Waiting for indictments: Libby, Rove and....

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 16:16
VIEWED: 3808
PAGE 3 of 4

first of all let me start of by saying,
sorry i didn't mean to sound snippy! i am usually a decent debater who doesnt disolve into sarcasm and name calling, but you were right, it was like 8:30am when i read that i did infact misread the sentence.

i just get all bent out of shape when libs say 'forget about abstinence, just teach them safe sex' because the safest sex of all is NO sex. i'm not in a position to argue if the programs themsevles work, but i think it should be STRESSED in the health classes.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

7%, no he's not joking. Democrats these days are 100% pro-choice, whereas republicans are still all over the map on the issue. I used to be pro-choice myself because I find the christian right has an alienating effect on it's own arguments.

ie. a group that stands up and supports creationism over evolution loses a lot of scientific credibility. But eventually RTL won me over.

It's really an individual issue, sure, but the question depends on who you view as the individual. Certainly no individual right to kill is ever supported by law, so if you view the [potential] child as an individual, then you are right to life, if you don't you're probably pro choice.

But even in the Bush (W) administration, which I consider to be way way way outside the mainstream of the republican party, several people have varying opinions on this. Miers and Gonzalez are both known to have a history of being pro-choice. Even VP Cheney supports gay rights. The GOP is a lot less lockstep than some of the spinsters make it look.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I want to just post something about Karl Rove. I don't really have a strong opinion on Rove. He's not a member of PNAC so he doesn't earn my "neo-socialist" label, but he has said some socialist things for time to time, so he puts me a little on edge, but I don't think he's on a mission of global social revolution so I don't relly have strong feelings one way or the other. If he's on your side, that's probably generally good, if he's on the other side it probably isn't. It's quite possible that he's the major offender in the Plam case, and if this were an objective justice system he should go to jail if that's so.

But it's not objective justice. It's vendetta justice. It's vendetta justice that I approve of only because I agree with the goal. I don't know if it's democrats or republicans behind it, but the goal is to take down PNAC people in govt. which I'm all in favor of. I want the out of my party and out of my govt. If Cheney can be forced to resign and be replaced with any Non-neocon GOP Senator, any one, even picked at random, I would take a random GOP Senator over Cheney.

People on both sides, realize this is not a dem victory, the replacements for these PNAC crooks will be republicans, and hopefully real republicans.

But Rove is a rat. This is not meant in a demeaning way, but rather an objective one. He's a coniving self serving rat that likes to push his own power up a notch and not get wet. He likes to live in the shadows, manipulate, and not get eaten.

Unfortunately someone nailed shut the mousehole, and now he's stuck on the kitchen floor with no way out.

Fitzgerald, I'm sure, like any prosecutor, loves rats. Who wouldn't? If it's information you want, rats are who to talk to. So if Karl will rat out a bigger fish, it's okay to let him go. You're never going to see VP Karl Rove, or the Karl Rove society attempting to take over third world countries. The rest of Karl Rove's career if it exists is going to be Karl Rove serves Karl Rove and helps whoever just paid him the most. So more power too him, I say.

But what the people behind this assault are really interested in, [and BTW I think the main brain behind this (what seems to be an orchestrated take down of the Bush Administration) is Colin Powell - More power to him also] what they really want, is to take out Cheney. Rove undoubtedly agreed to rat out Cheney to save his own neck, but the prosecutors want more.

They want Libby to rat out Cheney, which isn't going to happen. Libby is in PNAC with Cheney which is probably some blood oath. If Rove rats Cheney and Libby gainsays it, then it'll make for a much harder case. The end goal will be to let all three go free in exchange for Cheney's resignation, which I assume will have a stipulation that says Bush can't pull a Kennedy and appoint his brother.

All in all I don't know if they can pull this off. But to have a dif. VP than Cheney, who is PNAC and was involved in some pretty corrupt Clinton deals, and some corrupt Bush deals, would be a boon to the party and a boon to the country.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by XanderHarris:
first of all let me start of by saying,
sorry i didn't mean to sound snippy! i am usually a decent debater who doesnt disolve into sarcasm and name calling, but you were right, it was like 8:30am when i read that i did infact misread the sentence.

---

No worries! Sorry if I came off a little snarky myself.

Quote:

---

i just get all bent out of shape when libs say 'forget about abstinence, just teach them safe sex' because the safest sex of all is NO sex. i'm not in a position to argue if the programs themsevles work, but i think it should be STRESSED in the health classes.

---

I'm in total agreement. I get the same way when conservatives say "just teach abstinence, that's all they need to know," because it really isn't. If you don't learn about safe sex (or sex at all, for that matter), abstinence-only education isn't going to work. If they don't learn that oral/anal sex is sex or to always use protection, then they are more at risk for problems when they do, in fact, decide to engage in sexual activity. I'm with you on the abstinence stressing, but I'm a realist when it comes to whether or not they can actually accomplish it.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Might as well keep up the threadjack, no one else was really commenting on Meiers anyway

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
7%, no he's not joking. Democrats these days are 100% pro-choice,

---

There are just as many pro-life Democrats as there are pro-choice Republicans. To claim one party is all one way and one party is all another is invalid. In fact, I shouldn't have implied it when I attacked Hero's post; I'm sure there are some decent folks in the GOP.

Quote:

---

ie. a group that stands up and supports creationism over evolution loses a lot of scientific credibility. But eventually RTL won me over.

---

They lose ALL scientific credibility. I'm a Christian, but I'm sorry, ID and Creationism are not science in any way, shape, or form.

Quote:

---

It's really an individual issue, sure, but the question depends on who you view as the individual. Certainly no individual right to kill is ever supported by law, so if you view the [potential] child as an individual, then you are right to life, if you don't you're probably pro choice.

---

I think the problem (IMO, on this issue at least) comes in the fact that the left sees grey areas whereas the right does not. No one, especially myself, is ever going to stand here and say "y'know, what we really need is more abortions in this country." But the problems lie in areas like 'when is it a fetus and not a lump of cells (my own opinion is the sci-standard 12 wks); what do you do in cases of rape, incest, or extreme poverty, in which the psychological or legal damage to the mother is in serious question; or health of the mother issues. You saw that in the debates where Kerry took the grey area track and GW stood right there and said it's black and white, no matter what. I (and many Dems like myself) just can't support legislation that doesn't take the grey areas into consideration. Late term abortions are extremely morally reprehensible, but without a health of the mother clause, I cannot support that legislation. The right won't allow for those situations.

Now, you may say, how often do things like that really happen? My answer? If it CAN happen, there needs to be protection.

Quote:

---

But even in the Bush (W) administration, which I consider to be way way way outside the mainstream of the republican party,

---

That makes two of us. I voted for GWB senior, but over the course of the years, the GOP has shifted so radically right that I've changed parties. The evangelical, mass-spending, home invading nightmare that they have become is frightening.

Quote:

---

several people have varying opinions on this. Miers and Gonzalez are both known to have a history of being pro-choice. Even VP Cheney supports gay rights. The GOP is a lot less lockstep than some of the spinsters make it look.

---

I think I'd disagree on the lockstep. Yes, Cheney has a lesbian daughter. But you'll never see him disagree with the party line on anti-gay issues (he's amazingly silent, and they even used the mention of it to attack Edwards during the campaign). The lockstep is part of what gives the GOP its power; they'll band together on a party line while the Dems bicker over minutiae. Trust me on the bickering part, we have a great political advantage during the whole Plamegate and Katrinagate (is that even a -gate?), but all we can do is bicker about how to use that advantage. We'll probably figure something out long after the advantage passes.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Oh dear.

I don't want to get into "THE argument" over Roe v. Wade, but I have to try to define the position as best I could.

It really started for me over animals and euthanasia. The nitwits who were putting animals to sleep were doing it for their own convenience, rather than giving the animals to someone else, or setting them free. This evolved into a whole argument that some people, hopefully a small minority, on the left seem to think is valid, which is "right to die." I've never heard so much supersticious gobbledy guk as right-to-die. Well in time I came to the conclusion everything has a right to live. It's a fundemental rule for humans in nature. without that basic rule, humans with their overwhelming power would kill everything to suit their own purposes.

As I said, it's not a major issue for me re: babies. I'm not getting choked up about 40 million dead babies. But it's a serious concept thing. I don't believe the left arguments hold up. A child of rape or incest is still a child, and it's not less a child, or it would be okay to murder them when they were 25 or something.

Okay, take it this way: rape/incest babies are group A and other babies are group B. If aborting A is okay, aborting B is okay, if aborting B is not okay, aborting group A is not okay. Any other logical conclusion would be a fallacy, so the argument makes no sense.

Next, if it's an issue of convenience, one person's convenience can NEVER be weighed against another person's life. If this were so, the world would be locked in an endless genocidal war.

Possible death of the mother is a separate issue. It's life vs. life. I would argue in favor of the currently living person. The cost to society of educating replacement humans is extreme, so better to keep old people.

Overall the world is not short of humans, so I can't take this as a major battle which needs to be waged. The aborted foetuses are not about to wreak unholy vengeance upon us for their deaths, so it's not a forced issue.

On the whole, I would say, moms, sorry for the inconvenience, and then if it's someone else's fault compensate them accordingly. You know, rapists or (incestor? is there a word here?) would have to pay something akin to maternity leave. BTW, I think if rape and incest cost people money in addition to criminal prosecution, crime rates would go way down.

But I agree, no legislation that doesn't take in to accound the health of the mother is acceptable. But I'd want that to read "physcial health." 'Mental Anguish' cases on all levels make me sick. If you can't handle the mental anguish of being a normal human, then maybe you should go live in a box. John McCain isn't suing the VC, so no one should sue McDonalds for the adverse mental effects of greasy food.

On parties,

The democrats are intollerable to me, I think they have a lot of policies I can't fathom and a horrible track record on very basic things like not killing lots and lots of people. I used to think higher of them than I do now. Jimmy Carter was a good man. Russ Feingold is a good man. If the democrats had more people like this, it would be better. But the problem is Bill and Hillary, Kerry and Dean, all these self serving cretins, corrupt politicians, they're as bad as Bush.

Your points about the GOP are well taken. There is an element in the Republican party that needs to crawl into a corner and die. I don't think that element is the Christians though. I think it's the neocons or as I like to call them, neo-socialists. Christians are just pushing for their own right to live in a particular custom which is their right.

The problem with Christians doesn't really come from the Christians, it comes from the opposition to them, which basically says "No, you can't live like that, everyone has to live the same way." To which they respond "okay, everyone will live our way, because they're are more of us." And then we get this theocratic take-over.

On Patriot Act and big spending, I totally agree, but these are neocon policies. If the neocons were all in jail where they b

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Oh dear.

I don't want to get into "THE argument" over Roe v. Wade,

---

You appear to be rational, so I don;t think there's going to be a blow-up. It's the lunatics on both sides that turn it into a verbal shouting match of nuclear proportions.

Quote:

---

on the left seem to think is valid, which is "right to die."

---

Not going to cut and paste your whole argument, but I can see your point. I think that the term "right to die" is a misnomer on the issue. I think it's more of a person's choice on HOW they want to die. I personally have a living will, and I think if my relatives pulled a Schiavo on me, I'd come back from the grave Day of the Dead style and discuss it with them the hard way (ie, I'm very serious about it). PVS or drugged stupor for the rest of my life are not how I would choose to go, so I have chosen not to go that way (hence living will). Either way, I don't think the government should have a say one way or the other; that's one of those neocon problems that seem to be going on. Similar in a way to abortion, in the sense that I don't need legislators to legislate morality to me.

Quote:

---

Okay, take it this way: rape/incest babies are group A and other babies are group B. If aborting A is okay, aborting B is okay, if aborting B is not okay, aborting group A is not okay. Any other logical conclusion would be a fallacy, so the argument makes no sense.

---

I see where you are coming from with this point. I however, look at it another way, ignoring the cells/fetus argument, because that's probably an agree to disagree point between us (aren't civilized discussions so much better?). But lets assume that an underaged (13) mother is forced to carry an incest baby. She has it, as a ward of the state (because she is now taken away from home). If she keeps it, she has no real way to care for it; and, if we're very, very lucky, she doesn't take out her mental trauma from the rape on the child for the rest of its life (causing irreparable harm to the child). If she gets rid of it (adoption), what happens if she tries to put all the pain behind her, and the child shows up on her doorstep 18 years later looking for a mother whose life is reshattered by its very presence.
I can't get behind the idea that this is in anyone's best interests enough to make it impossible for her to get an abortion. And this is the sort of thing that happens all the time, which we as a nation should be ashamed of.

Quote:

---

I would argue in favor of the currently living person. The cost to society of educating replacement humans is extreme, so better to keep old people.

---

Actually, teachers don't make shit for salary, the cost of drugs for the elderly probably costs more. JUST KIDDING!

Quote:

---

BTW, I think if rape and incest cost people money in addition to criminal prosecution, crime rates would go way down.

---

I think forced sterilization would do it too. And I'm not sure I'm kidding on this one.

Quote:

---

The problem with Christians doesn't really come from the Christians, it comes from the opposition to them, which basically says "No, you can't live like that, everyone has to live the same way." To which they respond "okay, everyone will live our way, because they're are more of us." And then we get this theocratic take-over.

---

I see your point, but I don't think non-Christians are telling the Evangelicals that they can't live the way they want. I don't care who, what, or how you worship; what I don't want is to hear about it, or have my morality legislated by a Christian takeover of government (we don't need to be like the reverse-Iran). But when you say that to them, they accuse you of trying to take Jesus out of America, or some such. The law should be religion-neutral, not 10-commandments on a lawn. When you walk into a court or onto the floor of congress, you should be subject to secular law. The Christian right is already the dominant religion in the country; this persecution complex they have is, quite frankl

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

7% said
You appear to be rational, so I don;t think there's going to be a blow-up. It's the lunatics on both sides that turn it into a verbal shouting match of nuclear proportions.
[\quote]

Yeah, agreed, this is what I meant. I didn't think we would lose it, but there's the danger of less cool heads weighing in.

Quote:

---

right to die

---

I'm too much of a cynic for this one. I don't believe, and so I can't make an argument. I would just like "right-to-die" to team up with "emotional trauma and mental anguish" and together they could fly off to the discard pile. Do these issues exist? Maybe. Should they be in legislation. No. These are not major issues of our day, and since we are not solving the major issues of our day, we don't have time to waste on this irrelevant stuff we are wasting our time on.

I feel pretty succinctly, the issues of the day are:

1. First and foremost, a bunch of idiots are destroying the planet. Much of this is going on in Brazil, Africa and SE Asia in deforestation, (also some here) and the rest is the slow but increaing water and air poisoning. This is being done by a handful of self serving profiteers who are doing it for truly minor amounts of profit. I think killing them wouldn't be a terrible idea, but I'd be content to build a colony on the moon and send them there.

2. We are caught in a perpetual global war because some people still believe socialism is good, and if it were all the world were in a big top down structure of govt., there would be an end to suffering. In reality the suffering would then be doled out unilaterally from that one world govt. onto it's people if they didn't do exactly what it said all of the time. And they wouldn't, because they're people.

3. We have overzealous ideologues and corrupt crookaticians rapidly dismantling America and other forward thinking states, and making the world hate them in the process. Rather than leadership by good example, we've entered into a time of, F^&k you world, go grab you guns and let's see who has the biggest dictatorship.

If we get that settled I'll take the Roe vs. Wade issue more seriously.

The rape story doesn't hold up though.

1. The rape is the rape and you can't blame it's mental trauma whatever that's worth on the abortion or lack there of.

2. The child will be sure, motherless, but so what. Many motherless babies become useful members of society. Julius Caesar for example.

3. But also, the reason this doesn't hold up as an argument is that if we assume she has the baby first, and then can't take care of it, your argument could still be made, only it would come across as her saying to the police "Well, I figured the baby'd be unhappy anyway so I chucked it in the trashcan."

If that sounds morally reprehensible, which I hope it does, then you have to figure to everyone who thinks the foetus is alive, that's what it sounds like.


Okay, here's something I have a big problem with.

People, including people related to me, are adopting babies from third world countries because the demand for babies is so great here. In and of itself that might be okay. The parents to be often have a white man's burden feeling about it "Oh I'm helping some unfortunate" but they're not, they're helping themselves. They subtracted one Whereveristan'er and added one American. But the reprocussions don't end there. Many of these countries have an illegal baby market. People are kidnapping children to sell, and even killing pregnant women and cutting them open to take their babies to sell. All in all, this is less than ideal.

So, to look at it from a practical capitalist point of view. Why throw away a perfectly good cash crop? I mean, pregnant teen can't afford to hire people to look after her baby? Well, maybe she needs some extra cash. Babies are going for $30,000 these days. There's a nice little send you through college.

Quote:

---

Actually, teachers don't make shit for salary, the cost of drugs for the elderly probably costs more. JUST KIDDING!

---

Nowhere near. The cost of educ

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME