Actually, it seems to me that Wilson implied that the VP or someone with close ties to the Whitehouse sent him. He used muddled and ambiguous language in some interviews and in his NYT Op-Ed to accomplish this. So yes, several officials (Cheney, Tenet, Rice) felt it was necessary to set the record straight as to whether or not they had any knowledge of or role in Wilson and his trip beforehand. Also several journalists and interviewers made the same interpretation of Wilson's account of events, and subsequently gave him multiple opportunities to set the record or straight.... which he did...with some more ambiguous language.
Interestingly, this is only one of many, many fascinating bits of this story. It's an awesome story, in my opinion, because I get to witness the way the media and the left in exuberant zeal have been getting ahead of themselves in this story, and their pursuits. The crow is beginning to be served. (not that anyone but the real newshounds will be around to witness the media and the extreme left eating- not that they are humble or honest enough to eat- haha.)
It seems to me that Free / OSS stuff will last as long as culture allows it to. Worldwide, with the world becoming more flat, there should be enough people contributing at any given time to keep it in existence, if not as popular as it is now.
People needing to eat, however, is universal, not culture-dependent, and lasts forever.
Hmm I am thinking, and do correct me if I am wrong, that the universe is the only potentially viable candidate for being a closed system. I'm going to have to consider all other systems to be open. Particularly the brain.
What's going on in your brain has everything to do with what's going on in the newly discovered lake on Titan. And many other lakes as well.
To me, this doesn't state that all beliefs are equally valid. My interpretation is that we are all ultimately responsible for our actions- we reap what we sow. However, this responsibility doesn't come in the form of the judgment of a divine being- only in whatever the natural consequences of those actions are.
Thus, all ideas are equally valid. Valid doesn't necessarily mean or relate to identical or equally "desirable" consequences. Who is to say what you think are "bad" consequences are bad? (Only you could say that.) "Bad" consequences are just inconvenient for you, whatever this is that you actually are. Existentialism brings us to analysis of conveniences and inconveniences, for us as individual beings (whatever it is to "be") not to analysis of right, wrong, good, and bad.
The starting point that there is a root cause greater than all effects is in my opinion more valid than that there is no root cause. Of course, to start with the foundation that there are absolutely no absolutes, and that this itself is an absolute truth also in my opinion leaves a bit to be desired. Perhaps this is good cause for resting in the root cause, rather than rejecting it.:)
but my "evidence" is my root summary: "There are absolutely NO absolutes." Existentialism. This is the root of post-Enlightenment liberalism. I don't see a way around the illogic here.
* Existentialism results in the belief that all beliefs are equally valid. Then existential liberals turn around and proclaim their universal truths of right and wrong.
* "There are no facts, only opinions. Now ger this fact through your thick conservative head, moron!"
* Absolute tollerance, except for those who are deemed to be intollerant.
From this foundation, how could they ever demonstrate to me that I am the "dumbass"? LOL
Once someone leaves prison, their debt to society should be considered paid. The point of taking someone out of prison is to move them back into society, and make them participants
Well, so says you. Let us get the law changed then if that is the case.
But, accepting the fact that Florida doesn't allow ex-convicts to vote, the question that remains is whether the list was drawn up in a fair manner, or whether it was done in order to rig the election.
Of course, this is a very good point, and I agree with you.
If the latter--and I'm not convinced one way or the other--then telling Democrats to stop focusing on the negative is nothing more than covering for your party.
I am not convinced either, nor have I really looked into the matter. My post was not questioning the fact that the process is being checked, but more so the mindset and behavior of most of the posters on this site.
Personally I think it is very improbable that any Republicans seek to discriminate against ethnic groups or cultures. There is no place for such people today, and if they exist, it is probably only in trailer parks that they can be found. I am in TX. I know no people that are like this. No one I know knows people that are like this. No one anywhere (except maybe in trailers) would tolerate this kind of thing today. It is contrary to conservative/Republican core values and principles. (GOP being the party that has core values, as it is the major party that does not have existentialism at its core)
Hello friend, I am not sure if I understand you in some of this.
If there is a law, and we all agree that law is good (until it is repealed), which you seem to, then people who should not vote but do anyway are killing the vote of exactly one person who voted in the opposite way. This is within the scope of a state, not from a national perspective.
In the clean election in state Q, 2200 votes go for presidential candidate R and 2100 go to candidate D. But, because of fear of lawsuits, state Q does nothing to prohibit people who should not vote from voting, and now 200 fraudulent votes go uncontested. There are not even any provisional ballots. All 200 vote for D, giving D the win, and effectively erasing the votes of 200 legitimate R voters. The ratios are different, but all electoral votes go to candidate D regardless. (Unless state Q is Maine, Nebraska, or possibly Colorado)
This is therefore not the same at all as comparing locking up innocent people to letting prisoners go free.
You may be interested to know that many of the interesting ideas that have gone into the formation of the US have been liberal ideas.
I am aware of this, I really don't care for the use of the words liberal and conservative honestly. Your statement lacks perspective. Liberal with respect to fundamanetlist Islam? Good. With respect to terminating life at an early stage for the sake of convenience, with the rationalization that is is "ok" because it is still at a very early stage, as if that somehow makes a difference? Bad. (so says me, but I can really say that, because I am not an existentialist)
I am not sure what you mean that real people have a mixture of "liberal" and "conservative" ideas. I am sure they do. That's the way it is, I reckon. But I am not sure why you are stating this...?
The sky in my reality is my blue. I think it is the same as your chartreuse.
You are exactly right. I have "liberal" family, but they really haven't thought things through. They are just FDR holdovers. I have to say I spend a significant amount of my time pondering the liberal mind. And I consistently come to the same conclusion: it is illogical. The reasons why can be summed up in the last statement in my grandparent post.
"Liberalism....where there are absolutely NO absolutes."
This is simplification of some pretty profound philosophical matters, but not OVERsimplification, because it is dead-on right, and at the root of all "liberal" thought. It is the illogical foundation from which all liberal thought carries out logically to illogical conclusions and practices.
Also, I do not care for the terms liberal and conservative as they are commonly used these days. I think existentialist and theist are better ways of describing in general who these people are, and how they think. This is also simplification, mind you, but which is necessary as we are not writing academic papers here.
One of the problems with the sunset mindset of the liberal, which sticks out like a sore thumb, is the propensity for zeroing in on negatives at the expense of being able to see the big picture at all.
Do so many of you not realize that every illegal vote that is counted is the disenfranchisement of one legal voter? Can so many of you really not see from this perspective? This blindness is amazing.
If it is bad to disenfranchise 22,000 or even just 2,444 voters, how much more terrible is it to let 55,270 to 57,700 fellons vote, no questions asked? These lists are important, not for purposes of discrimination, but simply to help ensure a more-fair election. Why is this so hard to understand? You people are so emotional you can't see straight.
"Liberalism... where there are absolutely NO absolutes!"
Slashdot Mirror
As for heat-filled rhetoric from the left.... aren't you aware of the left's new developing Internet epicenter???: ;-)
...with some more ambiguous language.
http://www.dailykos.com/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Actually, it seems to me that Wilson implied that the VP or someone with close ties to the Whitehouse sent him. He used muddled and ambiguous language in some interviews and in his NYT Op-Ed to accomplish this. So yes, several officials (Cheney, Tenet, Rice) felt it was necessary to set the record straight as to whether or not they had any knowledge of or role in Wilson and his trip beforehand. Also several journalists and interviewers made the same interpretation of Wilson's account of events, and subsequently gave him multiple opportunities to set the record or straight.... which he did
Interestingly, this is only one of many, many fascinating bits of this story. It's an awesome story, in my opinion, because I get to witness the way the media and the left in exuberant zeal have been getting ahead of themselves in this story, and their pursuits. The crow is beginning to be served. (not that anyone but the real newshounds will be around to witness the media and the extreme left eating- not that they are humble or honest enough to eat- haha.)
It seems to me that Free / OSS stuff will last as long as culture allows it to. Worldwide, with the world becoming more flat, there should be enough people contributing at any given time to keep it in existence, if not as popular as it is now.
People needing to eat, however, is universal, not culture-dependent, and lasts forever.
Hmm I am thinking, and do correct me if I am wrong, that the universe is the only potentially viable candidate for being a closed system. I'm going to have to consider all other systems to be open. Particularly the brain. What's going on in your brain has everything to do with what's going on in the newly discovered lake on Titan. And many other lakes as well.
To me, this doesn't state that all beliefs are equally valid. My interpretation is that we are all ultimately responsible for our actions- we reap what we sow. However, this responsibility doesn't come in the form of the judgment of a divine being- only in whatever the natural consequences of those actions are.
:)
Thus, all ideas are equally valid. Valid doesn't necessarily mean or relate to identical or equally "desirable" consequences. Who is to say what you think are "bad" consequences are bad? (Only you could say that.) "Bad" consequences are just inconvenient for you, whatever this is that you actually are. Existentialism brings us to analysis of conveniences and inconveniences, for us as individual beings (whatever it is to "be") not to analysis of right, wrong, good, and bad.
The starting point that there is a root cause greater than all effects is in my opinion more valid than that there is no root cause. Of course, to start with the foundation that there are absolutely no absolutes, and that this itself is an absolute truth also in my opinion leaves a bit to be desired. Perhaps this is good cause for resting in the root cause, rather than rejecting it.
but my "evidence" is my root summary: "There are absolutely NO absolutes." Existentialism. This is the root of post-Enlightenment liberalism. I don't see a way around the illogic here.
* Existentialism results in the belief that all beliefs are equally valid. Then existential liberals turn around and proclaim their universal truths of right and wrong.
* "There are no facts, only opinions. Now ger this fact through your thick conservative head, moron!"
* Absolute tollerance, except for those who are deemed to be intollerant. From this foundation, how could they ever demonstrate to me that I am the "dumbass"? LOL
Once someone leaves prison, their debt to society should be considered paid. The point of taking someone out of prison is to move them back into society, and make them participants
Well, so says you. Let us get the law changed then if that is the case.
But, accepting the fact that Florida doesn't allow ex-convicts to vote, the question that remains is whether the list was drawn up in a fair manner, or whether it was done in order to rig the election.
Of course, this is a very good point, and I agree with you.
If the latter--and I'm not convinced one way or the other--then telling Democrats to stop focusing on the negative is nothing more than covering for your party.
I am not convinced either, nor have I really looked into the matter. My post was not questioning the fact that the process is being checked, but more so the mindset and behavior of most of the posters on this site.
Personally I think it is very improbable that any Republicans seek to discriminate against ethnic groups or cultures. There is no place for such people today, and if they exist, it is probably only in trailer parks that they can be found. I am in TX. I know no people that are like this. No one I know knows people that are like this. No one anywhere (except maybe in trailers) would tolerate this kind of thing today. It is contrary to conservative/Republican core values and principles. (GOP being the party that has core values, as it is the major party that does not have existentialism at its core)
Hello friend, I am not sure if I understand you in some of this. If there is a law, and we all agree that law is good (until it is repealed), which you seem to, then people who should not vote but do anyway are killing the vote of exactly one person who voted in the opposite way. This is within the scope of a state, not from a national perspective.
In the clean election in state Q, 2200 votes go for presidential candidate R and 2100 go to candidate D. But, because of fear of lawsuits, state Q does nothing to prohibit people who should not vote from voting, and now 200 fraudulent votes go uncontested. There are not even any provisional ballots. All 200 vote for D, giving D the win, and effectively erasing the votes of 200 legitimate R voters. The ratios are different, but all electoral votes go to candidate D regardless. (Unless state Q is Maine, Nebraska, or possibly Colorado)
This is therefore not the same at all as comparing locking up innocent people to letting prisoners go free.
You may be interested to know that many of the interesting ideas that have gone into the formation of the US have been liberal ideas.
I am aware of this, I really don't care for the use of the words liberal and conservative honestly. Your statement lacks perspective. Liberal with respect to fundamanetlist Islam? Good. With respect to terminating life at an early stage for the sake of convenience, with the rationalization that is is "ok" because it is still at a very early stage, as if that somehow makes a difference? Bad. (so says me, but I can really say that, because I am not an existentialist)
I am not sure what you mean that real people have a mixture of "liberal" and "conservative" ideas. I am sure they do. That's the way it is, I reckon. But I am not sure why you are stating this...?
The sky in my reality is my blue. I think it is the same as your chartreuse.
You are exactly right. I have "liberal" family, but they really haven't thought things through. They are just FDR holdovers. I have to say I spend a significant amount of my time pondering the liberal mind. And I consistently come to the same conclusion: it is illogical. The reasons why can be summed up in the last statement in my grandparent post.
"Liberalism....where there are absolutely NO absolutes."
This is simplification of some pretty profound philosophical matters, but not OVERsimplification, because it is dead-on right, and at the root of all "liberal" thought. It is the illogical foundation from which all liberal thought carries out logically to illogical conclusions and practices.
Also, I do not care for the terms liberal and conservative as they are commonly used these days. I think existentialist and theist are better ways of describing in general who these people are, and how they think. This is also simplification, mind you, but which is necessary as we are not writing academic papers here.
One of the problems with the sunset mindset of the liberal, which sticks out like a sore thumb, is the propensity for zeroing in on negatives at the expense of being able to see the big picture at all.
Do so many of you not realize that every illegal vote that is counted is the disenfranchisement of one legal voter? Can so many of you really not see from this perspective? This blindness is amazing.
If it is bad to disenfranchise 22,000 or even just 2,444 voters, how much more terrible is it to let 55,270 to 57,700 fellons vote, no questions asked? These lists are important, not for purposes of discrimination, but simply to help ensure a more-fair election. Why is this so hard to understand? You people are so emotional you can't see straight.
"Liberalism... where there are absolutely NO absolutes!"