliberate action. God forbid we actually have a frank discussion where a point taken is actually recognized and acted upon. No. Here we get some bizzaro world where it's the same thing each day, as if the facts and reality need to be reproven first, before any progress is made.

Fuck that.

You could at least have the decency to focus on entire points, and not just that little piece or two here and there. I know you have the education to actually follow the conversation. I also know you really do know better, but prefer this because otherwise you will get your own ass handed to you regularly.

(hint: you do, and have! But most of us here want to be a little nicer than that. Lord knows why..)

The follow on to that was:

When they were required to show in court, under oath, they did. Even that is not completely accurate, but I guess it's gonna have to be enough.

Crap, it's like me saying these two cars are the same. Driving one would be like driving the other. (and they are the same, but one has a tiny scratch on it.) You say, no they aren't. Look at that scratch! You got it all wrong.

So we focus on the fucking scratch until most people forget it was really about the cars looking the same.

Nobody even gets back to the follow on, which is the part about the driving experience being similar.

So a day or two goes by and the cars come up again. Rather than just have the balls to actually admit to the cars looking and driving the same, in a general sense, it all starts again.

Hell, you are still saying W won the election twice and that the second one was a mandate! Of course nearly everybody knows that's crap, but how many times will they beat you down for it, just to make whatever relevant and timely point they want to make?

I suppose if you do this enough, the only people left might actually consider it to be worthy.

My greater point being this administration is specifically NOT doing that. Not only are they NOT doing that, they are working their asses off to make sure they NEVER have to do that. Compared to the Clinton administration specifically, it's like night and day.

I hate this shit. I love good conversation. I love it more when it's on topics I find interesting, from people I enjoy sharing time with.

Fucking hate it Herb.

Go have a good weekend. I'm gonna.

When it's all over, don't be surprised if you just don't get responses from me. It's so totally not worth it, I can't even describe.

Looks like you are supporting the right people Herb. They do the same fricking thing!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070406/iraq-pentagon-intelligence

Missing, don't blow a gasket.

I don't call you names and in each case, simply pointed out where each over-reaching point noted could be plainly and reasonably refuted.

Have a nice weekend.

Herb

"'Actually his administration followed the law.'

"Wrong again.

"Sandy Burglar absconded with classified docs in his socks."



Wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Herbert?

Berger wasn't in the Clinton Administration in 2005. Shit, There WAS no Clinton administration in 2005.

I'm with Missing - I've got major Herb Fatigue. Every thread with you is a migraine-inducing marathon of Trying To Stay On Point. I really, really, REALLY understand why so many will have nothing to do with you. And it's not your politics - it's your righteousness.

Try asking questions. Try engaging the group in thoughtful discussion, instead of incessantly proving how politically/religiously/spiritually/intellectually correct you are. Because you are not. But then again, neither am I.

I don't want to shut down dialogue with you Herb because we have so much to learn from each other. Just stop playing the victim of manufactured liberal oppression. Please. American politics has been solidly conservative since 1994 and the presidency has been Republican for 26 of the last 40 years. Republicans and conservatives love to delude themselves into thinking that they are the powerless ones, when up until very recently the opposite has been true for some time.

Oh crap. I'm getting sucked in again, and I need to take the weekend off too. Have fun Herb, respond in any way you desire. I'm just worn out. Maybe I'll have the energy to go toe-to-toe with you next week.

Everybody else - keep on keepin' on.

As I keep saying, he's a troll.

>>>"As I keep saying, he's a troll."

And nobody is listening.

"Try engaging the group in thoughtful discussion, instead of incessantly proving how politically/religiously/spiritually/intellectually correct you are."

Sounds great and I'm serious.

Is the source of the problem because I don't concede many points, unless they are actually provable? Or perhaps because of my black & white view amongst so many who instead prefer to see shades of grey?

I don't name-call and try to be reasonable.
I'm in the minority here and others feel diminished?
It seems that because I don't readily roll over for inaccurate points, those with an opposing view get upset.

Either I make sense and they're poor sports, or I'm as inept as you guys say.
I'm all for lowering the volume and improving the tone here. Those metaphors are probably apt, because this is a radio board, after all.

It goes both ways and begins with (1). Not picking fights by name-calling and (2). Not making statements that can be reasonably shown to be inaccurate.

The Kinder & Gentler Herb

All right. I've cooled down somewhat.

I didn't call you names Herb. I expressed some heated stuff with heated words. It's better and more real that way.

News flash: Nearly everything we know is inaccurate! That means, nearly all of it can be refuted and cast into doubt.

Therefore, it is a matter of precision and scope.

Essentially, we need to be able to grok when things are true enough.

I don't think you've met your burden for being reasonable. However, you do not name call and I give you big props for that.

I don't mind the not rolling over, but citing accuracy as your primary justification for that is less than honest. Nine times outta 10, when somebody leads with, "Technically..." they really are of the understanding the other party has largely met their burden, but missed some small detail.

Sometimes a small detail matters a lot! Other times it just doesn't. The whole mess I got hot over is one case where it just doesn't. Again, precision and scope.

I don't think you are inept. Fact is, you are quite crafty and have proven yourself more than able to use the tools you prefer to their fullest advantage.

Volume and tone are of little concern to me personally. If there is passion, then there is volume and tone. That's just how it is. No worries from me on that score.

As for the black and white crap, I don't know what to say, other than I see a full color world out there, filled with people who lack the understanding to make even the most elementary absolutely true statements.

Given many core things necessary to nail things down absolutely are missing from our pool of shared knowledge, it seems to me we are forced into grey by our condition more than anything else.

So much matters so very little. After all, we're only passing through here, my friend.

A billion plus Chinese don't know we even exist and in three generations or less, even our kin will have no memory of us.

Herb

P.S. Happy Easter.

I tell ya I'm away for a few hours and Missing and Herb go toe to toe and then a near cyberhug at the end.

And I thought the Good Friday service I was at this evening was profound.

Yeah, they had their O'Reilly/Rivera moment!

Oh, so that's why it's fine to trash and pillage the planet! Who cares!?!

Even grandkids don't matter now? How's that working out for you HerrB, are you planning on dying before you meet your great-grandkids, because, Gosh, that'd be four generations.

Gosh how do people even remember their own grandparents, let alone Jesus? Or even Brigham Young?

Thankfully many (most?) of us don't feel the same way, and even my family has memories going back past the arrival of white people to the "Oregon territory" and the written word; I'm proud of and hold those stories dear that have been passed down through many more than three generations.

Hey, wasn't Nixon about 3 generations ago already?

"Hey, wasn't Nixon about 3 generations ago already?"

Close. And the ones that still consider Nixon some kind of hero are rapidly headed to a dirt nap. We'd be hard pressed to find someone who came around after Nixon and reviewed the historical record and found Nixon worthy of a hero's status.

Nixon. Smart? Yes. Hero? No.

Josh Marshall has an interesting take on the Pelosi / Syria / Israel story.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013508.php

Listenerpete, you neglect to fully disclose that your link is to a far left blog and provides only a radical liberal viewpoint.

Deane,

Josh Marshall is definately a liberal, but I don't see where you get off calling him "far left." I would describe him as left of center and prides himself as a journalist. Read the fucking article before you make a judgement about him, he provides links to back himself up.

It's simply important that people know from which side he is coming. He's not an unbiased commentator.

"He's not an unbiased commentator."

Who is?

It's simply important that people know from which side he is coming...

No it isn't, and this is a HUGE problem we have right now. Let's work through a coupla things, because it might help solve some problems that will yield better discussions and or ideas from anyone willing to engage.

1. Everybody is biased. There is no objective reporting, blogging, etc...

2. There are almost no absolute truths known to us; therefore our body of facts is subject to some interpetation and or ambiguity, depending on what they are and where their scope lies.

3. No two ideologies are exactly the same; therefore, the use of labels as done above, introduces pre-conceptions that diminish whatever meaning may lie in the work cited.

Now, ideologies are similar and that does justify the labels for reference. However, knowing who falls under what label is not so important. In fact, we should work fairly hard not to engage in the labeling, until after consuming whatever it is we are interested in.

Why?

If we engage in the label game, we are really trying hard to frame others opinions before they've actually formed. This is middle school stuff. We've all done it right? "Pssst... did you know that guy likes Bob? Nobody likes Bob, because...."

It was BS then, and it's BS now. (I find it freaking amazing how most of our ability to engage in head games, is crafted in those younger years... who would have known?)

So read the stuff and see if it's valid, then consider the label, but also consider the validity.

There is another implication here, that often goes unsaid, and that is if somebody fits a given label, they are not worth consideration for reasons tied to the label.

This is sometimes true, but it's not as true as people generally believe.

Also, how does one know this is true, and said person actually would be fairly characterized by said label, and said work actually is typical of one so characterized?

See how that works?

Perhaps, a person has tendancies that make extreme and largely worthless statements the norm. Is this one of them?

Are we really willing to label somebody, then reject the idea that they might actually have a point from then on, until the labelers (whoever they are...) decide otherwise?

Edit:

There is another aspect of this too. For any of us, there is a scope of discussion where we possess enough facts to make solid judgements on the merit of other statements made by others. Outside this scope, we are all subject to some level of manupulation. The farther outside that scope we go, the more subject we are.

It follows then, we can leverage trusted others to interpet and help us make decisions or perhaps better inform us so that we might make our own.

I went through this process when jumping into politics some time after the 2000 election. If the posting history of this board were complete, you could actually read the various stages, what I learned and so on from start to present.

Posting here was an experiment that has really seriously paid off BTW.

To make a long story short, I leveraged the labels early on, just as Deane is advocating. It works to find out who is who. It also works to help you to locate the tools from which you might begin to reason, but there is a catch here.

YOU NEED ALL THE TOOLS, NOT JUST THE ONES DEVELOPED IN LINE WITH THE IDEOLOGY YOU MOST CLOSELY IDENTIFY WITH.

Again Why?

Because you cannot clarify and build upon your own belief system, nor properly express it to others, until you can reason it out without the labels!

If you consume only that which your label says to trust, you will be denied the key facts and reasoning tools necessary to make plain language expressions that make sense.

Again, I went through this exact exercise here. Prior to doing that, the various labels, factions, etc... were this muddy thing that I avoided. Everybody does this, because it's confusing and very difficult to consider.

Today, having dealt with the labels, understood the nature of bias and done the work to express my specific beliefs and ideology without the labels, it's easy to see where somebody is coming from.

Therefore, it's not important to be told in advance!

That closes the loop on what I wrote above.

Take some time to work through this stuff. We all will be better for it. You will be better for it!

There is a bonus too. Having done this stuff, it's obvious that a lot of people are working really hard to convince you this kind of exercise is not necessary. Just trust them. They know more than you do, etc...

Well, they probably do. But, what they don't tell you is that it is not all that hard to simply know enough. Having done that, you are then in charge of your views and can make solid judgements for yourself and that's more important.

Sorry all, scroll me if you want.

I had a discussion with my oldest son this weekend. He was confused about the difference between lies and mistakes. We arrived at the following:

A lie is a false statement made with intent to mislead.

A manupulation is a statement, that is true, but made with intent to mislead.

A mistake is a statement that could be characterized as either of the above, but not made with intent to mislead.

A manupulation is only possible when one does not possess enough facts to properly assess the statement given. In other words, it lies outside the scope I mentioned in the post above.

Therefore, if you do not do the work necessary to consume and make use of enough facts to make your own judgements, you are subject to manupulation and you won't even be aware of it!

Consider that in the context of the above post.

Carry on.

"Everybody is biased. There is no objective reporting..."

Since there is no objective reporting, then Fox News is every bit as credible as CNN, MSNBC, ABC and all other left-slanted yellow journalism. Those liberal outlets far outnumber Fox News and their cumulative effect far exceeds anything prommulgated by Fox. In addition, Fox News actually has balanced debates. Left-leaning 'news' sources rarely feature an equal number of opponents as does Fox.

"There are almost no absolute truths known to us..."

Almost? Hedging, are we? Why don't you tell us which truths are absolute and which aren't? And by whose authority?

By going by manmade laws and not God's, of course man can say nothing is absolute...simply because man says so. But that doesn't make it true.

However, you're accurate if, at the end of that sentence, you add "according to the liberal view" for how else could the ACLU defend something as vile as child pornography? As you've shown, among liberals, it's virtually impossible to distinguish between absolute right and wrong.

Yet in attempting to defend your view of there being no absolute truth, you also have a much harder explanation to make.

That's because in following your line of reasoning, since there is no absolute truth, there is no hell. Ergo, Stalin & Hitler will never be held accountable for their deeds.

Herb

Not quite so.

Everybody is biased, but not everybody has the same level of credence. It all depends on their fact to BS ratio. FOX also mixes fact an opinion in a far more aggressive way than other sources do. You've not met the burden on that.

You've also not met the burden on your next assertion either. Viewership, perception of credence, etc... all come into play, as does the Internet and self publishing, watchdogs, etc...

Actually, I'm not inclined to agree with any of it. FOX has a very poor track record. It's documented and they need to do some work to change it. End of story.

But... That's not the point I was trying to make; namely, that somebody who has done the work necessary to make solid judgements can then make their judgement on FOX and work from there. If their judgements fall outside the mainstream perception, which yours do, then either some advocacy is needed, or perhaps those judgements are less than solid, meaning some work has to be done to address that.

On the absolute truth thing, the fact that you have to ask on whose authority tells all Herb. If we, as a race possessed more abolute truths, they would be authoritative and could be reasoned from. Authorities would not be needed, only educators.

eg: Our physical bodies wear out and quit. This is absolutely true. No need for authorities on this, just education so newbies know the score. What those bodies are made of, and what happens to the beings that exist in them is not absolutely known, so we have authorities who guide us in our reasoning in that regard. See the difference?

I know of only a few absolute truths. If you want, let's start a thread and try a few out! I've opened these, from time to time, curious as to what others consider absolute and if we have common ground, etc...

We might establish a new one, or crack a coupla known ones. Either way we get something of value.

(man made -vs- god ignored)

The ACLU, once again, defended an image crafted to appear as kiddie porn, but was not actually kiddie porn. It's an interesting case, as the justification for our total ban on kiddie porn is supported by the idea that allowing kiddie porn means harm to kids! (That used to be the only way it could be produced.) Given that technology has changed that, the legal system must then address that question. This is what the ACLU helps to do. Others, including myself, think kiddie porn is always bad. They will be there in the courts making their case as well.

Somebody will meet their burden and the law will evolve. This is how law works at it's core. There is nothing evil or wrong in this endeavor, only our freedom manifesting itself as it should in our law so we can self-regulated in a sensible way. That is American, it is what we stand for, it is why we are the nation we are today.

Next time, refer to those images as virtual kiddie porn because that is what they are. I hope they are illegal as real kiddie porn is, but we've not yet answered the question fully.

I did not say there was no absolute truth, only that there is very little of it. The takeaway is that there is not enough of it known to nail down most of the tough issues we face today, thus the fight over authorities we experience.

eg: A good friend is a Christian Scientist. He holds a Bible, he considers authoritative as you do yours, as do others and their books. Which authority do we trust? Asking that question reveals our lack of absolute truth in these matters, does it not?

None of that should threaten your faith Herb. The good thing about America is that you are completely free to honor whatever authority you will and advocate for others to do the same. The only things you can't do are advocacy on the public dime and legislate, given your authority as the justification. This does diminish everyones respective authorities, and that's harmful and that's where freedom ends.

Getting back to the topic at hand, there is bias everywhere. There is also ignorance everywhere. Most of us cannot easily say we know enough, for a given scope. That takes work --constant work as there is constant change.

This is the primary reason why scientists engage in peer review. We vet assertions through as many minds as is possible to eliminate known falsehoods, leaving us with a growing body of knowledge we can build from.

If we were in possession of more known absolute truths, this process would not be as necessary as it is. A really great example of this is watching the geometry proofs happen. It takes years and tons of minds all working hard to establish just one absolutely known thing in mathmatics.

Other diciplines are just as difficult.

Going forward, one needs to know their own position and be able to support that and understand why. I maintain this cannot be properly done, if the support is done with labels, and that's really important.

If you cannot state your position, without using a label, you really have not clarified your position to your self, rendering your expression of it to others essentially worthless. You then are a tool, doing the work of others, thinking you are doing your own work.

Until any of us gets past this key point, we are completely unable to make solid judgements about others expression. Even having made those judgements, only a fool would disregard information on the basis of a label alone, and that is the point I am trying to make here.

Deane said some source was some label. He did not actually challenge the source and support why that actually matters. This is flawed and wrong and that is all.

blo·vi·ate (blô'vç-ât') To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner.

First, I'm told not to use labels:

"If you cannot state your position, without using a label, you really have not clarified your position to your self, rendering your expression of it to others essentially worthless."

Then, you proceed to label me:

"...You then are a tool..."

No wonder you don't like absolute truth.

Herb

No no no no!

That's not what I meant. I used tool in the very literal sense of a thing that is used to get work done. When any of us uses a label, we then do the work of others, via the label.

Sometimes this is ok, other times it isn't. All depends on the label.

Any given person, not just you, cannot know this, unless they have done the work required to express themselves without the labels.

That's all I meant.

Also, I've not expressed a like or dislike for absolute truth. Go ahead, read what I've written on the topic.

blo·vi·ate == Maybe guilty as charged!

Did not mean to be boastful. The trouble with this point is that it's not easily made, at least for me, with few words.

Like I said, scroll it! (I'm completely aware of that problem, sorry!)

Gosh Herb, twisting that sentence and the context around so hard must hurt pretty bad.

Calling one a tool is not labeling?

That's fancier dancing than Fred Astaire. Although Ginger Rogers indeed did everything Mr. Astaire did...except backwards and in high heels.

Herb

You sure love those 'ol bumper sticker sentiments, don't you HerrB.

I know there is a major desire by liberals to get the word banned. They don't want the world to know what they really stand for.

I'll probably not go along with this nonsense.

A liberal is a liberal and always will be. Changing the label won't clean up the act. It's still the wrong viewpoint.

Huh?

I'm not gonna go back and edit that mess...

If that got your blood pumping Herb, I'm sorry. Was trying to make a point, and not trying to slam you in any way.

I use labels every day --everybody does. When we do this, unless it's our own fricking label, we are acting like tools. This being good or bad, depends on a lot of stuff.

If this works for us, then it works. Done, end of story, next. But, we should at least be aware of it, and consider that before encouraging others to act, should we not?

And that's the point of it period. The rest of it was likely excessive, but it was there for context. Maybe a mistake, maybe not...

A growing distance up thread, we had one person present something and another advocated for it being written off and the conflict was over which label made sense.

None of them do! Read the stuff, or not, and consider it on that basis, not the fricking label.

What word is majorly desired by me to be banned? I don't follow.

No harm, no foul, MissingKSKD.

Herb

CJ, I don't get it either...

It's the word "liberal" Chicken.

I don't know anybody that thinks the word liberal is bad, but for some fraction of people I do know, who self-identify as something other than liberal.

Who are you kidding Deane?

By way of example, I am quite socially liberal and proud of it. I am conservative, generally speaking, when it comes to money, law and some other things. This is not tough stuff, nor is it bad. Liberal, realist, conservative, independant, etc... all are just generalized things. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you want some actual meaning, then you gotta engage the other person, beneath these terms, and there again lies my point. This isn't gonna actually happen, unless people look first, consider then make their own judgements.

This is just a meme that, if you quote it, you buy into it. You see, the implication is that liberal is actually somehow bad, but that's not stated nor supported, only implied by the 'growing' number of 'people' that consider it bad, and thus worthy of a 'ban'.

Propaganda 101.

And that, folks is an excellent example of one who is acting as a tool for the benefit of others.

Deane, invoked the meme, cites no support, and passes the gift on for others to try on for size. Somebody somewhere, who created that little bit, is extremely happy over the whole thing.

If you really believe there is a growing movement to remove the word liberal from the popular lexicon, care to share some solid support for that idea Deane?

Seriously.

Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal

Man, a coupla thousand more times and we just might get somewhere!

Keep plugging away, there is hope yet!

I'm proud to identify with the long and proud tradition of progress that the word liberal is associated with.

I take offense when others try to turn it into a negative label.

Herb, Deane and others here tend to do that. Then they get all upset when others "name call" back at them. You can't have it both ways.

Again, let's try not labling and "name calling" as much as we can. That includes "liberal", "conservative", "leftists", "tool" and all the others we see here.

I know it's a pipe dream, but we all know us liberals are dreamers anyway, so I guess I can't help it.

"Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal"

Great word, I accept it. Face it Deane, we are a liberal country. Would you want it any other way?

You don't want to go there, Listenerpete. There are plenty of liberal countries that are decadent and drug-addled.

Herb

Plenty? And that is because they are liberal?

Name 40 countries that are decadent and drug-addled because they are liberal.

40?
How arbitrary can you get.

Actually, like the USA, many decadent nations of western europe are well on their way to slouching toward Gomorrah. That's what happens when man thinks he knows better than the Almighty.

Herb

( I was kind of kidding with the 40 number, for what it's worth. ).

I'm not saying that there aren't a few. But I don't think I could list enough to qualify as " plenty."

And drug-addled denotes something fairly severe in it's effects on a nation as a whole. Who has a drug problem as severe as ours? ( And even the word " problem " has to be defined at SOME point ). I mean, I think just about EVERY country has citizens that use drugs - legally OR illegally. So I was just trying to get a definition of what constitutes drug-addled and then what constitutes plenty.

I can name one. The United States. A case could be made for maybe a couple more - but those get more complex because of the actual negative affect it has on that nation.

But 40, even when I typed it, made ME laugh.

Me too.

HerrB, I'd settle for five (5) that are "slouching toward Gomorrah" (which made me laugh). Actually, you only need four more.

I'll bet you can't do it. And I'll even fact check for you.

As one of the house "liberals" I wonder what Deane and the troll would say about the fact I've voted AGAINST every tax increase that came my way at the ballot box for a decade now.

Sometimes I think I ought to be voting YES on all money meausures just to live up to my image -- it that your plan Deane -- to convert actual moderates into flaming liberals? I wonder.

I vote against a whole lot of increases as well. For the majority of them, I don't see the return, or see some waste or poor management that could be addressed before just asking for the dollars.

>>>"it that your plan Deane -- to convert actual moderates into flaming liberals? "


I don't have a plan. You're doing just fine losing your way in the wilderness all by yourself.

deane sez: "I don't have a plan. You're doing just fine losing your way in the wilderness all by yourself."

I think this statement applies to the President of the United States more than anybody else on the entire planet.

DJ said>>>
No question about it, San Fran Nan is not a very bright light bulb.

And DUHbya is?????? And he's the GD President of the most powerful country in the world.... HOLY CRAP! Hold on America the next year is going to be one HELL of a roller coaster ride!

Liberal Press???
When you talk about nothing but Imus and American Idol I think the REAL news is being scewed by the EXTREME RICH RIGHT owned press.