How about angry, pissed off, like 48% of all Americans? You conservative Republicans have to get off of your high horse I think. Remember Bush has 4 more years to piss of enough people in America (he only needs to piss off 3%, that shouldn't take to long!) so that Hillary gets elected in 2008. Then were will we (and you) be?And y
The Illuminati live. Be very afraid. Cheers, Daiwa
. Cute. Cheers, Daiwa
ChristianDog - You are so wrong about that being a "myth." And you proceed in blindness at your peril. It amazes and saddens me that some people seem to shrug off what happened on 9/11. Just another day in history. I don't advocate torture nor did I use that phrase to justify its use. I was referring to the fact that the status quo ante no longer applied and that a complete re-evaluation of our approach to dealing with the threat
Thanks for the link, kingbee - I think it supports what I've been saying (that the critics want it both ways - we were right to not storm Falloujah in April but now we shouldn't have allowed the insurgency to consolidate), although I simply do not accept the bald assertion that the insurgency is all our own fault. I agree "not everything is about left/right" and that there were mistakes & miscalculations - no administration has ever achieved clairvoya
I think you're confusing the issues, kingbee. I agree that hindsight has shown that some expectations were wrong and that mistakes were made. We need to learn from them. But any administration needs sufficient privacy in its war deliberations to allow for a full airing of options, even unpleasant ones. The secrecy you talk about is partly a creature of the left's making. It's not particularly helpful for our strategies and intent t
His administration's viewpoints on prisoners ("Lets see how limited an interpretation of the Geneva Convention rules we can get away with") alarms me greatly. I'm not in favor of torture, either, but didn't 9/11 "alarm you greatly?" The terrorists didn't just ignore the rule book that day, they tore it
The chief has some influence, since he/she assigns responsibility for writing opinions, if I recall correctly, but that is more a procedural responsibility than a lever of legal influence. I consider Scalia to have the superior intellect, though he can be a bit cranky, but Thomas would be a solid choice. I think the "pubic hair on the Coke can" is finally behind us. I'm a bit more ambivalent about O'Connor - some of her opinions have been a
Unfortunately, both commondreams and activeoppo are very biased sources. I can agree wholeheartedly that they can be interesting, but one needs to take anything there with a grain of salt the size of, say, California. Cheers, Daiwa
1% denial Cheers, Daiwa
In case it helps those among you who fear a coming "evangelical revolution," I feel comfortable reassuring you that a large proportion of the conservative right turns a deaf ear to the Robertsons & Falwells when they get cranking about what they intend to do or opine about the meaning and significance of what the rest of us have done. They tend to pretend they're driving the train when they're lucky to be in the club car having tea. Rest easy
Actually, the other thread on Gonzalez started by Myrrander has a link to a portion of the actual memo from Gonzalez to the President posted by psikotik. Seems, to me at least, to support the notion that Gonzalez has gotten a bum rap indeed. Cheers, Daiwa
I've found some information from 24news.com. A September, 2004, article about an August, 2002, memo that was sent to the White House by the Justice Department in response to a CIA request: The memo, addressed to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez, reportedly said torturing a suspect in captivity "may be
He is the person who infamously wrote the memo to the President saying he had the right to use torture against prisoners in Afghanistan. Can you cite a reference to that memo, T_Bone? Thanks, Daiwa
I think it can fairly be concluded that Moore is a nothing more than a money-grubbing hypocrite. Can't even get the number right - it was 52%, Mikey. Cheers, Daiwa
There was a war back in the 40's? Wow, I'll have to look into that. Cheers, Daiwa
Don't know what else to say here, but here goes. The perceived conflict between faith and science remains a difficult one to resolve for some. However, those who accept evolution as valid can, and usually do, still hold a belief in God. It appears to be an irreconcilable choice between the two for those who believe in the Biblical creation story. Cheers, Daiwa
Ziggy - Because of one man, Darwin...who formulated his own ideas into a theory, we now teach it in schools Not so - he was just the first to publish a coherent theory of evolution. Thousands of scientists have since contributed to solidifying that theory. Not fair to lay it off on one person
Good post, Psikotik. Insightful to you & I'm a Repub. Cheers, Daiwa
Pam - WindowFX includes a Tile Windows feature that does something similar to Expose. I think SD is working on refining it for WFX3. Cheers, Daiwa
citahellion - I'm in complete agreement with you and you are correct about the distinction between hypothesis and theory, but I believe the distinction is sort of moot with respect to this discussion. Cheers, Daiwa
Def - I agree with you, but the issue of "when" to introduce specific subject matter to "impressionable" children as part of an organized curriculum is a whole 'nother subject. Cheers, Daiwa
Def - Truth is science is still working out the kinks in all its theories. Nothing has ever been proven as absolute. Science can only claim to be able to predict with a degree of certainty, high, low or somewhere in between. Cheers, Daiwa
Problem is there is no scientific theory of Creationism. That "theory" has been offered as an alternative explanation for our existence by those who have a belief in the Book of Genesis and, on that basis, do not accept as probable the theory of evolution as put forth by Darwin. It is not now, nor has it ever been, a theory posed by scientists as an explanation for how species differentiated or homo sapiens came to be. Scientists certainly
News content is "framed" by the networks. So, if you report on Christians supporting Bush then you suggest that any Supreme Court nominee has to be against Rowe-Wade. If you, a conservative, see the report, you think they are bashing the right. If a liberal sees it, they see media bias against a "woman's right to choose." So, yes
JoeUser Forums