Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn a democracy, the first responsibility of a journalist is to get accurate information about what the government is doing to the people so that they can make appropriate decisions about what is done in their name. That's why the founders put an unequivocal freedom-of-the-press protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and its why Thomas Jefferson famously declared, "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
Of course, there have been some limits on what information journalists share with the citizenry. It is generally agreed, for instance, that reporters ought not report in too much detail on troop movements in wartime, as the publication of such information could endanger soldiers and undermine military objectives.
So when the Washington press corps began reporting this week on leaked information about planning by U.S. commanders in Iraq to withdraw two of the 14 combat brigades stationed in that country by September of this year, it would not have been surprising if the stories had raised eyebrows among the more sensitive players in the Bush administration.
While this is hardly a classic example of "reporting on troop movements," it is an instance where the media is getting into quite a bit of detail about where U.S. troops will be positioned in the none-too-distant future. As an example, television networks are showing maps of the regions of Iraq from which U.S. troops might exit in relatively short order.
So what has been the reaction of a White House that is known to be on edge about leaks to leaks regarding the deployment of U.S. troops in coming months?
President Bush and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow have both ruminated on the rumors in some detail. Each has suggested that no decision has yet been made, and they have even detailed the standards that are being used to come to decisions about withdrawal.
The conversations have been easy going and White House reporters have felt no presidential fury.
Contrast that reaction to the response by the president, his aides and allies to reports in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal that the president has authorized federal agencies to monitor the banking transactions of private citizens.
Ostensibly, the monitoring is intended to track transfers of money by supposed terrorists. But the program, like many of the administration's other moves to monitor the conversations and business dealings of private individuals, has been implemented in secret, without the subpoenas that are traditionally required for such reviews, and in a manner designed to avoid the sort of independent governmental oversight that is supposed to prevent abuse.
Now, it would be ridiculous to think that Osama bin Laden or anyone else associated with al Qaeda would be naïve enough to think that they could transfer large amounts of money through regular banking channels without being found out. So the revelation of the monitoring could hardly be called a threat to the "war on terror" – at least, not by anyone who knows anything about dealing with terrorist networks.
Yet, President Bush went ballistic about reporting on the monitoring, telling White House reporters, "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America. And for people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America."
Vice President Cheney was even blunter, saying, "Some of the press, particularly the New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs."
Bush allies in Congress have even called for the prosecution of the New York Times for revealing to Americans the extent to which they are being spied upon.
So why is the Bush administration so freaked out about a leak regarding a spying program that could not possibly have come as news to any terrorists but that certainly might interest average Americans? And why isn't the president concerned about leaks regarding specific redeployments of troops in the near future?
There's no mystery.
The leak about spying on bank records will feed concerns about the extent that this administration has engaged in spying on citizens. That could be politically damaging.
On the other hand, the leak about planning for troop deployments – coming at a time when the majority of Americans say they want to see a plan for getting the U.S. out of Iraq – eases the political pressure on the president and his Republican allies.
What's the bottom line? The cynical Bush White House has always seen the "war on terror" as a political tool. The president and his allies – heeding the advice of White House political czar Karl Rove – regularly tailor their responses to new developments to benefit their domestic political fortunes while undermining the prospects of their political foes.
Leaks about plans for troop redeployment are fine with the president because they could help him and his congressional allies politically.
Leaks about the administration spying on citizens, on the other hand, are "disgraceful" because they could cause the president and his Republicans acolytes political harm.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Egad...the list says 22, I see "2". Must be lots of "assorted nuts" on this tree! (I'm alomst tempted to see the rants and lunacy from the ignore bin...notice I said "almost")
Rio
You never disappoint man. Don't want none of that treasonous "free speech" out there. Do you whistle "Home on the Range" much?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/27/2006 @ 07:19am
Today is "Clean Money Day".
Go to the Common Cause website or BraveNewFilms.org to find a local screening of "The Big Buy", Robert Greenwald's doc about Tom Delay, and the role he played in selling off our democracy.
Get off your ass and get together in real time with real, like-minded people to discuss and further the notion of restoring our democratic process.
We can well afford to leave this site and let the wingers wank on each other for an evening.
Posted by drhammer at 06/27/2006 @ 07:36am
LOC, its all RESE. I think he's going to my ignore bin now.
Posted by BlueTexan at 06/27/2006 @ 08:16am
Before you know it, there will be "leaks" of confirmed evidence that Osama is actually a homosexual. And that his fight is not only for Islam but for gay marriage. Wouldn't that whip up the base?
Remember this..."Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." You would think that would infuriate everyone that is not actually in the elite and do something to get rid of this guy. That includes the 99% of the evangelicals that aren't considered elite. But I guess since God appointed Bush, then God knows best. Oh well!
Posted by BlueTexan at 06/27/2006 @ 08:20am
I have tried to make it a point never to use the ignore feature, no matter how partisan, insipid or annoying the poster.
Rese is (the only one) on my list simply by virtue of his unmanageable volume.
Posted by drhammer at 06/27/2006 @ 09:01am
Just curious....
Isn't Mr Corn's application of "prosecution of leakers" a bit selective as well?
Prosecute leakers of secret operatives (Valerie Plame by Libby, Rove, etc), but don't prosecute leakers of secret OPERATIONS (Bank scans by NY Times)?
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2006 @ 09:05am
BTW....WOW!
28 posts to Mr Corn....and all but EIGHT are RESE!!!!
I got him Ignored, but willing to bet that 1/2 of them have NOTHING to do with the "Bank Spygate" thing.
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2006 @ 09:07am
On troop movements you said: "While this is hardly a classic example of 'reporting on troop movements,'" -- you got that right.
By the way, you completely ignored the fact that the NYT acknowledged that the government tracking of bank transactions was instrumental in the capture of the mastermind of the Bali bombings.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/the_new_york_times_at_ war_with.html
John Nichols, you seem to confuse leaks from sabotage.
Posted by guilabaya at 06/27/2006 @ 09:19am
Posted by MASK 06/27/2006 @ 09:05am | ignore this person Posted by MASK 06/27/2006 @ 09:07am | ignore this person
Yes, yes...I know....this was John Nichols, not David Corn.
No excuses offered, my bad.
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2006 @ 09:22am
More alarming tha the bravado of Messrs Bush and Cheney is Toney Snow's pontificating that leaking such information endangers a the life of a person and the gutless brainless press corps didn't ask him about Valerie Plame
Posted by kmwray1962 at 06/27/2006 @ 09:42am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/27/2006 @ 09:45am | ignore this person
Funny stuff, FRANK...but about 8 years out of date.
This was used by "President Bartlett" (Martin Sheen) in an episode of "The West Wing" in 2000 versus a "Dr Laura" clone.
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2006 @ 09:52am
John Nichols, The US Criminal Code, Section 798, Title 18 regarding the "Comint status" reads in part:
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both [emphasis added].
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/385jqm fk.asp
The NYT and their sources should be investigated and prosecuted according to this law. Their sources can follow later, under the 1917 Espionage Act.
Posted by guilabaya at 06/27/2006 @ 09:55am
Only an idiot believes that George Bush is ever going to cut back troops in Iraq - how about just talk of rumors instead. This is the kind of dishonesty and deception that you get from a Conservative Government.
The decption, the Conservative lies, really they are looking the other way at Al Qaida! They are going after the little guy, they are wasting money, they are pouring money down the drain, they are burning money on a bonfire - freshly printed. Hot off the press, "bricks" of $100 bills, on a bonfire called Iraq. They are letting the banks launder money as usual, while they spy on the little guy!
Conservative Government spys on the little guy, wont go after the banks under any circumstance, and then uses an occasion like this to try to cloud the issue, to create a false choice between abdicating our rights and holding launderers to account. This is the kind of deception,
Posted by conshame at 06/27/2006 @ 10:01am
The New York Times seems to think that they, being good little liberals, can determine what might hurt national security and what will not. They of course believe that it is they and they alone which know what is best for American and national security-----Sound like anyone we know on this board?---Yep quite a few. The New York Times defense for this article is ridiculous---they claim that they only printed material that the terrorist already knew---The audacity to make that assumption is overwhelming---but sadly par for the course---you see the same type of thing everyday on this board from the far left. The far left seems to be willing to defend freedom of the press when they feel it suits their political agenda (even if it might hurt national security) but not defend free speech or free exercise of religion when it doesn't fit their particular set of values. Here is the question that everyone should answer---Is it more important to defeat Jihadist terrorist or is it more important to defeat the Republicans and George W. Bush? You may feel that both are important--but which is more important to you? My answer is it is more important to defeat the Jihadist terrorist and that will be true for me no matter who is in the White House or which party controls the Hill.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/27/2006 @ 10:05am
Posted by BLUETEXAN 06/27/2006 @ 08:16am
Both Plunger & Rese have some interesting "bits", but they are buried amongst SO MUCH flotsam that I have neither the time nor inclination to separate wheat from chaff.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/27/2006 @ 09:45am
Regardless of the attribution, its still funny stuff Frank. My question though goes to item 4...can't I have both. That way I can keep illegals from the south to tend my garden and yard, and inside help that has a working knowledge of hockey and Canadian beer!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/27/2006 @ 10:14am
Posted by MASK 06/27/2006 @ 09:05am
Somewhat different level of expectation from elected officials and their appointees versus journalists, dontcha think?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/27/2006 @ 10:15am
frankgrits, thanks for the laugh. i think it was newdawn or lisajo that posted it before. but that is so funny. i don't think it could be posted too much.
Posted by loveloki at 06/27/2006 @ 10:24am
May I suggest an alternate bottom line...? When the next terrorist attack hits the U.S., place your bets on the Bush administration blaming the NYTimes.
Posted by nathanhale at 06/27/2006 @ 10:27am
Of course, John, if we were to accept Jefferson's preference, then we the people would nothing but the opinion of the press. Remember autonomy breeds arrogance.
CT
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/27/2006 @ 10:30am
Bluetexan,
"But I guess since God appointed Bush, then God knows best. Oh well!"
The irony is that you say this in jest and for those with faith we fully believe that God did want Bush to be President because if he didn't, Bush wouldn't have been elected.
So...I agree with your statement = )
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/27/2006 @ 10:32am
Osama Bin Laden runs free, Conservatives insist he is in a cave, not in the mansions of his dad, Mohammed Bin Laden, the Bush family's business partner to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars - in the Carlyle Group - in the arms trade.
The Bush Government is not going after Al Qaida, they are on a mission in Iraq to destabilize the middle east! They bombed Afghanistan - they couldnt hit him though. Osama walked through the Swiss Cheese perimeter set up by our US Special Forces. Why havent Conservatives demanded that the George Bush Government go after Al Qaida?
We need to know if the Bush Government ever did a dammn thing to go after Al Qaida at all. You shed some light on what they have done, you will find they have done nothing but chase down environmental and peace activists, while looking the other way at Al Qaida. That is why George Bush lies to everyone and says its a secret because of national security.
Posted by conshame at 06/27/2006 @ 10:35am
Also Frank I do presume that you know the difference between the New Testament and the Old Testament. The New Testament establishes a new covenant with God---the rules established in Levitucus are no longer in play. However, the New Testament still mentions that homosexuality is a sin in Romans 1:26-27---I Corinthians 6:9-----Jude 7-----I Timothy 1:9-10 . At this point it is important to mention that homosexuality is no greater sin than any other sin. This is important in keeping things in perspective, for we all are sinners.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/27/2006 @ 10:38am
Frankgrits, why did you feel it was necessary to post this old old joke?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2006 @ 10:42am
On September 11, 2001, George Bush absolutely disgraced himself. First, he sits there looking stupid in that classroom, then he goes flying everywhere this way and that. Even before that, the idiot had been on a 6 week vacation, he had been getting briefings from Candi entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States", he had a 43 approval rating - due to Enron. He hosted the Taliban months earlier, he didnt send the members of the Bin Laden family that were in the United States to Guantanmo to be tortured.
But then Americans rallied around him, we didnt worry about being liberal or conservative, and it took alot to put aside the differences, knowing what happened - watching it unfold, yet being accused that the terrorists did it because the intelligence agencies werent allowed to work with unsavory people! Because the intelligence agencies werent allowed to torture! Working with unsavory people who torture is what got them in the dammn mess to begin with!
Posted by conshame at 06/27/2006 @ 10:42am
Deranged, Hysterical Right
Never in the history of man has the knowledge that a program exists posed a threat to a nation.
What happened to the right? I'm not talking George Bush. I'm not talking even about the media which just parrots whatever Bush says unquestioned.
I'm talking critical thinking.
What threat? There is no threat.
I believe we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan because just telling them we had atomic bombs wouldn't be exactly compelling.
This story reminds me of William F. Buckley's latest posting where defends Bush's intelligence.
Well excuse my Mr. Buckley but I believe I can think for myself. I believe there is more than enough content in the media by the man himself that I don't need an intermediary between me and my opinion.
This kinda feels like the 1600's where the liberal Protestants were fighting with the conservative Catholics. The Catholic church was admamant that the lay person needed a priest between man and God and Protestants insisted they could think for themselves.
Well excuse me Mr. Bush. I don't need you between me and the truth. I can go to the history books and "flip, flip, flip, flip", nope not one instance in the annals of history that revealing a program existed caused any harm to a country during war time. That's any country, not just the U.S.
What is it with right wingers that they can't think for themselves? That have to have their Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, William F. Buckley father figures tell them the truth?
The right wing is hysterical. Someone like Bush screams and they all start screaming. It's both alarming and sad. There has never been a battle or a war comprised because someone exposed a program existed. Ever.
Posted by mybrid at 06/27/2006 @ 10:42am
The irony is that you say this in jest and for those with faith we fully believe that God did want Bush to be President because if he didn't, Bush wouldn't have been elected.
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 06/27/2006 @ 10:32am
By the same logic, God wanted Saddam Hussein to be leader of Iraq. For that matter, God wanted Bill Clinton in office during the 90's. So the Christian right's "frustration" with Clinton was actually frustration with the will of God.
Posted by twocinc at 06/27/2006 @ 10:43am
"we fully believe that God did want Bush to be President"
for this kind of crap christians should be persecuted.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2006 @ 10:45am
"for we all are sinners."
someone rid me of these meddlesome christians.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2006 @ 10:46am
new research suggests that sexual orientation is set before birth. how this jives with this sin crap is clear, it doesn't.
attention faux christians, shove your sin jive and your god jazz up your keistas.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2006 @ 10:49am
Brewster Jennings - whoops - darn, what a giveaway. Oh well, I might as well explain now that it already slipped. Brewster Jennings is a front company that the CIA set up to as a base for operations aimed towards protecting Americans against chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Sorry, as a Liberal I didnt mean to leak that.
Posted by conshame at 06/27/2006 @ 10:49am
Cheney's quote concerning the leak: "What is doubly disturbing for me is, not only have they gone forward with these stories, but they've been rewarded for it, for example in the case of the terrorists surveillance program by being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding journalism. I think that is a disgrace,"
This brings to my mind the continuous statements criticizing left leaning celebrities who voice political opinions. The comment is usually "It makes me laugh when celebrities try to talk about things they don't know anything about." (As if the commentor is somehow more capable of knowing things than a celebrity is.) Well, it makes me laugh when a crooked politician pretends they know something about responsible journalism.
Posted by twocinc at 06/27/2006 @ 10:50am
Johanne,
""we fully believe that God did want Bush to be President"
for this kind of crap christians should be persecuted."
Johanne, persecute away...it only strengthens our faith because our belief in Gods word in the bible tells us that in the end days we will be persecuted by those who lack faith.
The more you persecute the more validity you add to our faith. Thank you for your persecution!
Mathew 5:11 "Blessed are you when men cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of ME."
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/27/2006 @ 10:53am
TWOCINC,
" So the Christian right's "frustration" with Clinton was actually frustration with the will of God."
You are so right...and boy where we frustrated...
But God's ways are not mans ways, and we don't always understand his greater plan for mankind. (I wish we could see the end picture from the beginning, it would sure help in understanding)
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/27/2006 @ 10:56am
Oh, Christ, here comes eye-for-an-eye-sportsguy telling us what a great Christian he is.... Hey, Todd, do you have your son singing "Hadji Girl" yet?
Posted by nathanhale at 06/27/2006 @ 11:03am
Ok, Gods will during the Bill Clinton years was you didnt get to go around the world killing people, in Iraq, wasting our treasury, depeleting our honor, slaughtering innocent people. Gods will was you didnt get to do that, but then I guess God came around - during the George Bush years, God said well, now I'm going to let the Conservatives take over - have 5 justices of the Supreme Court issue an injunction ordering the State of Florida to stop counting the votes, so that George Bush can send young 18, 19, & 20 year old Americans off to die - not uppercrust hard working folk like his lovely daughters - God isnt going to send them to get their legs blown off.
It is disgusting, Conservatives come here and invoke every ruse and trick in defense of George Bush, invoke God in defense of the slaughter of innocent people for no good reason, and Conservatives defend making America less safe in Iraq. What a disgrace!
Posted by conshame at 06/27/2006 @ 11:03am
Todt, why don't you save this crap for the revival tent? you the death guy are in no position to lecture anybody, grrr kill kill, for Jesus
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2006 @ 11:05am
"for we all are sinners."
"someone rid me of these meddlesome christians"
That quote makes us "meddlesome"---Wow----it was made to point out that some try to make homosexuality a greater sin than others---it is not---and those who do so are not without sin--therefore they should look to their own problems.
"new research suggests that sexual orientation is set before birth. how this jives with this sin crap is clear, it doesn't."
There is no proven, established research showing how people become homosexuals---there are only theories. The most prominent theory (I stress the word theory) is that there is a predispostion for homosexuality. We also know that people are predisposed for many other things such as cancer and alcoholism. A predisposition does not mean that a person will get cancer or become an alcoholic---the right environment must be present for these traits to emerge. Many years ago experts claimed that we would discover a gay gene--we have not. I hesitate to even discuss this topic because it gives the impression that I hate homosexuals---I do not. I am a firm believer in "hate the sin and love the sinner" along with the recognition that "we all are sinners".
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/27/2006 @ 11:10am
Conservatives fixate on their homosexuality while they defend George Bushs disaster in Iraq.
Posted by conshame at 06/27/2006 @ 11:12am
Lennie, you may decide for yourself when you sin. you may not decide for anyone else whether they sin or not. your christ had the same opinion.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2006 @ 11:20am
Let me make one thing clear---I do not believe God had an opinion concerning if Bush or Clinton should be President. He gave us free will. However, I hope that both men asked for guidance.
conshame---Did you believe President Clinton's use of the military in Serbia and Somalia was wrong? Many were killed in those incidents. Almost every President has had to use the American military one time or another to protect American security or American interest---in some cases it was to help a repressed group. I take it that you don't like Bush's decision on the use of force---Did you like Clinton's
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/27/2006 @ 11:21am
"It's likely to be a prenatal effect," said Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines, Canada, who did the research. "This and other studies suggest that there is probably a biological basis" for homosexuality.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2006 @ 11:25am
Todd,
What I don't understand is, why disparage the one and glorify the other? I suspect it's Clinton's "safe, legal, rare" policy (which through educational reform and poverty alleviation resulted in a decline in the national abortion rate during every year of Clinton's presidency.) While Bush is a hero for nominating Samuel Alito to the bench. Or is there some other litmus test? Is it Bush's willingness to trade our civil liberties for the appearance of security? (It's always odd for me to hear conservatives praising greater amounts of government intrusion.) Is it that Bush echoes your polemic against gays? What would Bush have to do to lose your confidence?
Posted by twocinc at 06/27/2006 @ 11:26am
Somalia no, Serbia yes. in Serbia the killing has stopped, success.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2006 @ 11:28am
lennie that was a quote, a bit mangled.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2006 @ 11:29am
Todd
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 06/27/2006 @ 10:32am
By your own religious cross-logic, isn't it just as feasible a scenraio that "the Father of Lies", aka Satan - the Great Deceiver, put Dubya out there as a false leader? He hasn't really backed any of the "Hard-core Bible-thumpin' " agenda that put him in DC, (hasn't championed anti-abortion acts, anti-homo laws, etc.) and the world is less safe overall (just read some non-US newfeeds).
If you guys (really pious types) believe in an active God, then you must believe in the obverse, right? Or is that part of the belief structure saved for the vocally non-Christian? Think about it. If "evil" (as in the biblical interpretation) is active too, then where would it make more sense to act....in open actions against "the god-fearin' sorts", or sneak up behind them and lead them to perdition smiling all the way?
Just a little sumthin' to ponder!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/27/2006 @ 11:31am
The New York Times defense for this article is ridiculous---they claim that they only printed material that the terrorist already knew---The audacity to make that assumption is overwhelming---but sadly par for the course---you see the same type of thing everyday on this board from the far left.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/27/2006 @ 10:05am
Len -
It is monstrously myopic to refuse to acknowledge that international terrorists, weapons merchants, and drug smugglers KNOW and HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN that they must exercise caution in laundering their money through international banking systems.
Your left-bashing in this instance is misplaced and myopic.
You should be more concerned about the misadministration's unshakeable habit of doing end-arounds with most every policy they employ - signing statements, recess appointments, secret programs avoiding due process...
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 11:33am
Bluetexan,
"But I guess since God appointed Bush, then God knows best. Oh well!"
The irony is that you say this in jest and for those with faith we fully believe that God did want Bush to be President because if he didn't, Bush wouldn't have been elected.
So...I agree with your statement = )
Todd
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 06/27/2006 @ 10:32am
Well, then, by your standards "If it's so, it's because God wills it to be so", then God (regardless of what petty humans wrote about him) clearly also endorses abortion, homosexuality, murder, rape, war, and every other human atrocity...
Made in His image, baby. Made in His image.
And if you're going to defend your position by telling me that the Bible speaks against these things, so they're an exception - then show me which Biblical passage mentions the ascension and election of George W. Bush.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 11:37am
How a discussion about Govt tracking of bank transactions turned into a Christian bash fest is beyond astounding. I must be in a Liberal asylum... time to check out!
Posted by guilabaya at 06/27/2006 @ 11:39am
"Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, FOR THAT ALL HAVE SINNED:" Romans 5:12
". . . for there is no difference. FOR ALL HAVE SINNED, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:22b-23
"If we say that we have not sinned, WE MAKE HIM A LIAR, and his word is not in us." 1 John 1:10
"If we say that we have no sin, WE DECEIVE OURSELVES, and the truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8
Johannes--"you may not decide for anyone else whether they sin or not. your christ had the same opinion."
You are right I may not--it has already been done for me---The Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus and his disciples have set down forever what sins are. However, using the above as a guideline I can point out that murder is a sin, that stealing is a sin, etc. etc.----I can also point out that all sins (except one) can be forgiven.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/27/2006 @ 11:42am
Here is the question that everyone should answer---Is it more important to defeat Jihadist terrorist or is it more important to defeat the Republicans and George W. Bush? You may feel that both are important--but which is more important to you? My answer is it is more important to defeat the Jihadist terrorist and that will be true for me no matter who is in the White House or which party controls the Hill.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/27/2006 @ 10:05am
Still trying to figure out what this argument has to do with anything. Pretty black and white world you live in, pal. You just love those either/or propositions, eh? We either support Bush or the terrorists...
Newsflash: It's a shades-of-gray world, Len.
My having a problem with secret programs that operate outside of established law does not make me hate America, support terrorists, or any of that Sean Hannity horseshit. I just watched an hour of Fox last night, and your words could have come directly out of his mouth.
Will C. has got it wrong. You folk aren't hamsters - you're lemmings.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 11:42am
Also Frank I do presume that you know the difference between the New Testament and the Old Testament. The New Testament establishes a new covenant with God---the rules established in Levitucus are no longer in play. However, the New Testament still mentions that homosexuality is a sin in Romans 1:26-27---I Corinthians 6:9-----Jude 7-----I Timothy 1:9-10 . At this point it is important to mention that homosexuality is no greater sin than any other sin. This is important in keeping things in perspective, for we all are sinners.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/27/2006 @ 10:38am
Nice dodge, so I have a couple of questions -
Which Testament contains the Ten Commandments?
Exactly which laws of the Old Testament were superseded by the New Testament?
Did the "New Covenant" come before, during, or after Jesus?
I'll bet you'll be frantically searching the 'net for the answers rather than knowing them in your heart - like Todd, I'd bet you're just like the guy that Stephen Colbert asked to recite the Ten Commandments on his show the other night - the guy has been actively pushing to display the commandments in public buildings, but couldn't even name them when asked...
Talk the talk... talk the talk... talk the talk...
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 11:51am
New---In asking the question I was giving people an opportunity to say that both were important to them "You may feel that both are important--but which is more important to you?" But you should be able to answer which is more important?----Also, by the way, I have not been able to watch any news programs of late----Lightning took out my TV's---in the process of replacing them. If what I said is similar to what was on Fox--nothing more than coincidence.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/27/2006 @ 11:55am
Another attack is inevitable at the time and place of the terrorists choosing. We can only hope that... Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/27/2006 @ 11:35am
Frank, sorry I missed it.
As for all the "Christians" out there who love this war in Iraq, I think I know what the problem is. I've been praying for you, but, as a recent study has shown, praying for the afflicted only makes your condition worse. [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?ex=1301461200&en=4 acf338be4900000&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]
Posted by nathanhale at 06/27/2006 @ 11:58am
I must be in a Liberal asylum... time to check out!
Posted by GUILABAYA 06/27/2006 @ 11:39am
Buh-bye!
Don't let the door hit ya where God split ya.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 11:58am
Which Testament contains the Ten Commandments?
-----Old Testament
Exactly which laws of the Old Testament were superseded by the New Testament?
The laws concerning how a person could receive salvation.
Did the "New Covenant" come before, during, or after Jesus?
It came when Christ died upon the cross for our sins. It established that from that time on we could be saved by asking for forgiveness for our sins and accepting Jesus into our hearts.
There are many questions concerning the Bible that I would have to research, but not those three.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/27/2006 @ 12:01pm
I looked back over the board, and realized that the whole Christian conversation did, indeed, stem from Frankgrits' posting of the old Dr. Laura deconstruction (and yes, Loki - I did post that some time ago, also - good memory on you, darlin'...)...
I, for one, would like to go back to discussing how the misadministration does an awful lot of backroom deals they don't want anyone finding out about...
Energy policy, signing statements, recess appointments, etc., etc., ad nauseam (wink to Johanne).
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 12:01pm
Sorry if I started this nonsense.
IF?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2006 @ 12:03pm
Who are you people? Do you actually believe what you post on this blog? Please open your mind just a bit to the notion that the president and this administration is doing whatever it can to save the US, including you, from additional terrorist attacks. Maybe 9/11/2001 seems like a long time ago, but you really need to remember what our government is up against.
MB
Posted by mark b at 06/27/2006 @ 12:03pm
mark, we remember, but do you? we remember that we were NOT attacked by Iraq, we remember that the perp Osama is laughing his head off, almost all his dreams having come true.we remember the rights and freedoms your leader so cavalierly trashed in the name of security. we remember. do you?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2006 @ 12:07pm
Frank----I thought the post was funny--I thought it was funny the first time I saw it a couple of years ago. I was just pointing out that there is more to this issue than the post points out. If Leviticus was the only place in the Bible that said Homosexualtiy is wrong then your post would make more of a relevant point and not just be amusing----However, it is not the only place. But, the post still is funny and points out why the New Testament Covenant was necessary.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/27/2006 @ 12:07pm
Len -
Didn't want to stay on this topic, and already tried to stop, but naturally, it's only fair that you got to respond...
You do indeed need to research the latter two - your answers are sorta-kinda-a little right, at best - even Liberty would disagree with you...
When we come to the New Testament, God replaced most but not all of the Old Testament laws.
What Laws Changed? The Mosaic Law, also called the Old Covenant, was replaced by Jesus Christ with the New Covenant. The Mosaic Law includes all of the rules about the sacrifices, priests, temple, tabernacle, food, capital punishment, and how to handle disease. Then after Jesus died, God replaced the Old Covenant with a new one called the New Covenant. He eliminated all of the old rules. In Hebrews 8, God says that the Old Covenant or Mosaic Law was going to be replaced. The Old Covenant was going away or growing old and it was ready to vanish. The Old Covenant was all of the rules and ordinances of sacrifice, priests, and many other things.
But God "brought back" some of those rules from the Old Covenant. Both the Old and New Covenants told us that we should love God with all our hearts (Deut. 6:5 and Matt. 22:37). Both covenants repeat the Ten Commandments except for keeping the Sabbath.
The other laws specifically altered concerned foods (because of disease concerns) and capital punishment, which God still wholly endorses...
NOW ENOUGH OF THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT GOD - LET'S TALK POLITICS
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 12:08pm
Never saw the West Wing.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/27/2006 @ 11:21am | ignore this person
You'd like it. Of course you have accept the show's premise, whereby an honest-to-God liberal gets elected President and actually succeeds and gets re-elected.
Sorta like watching "Star Trek"...have to believe that warp drive and transporters would "really work".
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2006 @ 12:12pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/27/2006 @ 11:55am
Did you honestly think that someone on this board was going to claim that protecting jihadi terrorists was important to them?
Just silly.
And Len - I'm not attacking you or harassing you personally this morning, I swear... you're just one of the few that I feel will actually consider what I'm saying instead of summarily dismissing it because I lean left...
I'm trying to play nice. Promise.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 12:12pm
Frank -
An "amendment"!
That's freaking hilarious... Oh, my tummy...
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 12:16pm
JOHANNESROLF, - you used the phrase "your leader" - which tells me you do not believe that the president is your leader. I must assume that your dislike and disrespect goes back to your being upset that he won the election in 2000 and then again in 2004. Please remember that the president, whether republican or democrat, is OUR leader... he is working to protect you, me and our families and friends. and BTW.. last time I checked we have not had any terrorist attachs in the US since 9/11.
Posted by mark b at 06/27/2006 @ 12:16pm
Frank---"blaming the free press for the mess you created"
Frank I thought you were one person on the left who supported the war against Jihadist terrorist. The "mess you created" quote seems to refer to Iraq. I thought you separated these two things. Don't you think that the Administration should be doing everything within its means (legally) to protect us from Jihadist attacks? Very few question the legality of this program dealing with terrorist finances. What is at question is whether the New York Times should have disclosed it.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/27/2006 @ 12:16pm
JOHANNESROLF, - you used the phrase "your leader" - which tells me you do not believe that the president is your leader. I must assume that your dislike and disrespect goes back to your being upset that he won the election in 2000 and then again in 2004. Please remember that the president, whether republican or democrat, is OUR leader... he is working to protect you, me and our families and friends. and BTW.. last time I checked we have not had any terrorist attachs in the US since 9/11.
Posted by MARK B 06/27/2006 @ 12:16am
mmmmmm yummy yummy Kooooool-Aid...
Are you for real, friend? That argument makes you feel safer?
When did we have a terrorist attack in the U.S. before 9/11?
And I'm with Johanne on this one - George W. Bush is NOT a leader, and certainly not my leader. I wouldn't follow him onto a playground, let alone a battlefield.
If you would, suit up and go kill some Iraqi's that never attacked America. Knock yourself out.
And explain something to me - how exactly could any other country in the world, including Iraq, attack us here en masse? How would any army get here? Teleporter? No - plane or boat. And we'd see 'em coming long before they got here...
So the issue is individuals and small groups, like the nineteen (most here legally) actually responsible for 9/11. How is a war in Iraq keeping another two dozen militant Muslims from crossing the Canadian or Mexican border to get into America without a trace to do their deeds? What's your dear leader doing to stop that?
I say again, are you for real, friend? Do you really think about this stuff in any detail, consider the implications, and form a reasoned opinion?
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 12:24pm
New----Not taking your post as an attack----I do honestly feel that there are some who feel it is more important to defeat the republicans and George Bush than it is to defeat Jihadist terrorism. I do feel that there are some on the left who would be upset if things worked out in Iraq because it would hurt their political agenda (worked out=democracy, able to govern and protect itself). Yes, I do believe that there are some who put their political agenda ahead of the country.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/27/2006 @ 12:25pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/27/2006 @ 12:25am
I hate those people's guts, pal, on both sides of the aisle. You know at least that much about me, I hope! ;)
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 12:26pm
New---You might want to add an amendment to your last post----We were attacked before 9/11----Remember??????????????????
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/27/2006 @ 12:28pm
...last time I checked we have not had any terrorist attachs in the US since 9/11.
Posted by MARK B 06/27/2006 @ 12:16am | ignore this person
Not to be nitpicky here, about the anthrax killer? He killed five people and in effect, managed to get a chemical weapon into our capitol buildings. He is also still running free.
Posted by breasonable at 06/27/2006 @ 12:31pm
Thanks, Len - I was hoping the other fellow would respond like you did...
Of course, you're referring to the other Trade Center attack...
Let me see - somebody caught those guys.. who was it...
And of course, that prevented another terror attack here in the U.S., right? ;)
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 12:32pm
New---I'm with you---I am angry with them also--both sides of the isle----However, they do exist, and they do post on this board. I will take a little issue with you however on the George Bush is not my President thing---I didn't like Clinton, but he was my President. I worked against him, but he was still my President. I would ask you to reconsider that philosophy. I do not think it should be my President right or wrong--but "My President" and I will work my a-- off to fix what I think he or she's got wrong.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/27/2006 @ 12:33pm
And Len - I didn't say we weren't attacked previously - I asked.
But you knew that.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 12:33pm
(That was a bit of "cynical manipulation" on my part)
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 12:35pm
New---I'm with you---I am angry with them also--both sides of the isle----However, they do exist, and they do post on this board. I will take a little issue with you however on the George Bush is not my President thing---I didn't like Clinton, but he was my President. I worked against him, but he was still my President. I would ask you to reconsider that philosophy. I do not think it should be my President right or wrong--but "My President" and I will work my a-- off to fix what I think he or she's got wrong.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/27/2006 @ 12:33am
Len -
He isn't my president - I don't believe he was fairly elected.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 12:36pm
I wouldn't follow [Bush] onto a playground, let alone a battlefield. Posted by NEW DAWN 06/27/2006 @ 12:24am
To point out the obvious, ain't nobody gonna have to follow Bush's chicken-shit ass onto a battleground
Posted by nathanhale at 06/27/2006 @ 12:37pm
Frank---"Thou shalt not murder" is the better translation from the originial Aramaric, and Greek.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/27/2006 @ 12:38pm
New Dawn - If you recall...
Feb 26 1993: USA, NYC, World Trade Center. September 1995: Moscow, U.S. Embassy. November 1995: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, U.S. military headquarters. February 1996: Athens, U.S. Embassy. June 1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers. October 2000: The Destroyer USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden.
I'd rather our military fight them in Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and the Phillipines - than have civilians killed here at home.
Over 5 years without an incident carried out here at home - although needless to say the terrorists have tried...
Posted by mark b at 06/27/2006 @ 12:38pm
Posted by NATHANHALE 06/27/2006 @ 12:37am
True that.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 12:38pm
New Dawn - If you recall...
Feb 26 1993: USA, NYC, World Trade Center. September 1995: Moscow, U.S. Embassy. November 1995: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, U.S. military headquarters. February 1996: Athens, U.S. Embassy. June 1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers. October 2000: The Destroyer USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden.
I'd rather our military fight them in Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and the Phillipines - than have civilians killed here at home.
Over 5 years without an incident carried out here at home - although needless to say the terrorists have tried...
Posted by MARK B 06/27/2006 @ 12:38am
Thanks for proving my point. Fighting them in some nebulous "over there" does nothing to stop them from committing atrocities elsewhere, and certainly not here. 9/11 happened after escalating terror in all of those other places, and thanks to escalating wars, is more likely than ever to happen again.
You cannot smash mercury with a hammer, Mark. That only creates a profusion of scattered droplets elsewhere - splinter cells aplenty - angered fathers, brothers, uncles, and cousins ready to take up arms for vengeance, nationalism, and to stem the perceived agression of the U.S. Every person you kill in those other countries you want to go fight in will breed a half dozen others who want to avenge those deaths and the invasions and occupations of their lands.
And your lack of concern for "civilian deaths" in all of those other countries is disturbing, but an altogether common trend amongst "compassionate" conservatives.
And just for perspective, so you don't think I'm some granola-eating, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, pacifist peace freak - I think we should burn the Taliban, Bin Laden, and Al-Qaeda to the ground.
I just don't think we should burn down the whole block just to light up their house.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 12:48pm
New Dawn----not fairly elected either time? WoW---If you feel that he was not fairly elected in 2004 may I refer you to the Cleveland Plain Dealer article concerning the 2004 election: (if you have already read it I apologize)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2004 Voter Theft Theory Debunked
Cleveland's leading newspaper has checked out a new article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claiming that Republicans "stole" the 2004 presidential election in Ohio, and concluded that Kennedy's story is "nonsense."
In the June 15 issue of Rolling Stone, under the headline "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" Kennedy writes: "A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004 -- more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes."
But the Cleveland Plain Dealer – regarded as anything but a conservative newspaper – headlines a June 18 article: "Rest assured, we checked out Election 2004 thoroughly," and states: "There was no shortage of mistakes made in vote counting. There were voters who should have been registered but weren't, polling places with lines that were too long and without enough voting machines, and decisions from [Secretary of State Ken] Blackwell that appeared to be partisan.
"All these mistakes and misjudgments took votes from both candidates, but probably more from Kerry. But they didn't add up to nearly enough votes to swing Ohio from Bush to Kerry. "The mistakes were … bipartisan in nature and not a result of Republican chicanery."
The Plain Dealer article by Ted Diadiun points to several instances when Kennedy "ignored" the facts, including: "In his online footnotes, Kennedy refers no less than a half-dozen times to a five-month-long post-election investigation commissioned by the Democratic National Committee called ‘Democracy at Risk.' "Somehow he never gets around to quoting the DNC investigative team's conclusion that ‘The statistical study of precinct-level data does not suggest the occurrence of widespread fraud that systemically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush."
The newspaper also notes: "Kennedy saw conspiracy in a Franklin County foul-up that resulted in far too few voting machines at a polling place in a heavily black area that would presumably vote mainly for Kerry.
"But he didn't tell his readers that the chairman of the Franklin County elections board, who oversaw the county's voting machine allocation, was a black man who also chairs the county Democratic Party. Not a likely candidate to steal votes for Bush."
Plain Dealer Metro Editor Jean Dubail said this about the Kennedy article: "My first reaction after reading the thing was how little actual news there was in it.
Carl Weiser, government and public affairs editor for the Cincinnati Enquirer, expressed similar sentiments: "I read it and nothing in there was really new. The folks who know Ohio elections best checked into it and found there was no conspiracy." And a story by Farhad Manjoo on the Web site Salon.com – another news source that's far from conservative – states: "If you do read Kennedy's article, be prepared to machete your way through numerous errors of interpretations and his deliberate omission of key bits of data."
The Plain Dealer concludes: "The less somebody knows about the 2004 Ohio election and the farther away from Ohio he is, the more likely he is to find merit in that Rolling Stone piece. And since our audience is right here in Northeast Ohio, I'm sure that most of you have already figured out that it's nonsense.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/27/2006 @ 12:50pm
ND - Your use of metaphors is truly awesome... However, althought the literary value is there, I believe that we are both wasting our time. You are not considering any validity to my posts and I certainly believe you might be clueless (just kidding). You are spouting the company-line and making Michael Moore proud, and I'm sure you believe that I am reciting lines from the FNC.
Take care..
Posted by mark b at 06/27/2006 @ 12:54pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/27/2006 @ 12:50am
Too much chicanery for me all over the place, Len. Sorry - it's in my gut. I believe it like you believe in God.
Understand?
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 12:55pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/27/2006 @ 12:50am | ignore this person
THE main flaw in the "Ohio was stolen" Conspiracy Theory is...
it grants Karl Rove, Blackwell, and their "operatives" CLAIRVOYENT powers.
It would mean they rigged an election MONTHS in advance, in a state that they KNEW was going to be the "deciding electoral state" (not Florida as was last time).
So, if Rove could predict things THAT well, why couldn't he have just funneled more money into Ohio, and left 49 other states alone? Why didn't he concentrate the Swift Boat attacks in Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati? Why didn't Bush visit it 30 times instead of 25 times?
Bobby Jr is a joke (see his "reasoning" on why wind farms, which would provide CO2 free power, are "too hurtful to the environment"...when they happen to block the view from the Kennedy Compound in Hyannisport).
And endless "We wuz robbed" Theories just weaken the Democrats, by letting their base sit back and say "Oh, we don't HAVE TO work hard to win over the American people....they ALREADY love us...they just 'don't get their votes counted'!"
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2006 @ 12:59pm
ND - Your use of metaphors is truly awesome... However, althought the literary value is there, I believe that we are both wasting our time. You are not considering any validity to my posts and I certainly believe you might be clueless (just kidding). You are spouting the company-line and making Michael Moore proud, and I'm sure you believe that I am reciting lines from the FNC.
Take care..
Posted by MARK B 06/27/2006 @ 12:54am
Your use of backhanded compliments is also commendable, I guess.
But what "point" is it that you feel I'm not granting its due? The only one I can see that you've made is that we haven't been attacked domestically since 9/11, which to me means nothing, and is certainly not because of the hostilities in Iraq or Bush's habit of backroom deals that refuse to follow established due process...
And by the way, I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I don't give a flying firetruck what Michael Moore is proud of, and I don't have a "company line", so you can keep those insinuations.
I watch the entire spectrum of news coverage and read a dozen world newspapers to get my political insights and information - then I throw it all in the blender, mix throroughly, and MAKE MY OWN DECISIONS.
Try it - you might like it!
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 1:02pm
"That's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I hold a confidential press briefing, you leak, he or she is prosecuted under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act." -- Yes, Minister
Posted by aaronrp at 06/27/2006 @ 1:15pm
I saw the large number of posts on this thread and thought it must be the happenin' place to be. But it's virtually all about religion and gay marriage. Lefties: why do you allow them to play this game? They have so little to offer anyway and when they decide not to offer a single, flippin' thought, just breeze right by their posts.
It's just so boring and trivial. A cynical manipulation of this forum.
As to the topic, well, I agree, it's a pretty open and shut case. We have a bunch of very old people running this country who are astonished that wires aren't even necessary anymore to track data and believe that every single idea they have is a gift from above. If they traveled more, they would realize that the US is a virtual third world country in terms of technology and that anything we can do they can do better. Be happy we made any progress at all in the "war on terror" and then recognize that our enemy is probably using time travel or holographic technology or Star Trek's transporter system to outwit us.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/27/2006 @ 1:22pm
I'd rather our military fight them in Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and the Phillipines -
you're going to be awfully busy...sending other people's kids to fight. Sieg Heil
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2006 @ 1:24pm
Posted by MARK B 06/27/2006 @ 12:03am
So we should accept stupdity as leadership as long as its well-intentioned? To quote the late Paul Wellstone "We can do better" and we damned sure should expect better from our leadership other than incompetence.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/27/2006 @ 2:20pm
ALL
Resume of GW Bush
pretty good stuff
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/27/2006 @ 2:21pm
LoC -
I've had his "old" resume saved for years -
glad to see that someone took the time to update it! Thank you so much - this is one for my bulletin board.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 2:24pm
Johanne,
"your christ had the same opinion."
not correct.
Mathew 5:17 Jesus says: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill"
He never preached that sin was open to what ever you interpret your sin (or lack thereof) to be.
Mathew 5:19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Are you annuling His commandments Johanne?
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/27/2006 @ 3:45pm
TWOCINC,
"What would Bush have to do to lose your confidence?"
Number one, you are asking this question with an incorrect assumption....you assume I still have confidence in Bush.
I have lost confidence in Bush, he hasn't pushed hard enough on immigration reform, a federal amendment to our constitution to clarify marriage as a union of one man and one woman, and he certainly hasn't put enough troops on the ground in Iraq to kill all of the insurgents and help right that sinking ship.
Bush is TOO soft on many issues in my opinion and I have lost a lot of confidence in him. However that certainly does not mean that I think Kerry would be doing any better.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/27/2006 @ 3:49pm
New Dawn,
"Which Testament contains the Ten Commandments?
Exactly which laws of the Old Testament were superseded by the New Testament?
Did the "New Covenant" come before, during, or after Jesus?"
Simple answer...
Mathew 5:17 Jesus says "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come abolish, but to fulfill."
Jesus's point is that the old law is not abolished, he came to fulfill it, but to fulfill it he realized he must change the heart of people to make them pure so that people wouldn't want to sin and thus would not give into the temptations of the flesh.
So... to answer your question, the entire bible contains the 10 commandments, they did not cease to exist once Jesus came to the Earth. Again, he came to fulfill the Law.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/27/2006 @ 3:54pm
New Dawn,
"When we come to the New Testament, God replaced most but not all of the Old Testament laws."
You may make a good liberal, but you make a horrible theologian....
You are dead wrong here.
Read Mathew 5:17 Jesus said point blank that he came to FULFILL the Law not to abolish it.
Additionally, the entirety of his ministry on Earth was designed to change the hearts of people so that they would fulfill the law because they wanted to (i.e. they had a repentant heart) instead of trying to get them to follow the law because they had to.
You see, its all about clan control (something you may remember from organizational behavior if you have taken a course on this in college, assuming you went to college), buy in and pure motives.
I sadly think you have missed the point of Jesus' entire ministry.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/27/2006 @ 4:00pm
Are you annuling His commandments Johanne?
Todd
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 06/27/2006 @ 3:45pm
The New Testament sure annulled that nasty old "Respect the Sabbath" commandment from the Old...
And as to your 3:54 post: Your answers to the questions (that I did not ask you in the first place) are also lacking and mind-bogglingly simplistic. the real answers are much deeper than you either offer or could likely comprehend. Boy, Jesus sure did a great job of "[changing] the heart of people to make them pure so that people wouldn't want to sin and thus would not give into the temptations of the flesh". No more sin since that New Covenenant, huh? Good intentions paved the way to perfection, didn't they?
I suggest that you do more than pay the Bible lip-service and actually do some research before you publically place both of your feet in your mouth and go for a brisk jog. I will not repeat the broad answers to my own questions again for you, as I already did so several posts back.
Oh, why bother... There's no swaying a zealot.
AGAIN, LET'S TRY TO STICK TO POLITICS...
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 4:03pm
I'll be sure to let the graduates of MaryKnoll, Holy Cross, the teachers and theologians I work with every day that they're "dead wrong" and that some dumbfuck from Bumfuck, Oklahoma, knows the Bible better than they do.
Whatever, dude.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 4:05pm
"I'll be sure to let the graduates of MaryKnoll, Holy Cross, the teachers and theologians I work with every day that they're "dead wrong" and that some dumbfuck from Bumfuck, Oklahoma, knows the Bible better than they do."
You do that...
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/27/2006 @ 4:06pm
I know I've posted this one in the past, but the implication that we haven't seen another attack on our soil because BushCo is keeping us safe requires I revisit this anecdote.
I had a funny-looking corgi/sheltie/beagle mixed breed that my father used to like to haul around with him. When someone would ask him what kind of dog she was, he'd say,
"The baddest Kangaroo Hound in Maryland".
The response would always be, "But there aren't any kangaroos in Maryland!", to which Dad would respond,
"Told 'ya!".
Posted by drhammer at 06/27/2006 @ 4:07pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 06/27/2006 @ 4:07pm
LOL....I feel safer already!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/27/2006 @ 4:16pm
I sadly think you have missed the point of Jesus' entire ministry.
Todd
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 06/27/2006 @ 4:00pm
Pretty funny coming from a bigot who wants those who disagree with him to leave his state and stay out of his life -
The "point" of Jesus' entire minstry, as far as I am concerned, was
"Love one another".
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 4:35pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 06/27/2006 @ 4:07pm
I LOVE that every time you post it! :D
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 4:35pm
From MSNBC.com
Headline...
"America tops in national pride, survey finds U.S. leads 34 countries in confidence in democracy, military, economy"
Yes...we love our country = ) and the majority of the people as this survey finds are willing to stand up and say that no matter how many people are offended by our patriotism.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/27/2006 @ 4:36pm
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 06/27/2006 @ 4:36pm
America is the greatest country in the world - are you implying that someone here doesn't think so?
Nice try.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 4:41pm
For all of my friends - this site is worth a daily check-in:
http://www.thousandreasons.org
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 4:44pm
Nice try, but you can't get away with that nonsense. Your line that "In a democracy, the first responsibility of a journalist is to get accurate information about what the government is doing to the people so that they can make appropriate decisions about what is done in their name." is stunning in its duplicity.
That is most certainly NOT the first responsibility of a journalist. It might, be one of their responsibilities but not THE primary responsibility. What about truth, accuracy, honesty, relevance, and readability on reporting the news that affects your readers?
Oy vey. Is that what they are teaching in J school these days?
Posted by E Pluribus at 06/27/2006 @ 5:10pm
FREI,
I wasn't intending to be entirely serious. I also don't believe that any terrorist organization, even the most highly developed ones, have conquered time travel. But I do think that we have people running our country right now who would have us be morons. And the fact that so many nod when they use their fightin' words against any of their straw men is the most depressing thing in the world to me. We are not technologically inept, but as a country, we as a people are naive (and I sadly put myself in this categorization), understanding little of how the technological advances that have been made in the last couple of decades can impact private lives--for good or bad.
This time, for me, is about watching the American public give itself up to a small group of people who insist not only that they know best, but that it is better that we worry not our pretty little heads about things. I'm not that pretty. And I do worry.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/27/2006 @ 5:20pm
ice try, but you can't get away with that nonsense. Your line that "In a democracy, the first responsibility of a journalist is to get accurate information about what the government is doing to the people so that they can make appropriate decisions about what is done in their name." is stunning in its duplicity.
That is most certainly NOT the first responsibility of a journalist. It might, be one of their responsibilities but not THE primary responsibility. What about truth, accuracy, honesty, relevance, and readability on reporting the news that affects your readers?
Oy vey. Is that what they are teaching in J school these days?
Posted by E PLURIBUS 06/27/2006 @ 5:10pm
I think the noun form of "accurate" is "accuracy," which is quite often considered synonomous with "truth" and "honesty". "Appropriate" is not too far removed from the idea of "relevance". And readability? Well, I assume that is a given since without the words being clear, that which is accurate cannot lead to decisions which are appropriate.
I believe this type of reading is taught well before one enters a school of journalism. But perhaps you have some other point to make before you conclude your close reading of the article.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/27/2006 @ 5:26pm
"But I guess since God appointed Bush, then God knows best. Oh well!"
The irony is that you say this in jest and for those with faith we fully believe that God did want Bush to be President because if he didn't, Bush wouldn't have been elected.
So...I agree with your statement = )
Todd
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 06/27/2006 @ 10:32am
Toddster -
Speak for yourself. I have faith yet I do not in any way, shape or form believe that God wanted GWB to be president. If you actually look at what God wants of us (as evidenced by the life of JC), you will see that our president is a pretty lousy example of what is desired of us.
Beyond that, the 'divine right of kings' nonsense went out on these shores with George III. I thought that you purported yourself to be an American, was I mistaken?
Posted by skeletonman at 06/27/2006 @ 5:31pm
Skeletonman,
"I thought that you purported yourself to be an American, was I mistaken?"
Well, it depends on what you are asking if you are mistaken about.
If you are asking if you are mistaken in your assumption that I am an American, then no, you are absolutely right, I am an American and proud of it = )
If you are asking if you are mistaken that I agree with your notion that those in power for what ever reason where put there by God himself and that this process died towards the dawn of the New World than yes you are mistaken = )
I believe God puts everyone everywhere and is ultimately in control of everything. God uses men to accomplish his goals. Yes that means I believe for what ever Reason God had evil men like Saddam, Hitler and others in thier place for thier period of time whether we like it or not.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/27/2006 @ 5:49pm
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 06/27/2006 @ 5:49pm
There wouldn't be a reason for the second coming if the devil hadn't put hsuB into office. See, there's always a logical explanation-- even with organized superstition!
________________________________________
Mathew 5:19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Are you annuling His commandments Johanne?
Todd
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 06/27/2006 @ 3:45pm
Hey doesn't this sound a lot like hsuB annulling the consititution just because it's pre-9/11!
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2006 @ 6:03pm
reading these pages, one might be tempted to think that christians are all right wing zealots. NOT TRUE.
I seem also to remember that Cheesus fellow saying: I have only one commandment.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2006 @ 7:33pm
JR,
Ah yes, the old 'sometimes the non-religious are kinder and gentler than the so-called religious' saying? Or was it old-- 'holiness has no rules' saying? Perhaps it's the 'state of grace is limitless' saying that hsuB thinks he's in, (but it's really something else). No, the only other sayings have to do with nirvana, vahalla, and something to do with 13 little kids... You are talking about that tiger on the comercials, right? Cheetos?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2006 @ 7:53pm
"I have lost confidence in Bush, he hasn't pushed hard enough on immigration reform, a federal amendment to our constitution to clarify marriage as a union of one man and one woman, and he certainly hasn't put enough troops on the ground in Iraq to kill all of the insurgents and help right that sinking ship."
here's that redneck christian from oklahoma talking sh*t again!
bush hasn't pushed hard enough for the marriage amendment?! dude, what is in that oklahoma air that makes you people so stupid? can you even define what a "man" is? can you define what a "woman" is? go ahead, let's debate. come on, i dare you!
and second, bush needs to kill ALL of the insurgents to win? really? again, what is in that oklahoma air? what, you think once all of the insurgents who are in iraq are dead, that that's it? muslims will just give up? have you ever thought for a minute that israel might be able to educate us a bit on this one? they've resorted to putting up walls, terrorizing innocent people, and instituting full-on marshall law. are you into that okie-f*ck?!
Posted by darladoon at 06/27/2006 @ 8:34pm
Darla -
Marry me.
:)
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 8:57pm
"publically"
I wrote that non-word, but don't remember doing it...
Apologies to all.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/27/2006 @ 9:00pm
Arthur Sulzberger, CEO of the NYTimes, should be brought to court, to answer the charges regarding the laws his newspaper broke. The buck stops with the CEO, as Key Lay recently discovered. There is no difference between a law-breaking energy trading corporation and a law-breaking newspaper corporation.
Posted by pflan at 06/28/2006 @ 12:30am
Posted by PrulyFulLofAssinineNonsense 06/28/2006 @ 12:30bm
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/28/2006 @ 08:48am
Flan, which law did the times break?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/28/2006 @ 08:49am
Darladoon,
"are you into that okie-f*ck?!"
I'm into ridding the world (not just Iraq, but North Korea, Iran, Somalia and anywhere else on God's green earth that they live under rocks) of all terrorists, death if possible, imprisonment if necessary.
Any other questions?
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/28/2006 @ 09:07am
Todt, grr kill kill,
we know who you are.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/28/2006 @ 10:05am
of course from the safety of your keyboard.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/28/2006 @ 10:06am
Johannes---always knew you were just an old hippie, draft evader. Military culture would have done you some good.
The Times probably did not break a law---but it did break a trust. They put their political agenda ahead of the country. The Times itself admits that the program is not illegal---therefore what watchdog function are they serving? The answer is simple--they hoped to smear the administration by implying that the SWIFT program was legally questionable. They put their political agenda ahead of the country---for now they owe the nation an apology and a pledge not to do it again. If it is later shown by Congressional committee that this report did tangible harm to the nations security then a national boycott should be put into effect. If the LA Times and Wall Street Journal can be shown to be complicit they also should suffer the same consequences. (I did hear that those two papers were not going to publish, but when they got word that the Times was going to run the story they went ahead so that they would not lose the scoop)----------I would also like to remind everyone that this program has been successful in prosecuting a terrorist (Bali bomber)--so those who say "the terrorist knew they were being monitored anyway" need to take a step back and see that this program has been successful in fighting terrorism.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/28/2006 @ 10:28am
On another subject-----God gave us free will to choose the President. God did not put Bush or Clinton into office --we did. As religious people we can only hope they ask for God's guidance.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/28/2006 @ 10:33am
Len posts:
"The Times probably did not break a law---but it did break a trust. They put their political agenda ahead of the country."
This misadministration has done exactly the same thing throughout its time in the White House.
The constitution doesn't seem to allow for the vilification of the press that's currently occurring... But it damn sure provides for censure and impeachment for when the government does it.
I'd like to see Len's standards above applied directly to this misadministration's ringleaders.
Prosecute them.
God Bless and Long Live the New York Times and every other media outlet with the balls to stand up to this house full of criminal miscreants.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/28/2006 @ 11:40am
On another subject-----God gave us free will to choose the President. God did not put Bush or Clinton into office --we did. As religious people we can only hope they ask for God's guidance.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/28/2006 @ 10:33am
Len,
What a rational, reasoned way to put it, even for those of us who subscribe to free spirituality over organized religion. No sanctimoniousness, prosyletizing, no threats of damnation or any other superfluous arguments - just straight and to the point, and also holding men accountable, rather than relying on God to explain everything.
I know you are a man of reason (whether I agree or not), and as I am also a spiritual person, I respect the way you just put that.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/28/2006 @ 11:43am
Johannes---always knew you were just an old hippie, draft evader. Military culture would have done you some good.
what did you do during the war daddy?
let me tell you about military culture. stop me if you've heard this before. I grew up in two devastated countries, total war, cities bombed to smithereens. Occupation by US and Russia.
I know all about military culture, in fact I was in ROTC before my eyes opened. my grandfather, two wars, two iron crosses. served prison time for being an officer, colonel, injured when a shell passed through his vehicle. Police between the wars.lost everything.
my father, Viennese, drafted, his health destroyed by war, spent his life in and out of sanatoriums. I know what price is paid in war. I should have gone to Vietnam to fight for what? as Ali so eloquently put it, no vietnamese ever called me nigger.
I look forward to hearing your bona fides.
I might also mention the warmongers of our time who had other priorities.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/28/2006 @ 1:55pm
to the "old hippie" I plead guilty with an explanation.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/28/2006 @ 1:57pm
when the gov't lies and cheats, and the gov't certainly did that in the 60s vis a vis Vietnam, it's every man for himself. I am proud of the fact that I dodged the draft. I'm also proud that I helped stop that war.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/28/2006 @ 1:59pm
Johanne,
grrr, grrr, grrr, kill, kill, kill
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/28/2006 @ 2:20pm
Excellent post - a very interesting theory, which can be bolstered by the Valerie Plame episode. In the Plame case, whether or not it can be proven in a court of law that a crime took place, there is no doubt that the White House leaked Valerie Plame's name for its own political purposes (smearing Joe Wilson). By doing so, a useful asset (Valerie Plame's WMD expertise, particularly in Iran), was rendered inoperative.
Posted by Bob Canuck at 06/28/2006 @ 3:13pm
Bob, which post are you referring to? fine response
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/28/2006 @ 3:22pm
hey maasch:
In a recent Survey USA 50-state poll, 48 percent of Nebraska voters approved of the job Bush was doing compared to 49 percent who disapprove --
looks like the old boy is slipping.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/28/2006 @ 3:42pm
is this really news? i assumed that this kind of monitoring was always in place? no wonder we were attacked on 9/11!! if the CIA wasn't already doing the bank monitoring ten years ago, shame on them. bush's outrage is obviously politically motivated. the program is no big surprise.
Posted by kybean at 06/28/2006 @ 6:08pm
JOHANNESROLF,
Re "Bob, which post are you referring to? fine response"
I was referring to John Nichols' "Cynical Manipulation" post. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Bob
Posted by Bob Canuck at 06/28/2006 @ 7:31pm
pardon me Bob, of course
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/28/2006 @ 10:49pm
one more dead thread, no not Dead Head
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/29/2006 @ 1:44pm