Republican or Democrat...

[Seahawks]

I think you got it. Don't forget next time this Jesus you talk about as Love comes back he comes to conquer with a sword. Read a little in revalations. No more Mr. nice guy next time.

 

Did you know Revelations was written by someone years after Jesus' death, and its inclusion within the new testament was highly controversial?

 

It's akin to believing joseph smith was the latest to bring down the word of god.

 

Seems to me that if one is a literalist christian, one lives in a heap of confusion; who do you choose to believe?

 

You shouldn't get all your info from watching the Divinci Code.

 

By the time of the Council at Nicea in A.D. 325, history shows us that the central faith and belief system of Christianity had long been established. The council came together to affirm what the bishops and church leaders had been teaching for 200 years. They rubber-stamped the gospels by a vote of 218 to 2, which is not “a relatively close vote” as Brown claims.

[Seahawks]

Dude, your scary.

 

Boo!!! This is someone that has Frankenstien as his avatar?

[Bug]

so Jesus would agree with this thinking?

 

my quess, but I'n not God. I would imagine he doesn't agree with much we do.

 

your guess is Jesus WOULD agree with this thinking? Hmmmm....

 

According to the teachings, god sent down his son Jesus because he didn't agree with what was going on; the people were to listen to his teachings, right? about peace, and loving your neighbor and all of that. I would think that a christian, especially a fundamentalist christian, would seriously consider the words of god and his prophet when making decisions about how his government should act, ESPECIALLY if he thinks that god doesn't agree with much that "we" are doing. Wouldn't that make sense?

 

Or maybe I misread your religious convictions. I thought I remember you saying you were a christian, and god created the planet and us etc.,

 

 

(have you ever heard the teaching that says that the way to know god's will is to study the word of his son?)

 

Jews thought the same thing in Germany before WWII, look where it got them. There is a time for fighting.

Dietrick Bonhoffer was the last man executed by the Third Reich. He was a Catholic Priest and some think, the greatest Philosopher of the period. He developed the theory of the 5 mandates, Family, Friends, Church, State, and Marriage. There is naturally overlap in some activities and influences between each of the mandates but none should endeavor to, or be allowed to overpower one or more of the others. If there was one of the mandates overpowering one or more of the others then an act of balance was needed. This act was termed, "the Utima Ratio", or Ulitmate Rationalization. It was an act that would normally be condemned but by virtue of the fact that it restores balance, would be acceptable. Father Bonhoffer was one of the masterminds behind the near successful attempt to assinate Hitler in the bunker.

I suspect that if he were living in the US today, he would be considered "A Shrill Voice".

In the sixties we had acid rain killing crops adn livestock, entire rivers adn lake were dead including Lake Michigan. I remember seeing a river burn for miles from the everyday sludge that was pumped into it.

The voices that cried out against this were considered "Shrill" at the time.

We have witnessed the birth and development of mass media marketing in politics. The first telivised presidential debate was between Kennedy and Nixon. All the critics thought Nixon had clearly won on substance but the public favored Kennedy by a large margin. Kennedy was handsome. Nixon had a five o'clock shadow.

As events proceeded, we saw more and more effects of televised news on politics. Some people learned from this, some did not. It was the Reagan team that really dialed it in. They were masters of propoganda. Most family farmers who had lost their farms during the Reagan years still supported Reagan. They could not believe he had approved the organized corporate takeovers of vast tracts of farm land. But I do not blame Reagan. That would be "shrill".

When we invaded Grenada, the very next time we saw Reagan, he was wearing a leather buckskin western cut jacket. He was the first president to be seen in leather since Teddy. He portrayed himself as the classic western hero. Ans it worked. Some good came out of his presidency but he was NOT the "great" president so many people want to beleive he was. He was the first in recent times to attack out miranda rights.

But the focus here is on who carried on. It was corporate America. They figured out that they could manipulate Congress and the President with money and marketing.

No one in Congress can withstand a full frontal assault by the drug lobby for instance. We have sould our government to Corporate America. Bush sucks but he is not the root of the problem. He IS responsible for many crimes. Invading Iraq was illegal. Every person killed in that struggle is on his head. It is good that Sadam is gone but who will stop the killing now?

We need more shrill voices in the world.

We need to ask all of the difficult questions of our leaders.

We need to get out from in front of the TV.

I like the bumper sticker, "Who would Jesus bomb?"

Yet we continue to point to our virtues in this illegal war. We "liberated" these people.

But first we paid for Sadam's rise to power so we could have access to his oil.

Now we continue to drive Hummers and other giant "rigs" because it is our "right". We are free right? We can kick anyone's ass.

Eventually the oppressed revolt. Stalin murdered an estimated 50 million of his own people.

Where will corporate America draw the line?

When will we re-awaken and be shrill again.

I REALLY miss the idealism of the sixties.

 

[noliquidity]

Ever heard of the Munsters?

[noliquidity]

so Jesus would agree with this thinking?

 

my quess, but I'n not God. I would imagine he doesn't agree with much we do.

 

your guess is Jesus WOULD agree with this thinking? Hmmmm....

 

According to the teachings, god sent down his son Jesus because he didn't agree with what was going on; the people were to listen to his teachings, right? about peace, and loving your neighbor and all of that. I would think that a christian, especially a fundamentalist christian, would seriously consider the words of god and his prophet when making decisions about how his government should act, ESPECIALLY if he thinks that god doesn't agree with much that "we" are doing. Wouldn't that make sense?

 

Or maybe I misread your religious convictions. I thought I remember you saying you were a christian, and god created the planet and us etc.,

 

 

(have you ever heard the teaching that says that the way to know god's will is to study the word of his son?)

 

Jews thought the same thing in Germany before WWII, look where it got them. There is a time for fighting.

Dietrick Bonhoffer was the last man executed by the Third Reich. He was a Catholic Priest and some think, the greatest Philosopher of the period. He developed the theory of the 5 mandates, Family, Friends, Church, State, and Marriage. There is naturally overlap in some activities and influences between each of the mandates but none should endeavor to, or be allowed to overpower one or more of the others. If there was one of the mandates overpowering one or more of the others then an act of balance was needed. This act was termed, "the Utima Ratio", or Ulitmate Rationalization. It was an act that would normally be condemned but by virtue of the fact that it restores balance, would be acceptable. Father Bonhoffer was one of the masterminds behind the near successful attempt to assinate Hitler in the bunker.

I suspect that if he were living in the US today, he would be considered "A Shrill Voice".

In the sixties we had acid rain killing crops adn livestock, entire rivers adn lake were dead including Lake Michigan. I remember seeing a river burn for miles from the everyday sludge that was pumped into it.

The voices that cried out against this were considered "Shrill" at the time.

We have witnessed the birth and development of mass media marketing in politics. The first telivised presidential debate was between Kennedy and Nixon. All the critics thought Nixon had clearly won on substance but the public favored Kennedy by a large margin. Kennedy was handsome. Nixon had a five o'clock shadow.

As events proceeded, we saw more and more effects of televised news on politics. Some people learned from this, some did not. It was the Reagan team that really dialed it in. They were masters of propoganda. Most family farmers who had lost their farms during the Reagan years still supported Reagan. They could not believe he had approved the organized corporate takeovers of vast tracts of farm land. But I do not blame Reagan. That would be "shrill".

When we invaded Grenada, the very next time we saw Reagan, he was wearing a leather buckskin western cut jacket. He was the first president to be seen in leather since Teddy. He portrayed himself as the classic western hero. Ans it worked. Some good came out of his presidency but he was NOT the "great" president so many people want to beleive he was. He was the first in recent times to attack out miranda rights.

But the focus here is on who carried on. It was corporate America. They figured out that they could manipulate Congress and the President with money and marketing.

No one in Congress can withstand a full frontal assault by the drug lobby for instance. We have sould our government to Corporate America. Bush sucks but he is not the root of the problem. He IS responsible for many crimes. Invading Iraq was illegal. Every person killed in that struggle is on his head. It is good that Sadam is gone but who will stop the killing now?

We need more shrill voices in the world.

We need to ask all of the difficult questions of our leaders.

We need to get out from in front of the TV.

I like the bumper sticker, "Who would Jesus bomb?"

Yet we continue to point to our virtues in this illegal war. We "liberated" these people.

But first we paid for Sadam's rise to power so we could have access to his oil.

Now we continue to drive Hummers and other giant "rigs" because it is our "right". We are free right? We can kick anyone's ass.

Eventually the oppressed revolt. Stalin murdered an estimated 50 million of his own people.

Where will corporate America draw the line?

When will we re-awaken and be shrill again.

I REALLY miss the idealism of the sixties.

 

 

You nailed it man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fairweather]

if statements like this don't frighten you then you have long since decided the Constitution of the United States is simply a document of desirable guidelines for governance:

 

AG nominee Mr. Mukasey said "...the president’s authority as commander in chief might allow him to supersede laws written by Congress."

 

More of Mukasey's testimony that you didn't include in your post:

 

...Mr. Mukasey noted that a 2002 memorandum by Jay Bybee, an assistant attorney general at the time, stating that the president had the power to circumvent the Geneva Conventions as well as laws banning torture, was later disavowed and superseded.

 

“Would it be a safe characterization of what you’ve just said that you repudiate this memo as not only being contrary to law, but also contrary to the values America stands for?” Mr. Leahy asked.

 

“I do,” the nominee replied.

 

“Thank you,” Mr. Leahy said. “Is there such a thing as a commander-in-chief override that would allow the immunization of acts of torture that violate the law?”

 

“Not that I’m aware of,” Mr. Mukasey sa

[sexual_chocolate]

I think you got it. Don't forget next time this Jesus you talk about as Love comes back he comes to conquer with a sword. Read a little in revalations. No more Mr. nice guy next time.

 

Did you know Revelations was written by someone years after Jesus' death, and its inclusion within the new testament was highly controversial?

 

It's akin to believing joseph smith was the latest to bring down the word of god.

 

Seems to me that if one is a literalist christian, one lives in a heap of confusion; who do you choose to believe?

 

You shouldn't get all your info from watching the Divinci Code.

 

By the time of the Council at Nicea in A.D. 325, history shows us that the central faith and belief system of Christianity had long been established. The council came together to affirm what the bishops and church leaders had been teaching for 200 years. They rubber-stamped the gospels by a vote of 218 to 2, which is not “a relatively close vote” as Brown claims.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Revelations was on the agenda of the First Council of Nicaea; the reason for the council was the disagreement over whether Jesus was made of the same stuff as god, or just some stuff that was similar. Dude, this stuff was coming close to ripping up a pretty darn fragile homogeny of sorts within the christian community.

 

Another issue was when passover was to be celebrated. You couldn't just be celebrating whenever, so someone had to come up with a date.

 

Another thing they decided on was that self-castration shouldn't be cool anymore. No more ripping your penis off if you wanted to be a good christian.

 

 

And here's a good one:

 

The patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria should have a lot more power!

 

 

But I ask you, who were these folks to decide?

 

What if Paul was right? I haven't seen good reason to think he wasn't.

 

What if Arius was right?

 

 

Sounds to me like the council was a pretty political set-up, with various factions vying for power.

 

 

BTW, I've never seen the "DiVinci (sic) Code"; I suppose from your tone, you don't recommend it.

[sexual_chocolate]

if statements like this don't frighten you then you have long since decided the Constitution of the United States is simply a document of desirable guidelines for governance:

 

AG nominee Mr. Mukasey said "...the president’s authority as commander in chief might allow him to supersede laws written by Congress."

 

More of Mukasey's testimony that you didn't include in your post:

 

...Mr. Mukasey noted that a 2002 memorandum by Jay Bybee, an assistant attorney general at the time, stating that the president had the power to circumvent the Geneva Conventions as well as laws banning torture, was later disavowed and superseded.

 

“Would it be a safe characterization of what you’ve just said that you repudiate this memo as not only being contrary to law, but also contrary to the values America stands for?” Mr. Leahy asked.

 

“I do,” the nominee replied.

 

“Thank you,” Mr. Leahy said. “Is there such a thing as a commander-in-chief override that would allow the immunization of acts of torture that violate the law?”

 

“Not that I’m aware of,” Mr. Mukasey sa

 

That's fine, fairweather, but it doesn't do away with the following:

 

"...the president’s authority as commander in chief might allow him to supersede laws written by Congress."

 

Do you agree with his assessment?

 

 

[olyclimber]

DUDES. I WAS THERE. TIME MACHINE. HAVE YOU EVER READ THE DICTIONARY? MEMORIZED THE NICENE CREED? Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε και ἀοράτων ποιητήν?

[JosephH]

if statements like this don't frighten you then you have long since decided the Constitution of the United States is simply a document of desirable guidelines for governance:

 

AG nominee Mr. Mukasey said "...the president’s authority as commander in chief might allow him to supersede laws written by Congress."

 

More of Mukasey's testimony that you didn't include in your post:

 

...Mr. Mukasey noted that a 2002 memorandum by Jay Bybee, an assistant attorney general at the time, stating that the president had the power to circumvent the Geneva Conventions as well as laws banning torture, was later disavowed and superseded.

 

"Would it be a safe characterization of what you’ve just said that you repudiate this memo as not only being contrary to law, but also contrary to the values America stands for?" Mr. Leahy asked.

 

"I do," the nominee replied.

 

"Thank you," Mr. Leahy said. "Is there such a thing as a commander-in-chief override that would allow the immunization of acts of torture that violate the law?"

 

"Not that I'm aware of," Mr. Mukasey sa

 

Ah, good point. The quotes you reference are from his testimony on Wednesday the 17th. The quote I referenced in my original post was from Thursday the 18th - a day later. The about face in his views in this matter were so startling that Sen. Leahy made the following comment:

 

"In your answers yesterday, there was a very bright line on questions of torture and the ability of an executive, or inability of an executive, to ignore the law, that seems nowhere near as bright a line today, and maybe I just don’t understand."

 

He went on to wonder, "I don’t know whether you received some criticism from anybody in the administration last night after your testimony, but I sensed a difference, and a number of people here, Republican and Democratic alike, have sensed a difference."

 

The juxtaposition of the comments we are both referencing, when presented in chronological order, is simply all the more disturbing (and positively smacks of preemptive Rovian pressure on the nominee).

 

[kevbone]

It should also be noted that by declaring a "war" on terror the President in many ways lent legitimiacy to the actions of 9/11 terrorists by casting these criminals as enemy combatants. As simply terrorists, there was no doubt about the criminality of their actions; as enemy combatants engaged in a war who used such means as were at their disposal to attack a nation possessing overwhelmingly military superiority - he almost did them a favor. The use of the phrase "war on terror", the development of military tribunals, and the designation of terrorists as "enemy combatants" only serves to legitimize their "war" against us.

 

So well spoken....I need to buy you a beer.

[olyclimber]

Boreded Cieling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs

 

1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat waz invisible, An he maded the skiez An da Urf, but he no eated it.

 

2 The Urfs wus witout shapez An wus dark An scary An stufs, An he rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

 

3 An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stufs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz cats can seez in teh dark An not tripz ovr nethin. an Ceiling Cat sayz u mus hav da moneyz 2 git da milkz.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. Teh evning An morning was teh first day.

 

6 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has teh ceilingz of waterz, with waterz up An waterz down. An he maded hole in teh Ceiling.7 An Ceiling Cat doed the skiez with waterz down An waterz up, An stuff.8 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has teh firmmint wich iz funny bibel naim 4 ceiling, so evning An morning was teh twoth day.

 

9 An Ceiling Cat gotted all no waterz into ur base, so no waterz wus not wetted An Ceiling Cat hadz teh dry placez cuz cats dusnt lieks to get wet,10 An Ceiling Cat called no waterz urths and waters oshunz, so tehre.

 

11 An Ceiling Cat sayed, wants grass An stuff! so tehr wuz seedz An stufs, An fruitzors An vegbatels.12 An Ceiling Cat sawed that weedz ish teh good stuff, so, letz tehre be weed. (and catnipz 2, so wen i makes kittehs they can getz hai.)13 An so teh evning An the morning of the threeth day.

 

14 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has lightz in the firmmint for dividing day from no day.15 So tehre, lights everwaer, like chrissmass, wai.16 An Ceiling Cat doeth two greate lightz, teh most big for day, teh other for no day.17 An Ceiling Cat screweth tehm on firmmint, with big nails An stuff.18 An Ceiling Cat sawed it wus the goodz, so wai.19 An so teh evning An the morning of the furth day.

 

20 An Ceiling Cat sayed, letz teh waterz brings forht the loots An stuff, An phishes, An burdies, that flyeths over the no waterz An swimmeths in the waterz.21 An Ceiling Cat created big fishies An see monstrs, which wuz like big cows, except they not mooed, An other stuffs that gives the mooves, An Ceiling Cat wuz plezed.22 An Ceiling Cat sented them hais, An stuff, so letz u be happy An stuff. And0 sed all u aminals An burdiez An fishz go has baby aminals An brrdz An fishz An dont worry i wont watch u has sexxes, cept 4 SUPRIZE BUTTSECKZ!!!!!!!23 An so teh evning n the morning of the fifth day

 

24 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has mor living stuff, mooes, An creepz, An otehr animuls, so tehre.25 An Ceiling Cat doed moar living stuff, mooes, An creepies, An otehr animuls, An did not eated tehm.

 

26 An Ceiling Cat sayed, letz us do peeps like uz, becuz we ish teh cute, An let min has dominion An stufs becuz tehy has can openers.

 

27 So Ceiling Cat createded teh peeps ish like him, can has can openers he did tehm, min An womin wuz created, but he did not eated tehm.

 

28 An Ceiling Cat sented them hais, so teh ballz An teh multiplyers, An haz teh dominion on teh waterz, no waterz An teh firmmint, An evry thingz An stuff.

 

29 An Ceiling Cat sayed, Yo, Beholdt, the Urfs, I has it, An I has not eated it.30 For evry createded stufs tehre are the fuudz, to the burdies, teh creepiez, An teh mooes, so tehre. an Ceiling Cat sayz u mus hav da moneyz 2 git da milkz. 50$ plez

 

31 An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, teh good enouf for releaze as version 0.8a. kthx bai.

 

[Bug]

Don't mix your meds with alcohol and weed.

 

But if you do, WRITE SOME MORE!

[tvashtarkatena]

Don't forget next time this Jesus you talk about as Love comes back he comes to conquer with a sword. Read a little in revalations. No more Mr. nice guy next time.

 

"Groovy...."

 

 

[JosephH]

It should also be noted that by declaring a "war" on terror the President in many ways lent legitimiacy to the actions of 9/11 terrorists by casting these criminals as enemy combatants. As simply terrorists, there was no doubt about the criminality of their actions; as enemy combatants engaged in a war who used such means as were at their disposal to attack a nation possessing overwhelmingly military superiority - he almost did them a favor. The use of the phrase "war on terror", the development of military tribunals, and the designation of terrorists as "enemy combatants" only serves to legitimize their "war" against us.

 

So well spoken....I need to buy you a beer.

 

Any time...

[mattp]

Hey Joseph: the E-Mail addy I have for you doesn't work and private messages aren't working either. Send me an e-mail. mattp at seanet.com

[mattp]

It should also be noted that by declaring a "war" on terror the President in many ways lent legitimiacy to the actions of 9/11 terrorists by casting these criminals as enemy combatants. As simply terrorists, there was no doubt about the criminality of their actions; as enemy combatants engaged in a war who used such means as were at their disposal to attack a nation possessing overwhelmingly military superiority - he almost did them a favor. The use of the phrase "war on terror", the development of military tribunals, and the designation of terrorists as "enemy combatants" only serves to legitimize their "war" against us.

 

So well spoken....I need to buy you a beer.

 

Any time...

 

It should also be noted that by launching a suicide attack on New York and Washington, the 9/11 terrorists gave the President and his men the excuse to do exactly what they wanted to do anyway. There is no doubt about their aims in shunning Europe while invading Iraq: they set it all out in their Blueprint for a New American Century. And our man Cheney has been all about the unitary presidenc for many years. As nominee Mukasey said "...the president’s authority as commander in chief might [now] allow him to supersede laws written by Congress."

 

It was definitely a match made in heaven for those guys.

[No. 13 Baby]

When I think torture, I think of beating people with truncheons, the rack, the Iron Maiden, pulling out finger nails, applying electric shocks, dislocating joints, burning, scarring, etc. Waterboarding is nowhere near this level, but I'm not comfortable with that as an interrogation technique.

 

I think its cute that the biggest torture apologists are cowardly pussies that love to beat the war drum, but would never deign to serve in the military themselves.

[ivan]

is it really that new a thing, the president disregarding the constitution and the rule of law? didn't president jackson say, after the supreme court told him that the cherokee nation had a right to their property and could not be forced to move, "they have made their decision, now let's see them enforce it?"

 

that was a 170 years ago, and shows, then as now, that if no one gives a shit (especially if the people getting fucked are people the general public could give a shit about), the man who holds the bat gets to do as he pleases

[Dechristo]

I read a story about one captive terrorist/potential-suicide-bomber and how his spirit had sunk so low, to a state of utmost hopelessness, that he had lost his will to die.

[kevbone]

 

You shouldn't get all your info from watching the Divinci Code.

 

 

Uh...where do you get your info from? The web? School? Let me guess.....a book? Your nutz dude.....

[noliquidity]

It should also be noted that by declaring a "war" on terror the President in many ways lent legitimiacy to the actions of 9/11 terrorists by casting these criminals as enemy combatants. As simply terrorists, there was no doubt about the criminality of their actions; as enemy combatants engaged in a war who used such means as were at their disposal to attack a nation possessing overwhelmingly military superiority - he almost did them a favor. The use of the phrase "war on terror", the development of military tribunals, and the designation of terrorists as "enemy combatants" only serves to legitimize their "war" against us.

 

So well spoken....I need to buy you a beer.

 

Any time...

 

It should also be noted that by launching a suicide attack on New York and Washington, the 9/11 terrorists gave the President and his men the excuse to do exactly what they wanted to do anyway. There is no doubt about their aims in shunning Europe while invading Iraq: they set it all out in their Blueprint for a New American Century. And our man Cheney has been all about the unitary presidenc for many years. As nominee Mukasey said "...the president?s authority as commander in chief might [now] allow him to supersede laws written by Congress."

 

It was definitely a match made in heaven for those guys.

 

 

Yea, its bizzare that they have spent so much time and effort shifting the paradigm to the Unitarian theory of the presidency. In the process they have alienated a large percentage of the moderate republican base; somuch so that they have virtually assured a Democratic president in 2008. Unless of course, they decide truly to push the boundries of that Unitarian presidency theory.

[Fairweather]

is it really that new a thing, the president disregarding the constitution and the rule of law? didn't president jackson say, after the supreme court told him that the cherokee nation had a right to their property and could not be forced to move, "they have made their decision, now let's see them enforce it?"

 

that was a 170 years ago, and shows, then as now, that if no one gives a shit (especially if the people getting fucked are people the general public could give a shit about), the man who holds the bat gets to do as he pleases

 

Good point. This is what is so frustrating about guys like JosephH, et al who think Bush is the devil incarnate. The fight between the executive branch and congress has been back and forth since the beginning...and not a peep about LBJ from the likes of him! And how about FDR - probably the most powerful exec in American history...and a hero to these same self-described "sentinels of freedom".

[STP]

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

The fight between the executive branch and congress has been back and forth since the beginning...and not a peep about LBJ from the likes of him! And how about FDR - probably the most powerful exec in American history...and a hero to these same self-described "sentinels of freedom".

 

This isn't news to anyone on this forum. As for our thoughts on FDR...how, exactly, can you be so sure of them? You seems to point out 'our' thoughts, as if 'we' all think the same thing, a fair amount, without ever actually asking what they are. About 90% of your posts consist of such assumptions. It's tiresome.