Monday, April 18, 2005

Dancing the Pelosi Two Step

Once more we see the “magic” power of relativism as Democrats scream obscenity out of both sides of their political mouth at once. While attacking John Bolton for criticizing the incompetence and corruption of the United Nations they pretend to attack “corruption” in the US congress in the person of the Majority Whip – Tom DeLay.

Let’s review the attack on Bolton. Accusations against him come down to these petty and unfounded complaints:

1. Bolton intimidating intel professionals. While screaming for the total destruction of the US intelligence community, liberals – led by that little caustic congresswoman from San Francisco – are angry at Bolton for questioning the opinion of some low level nameless bureaucracy?

2. Bolton is a grouchy boss. Having often been accused of being a grouchy boss by people who were incompetent and unworthy of their positions – I am not surprised that a successful administrator would stir the ire of some underling. What is amazing is that Bolton, who has been forced to interact with a host of agenda driven liberals at the State Department, has been so tolerant.

3. Bolton is critical of the UN; suggesting that it is of lesser significance than the United States in the world. Whoa – Talk about being challenged for saying the obvious! The UN, dripping scandal from the criminal and dangerous mishandling of the Iraq Oil for Food program, has further sullied their integrity by covering up child sexual abuse perpetrated by their operatives in Africa. At the moment the Genocide in Sudan goes on unabated by the impotent UN presence in the country. Proof, if there was ever any needed, of the legitimacy of President Bush’s decision to act in Iraq without full UN support. Again I remind you that UN action was blocked by France and Russia both of whom were being bribed by Saddam with the money the UN was leaking and kicking back to that Monster. The failure of the UN everywhere in the world is a justifiable reason for criticism from John Bolton – and a reason for the world to support the appointment of a US ambassador who is willing to deal with the failing of the UN rather than perpetuating and covering them up to curry support from the Liberal Media, and the French! I remind you that the only power France has in the world is their veto in the UN. France is sinking so fast that the rats can’t find a place to jump from! If anything, Bolton has been to kind to the UN – and his restraint should indicate that he will make a sincere effort to reform rather than destroy the organization.

Let’s now consider the De Lay circus:

1. Tom DeLay has not committed any crime – had he done so he would surely have paid the penalty. He has hired people from his own family to help in his campaign. Who would have been better choices? I have often hired my family members. They have consistently been among my most valuable employees. There is no law or even convention against it. More hot air to boil the teapot. The Democrats and their supporters in the Media are truly creating a tempest in a teapot in the hopes of helping their political chances in the 06 congressional elections. They are so desperate that they have to throw mud scraped from the grave of Terry Schiavo. The real reason the Democrats are attacking DeLay is his constitutional success in redistricting Texas in a way that allows the majority of Texans to have true representation in the Congress.

2. Pelosi – has been found guilty of crimes in the House – she has been fined $26,000 for improperly using campaign donations to support the campaigns of representatives which then voted her in as minority leader. Her pot is so black that she can’t see the kettle.


3. When asked in a news conference to explain her double standard, Pelosi and Senator Reed of Arizona, who was with her before the press, replied that they were there to talk about Tom DeLay.


Meanwhile the Democrats led by their screaming Dean, continue to disparage American success in Iraq, villainize the President’s efforts to reform the admittedly broken Social Security System, and stonewall against the constitutionally prescribed advice and consent responsibility of the Senate to vote on Presidential appointments and judicial recommendations. Read, Dean, Pelosi and company have nothing to offer to help our country or the world. They offer up constant hatred and endless sniping against anything that might bring success to America or credit to our government. With two mouths going you would think the Democrats would have something good to say about America; you would think!

NOTE: Rules that are not good should be changed. Cases in point:

1. Sixty vote majority in order to vote on a presidential appointment or judges.

2. House ethics committee policy that allows either party to prolong investigations for partisan reasons. A majority should be required to maintain an investigation of ethics in the house past a reasonable time.

54 comments:

BircherBoy said...

Why don't we just dump the UN. It's innefective, filled with scandals, and does not support the best interests of the US. We were brought into the UN without the consent of the people or the house and senate. We had the wisdom in not joining the league of nations after WWI, which also turned out to be innefective in keeping peace. Why did we join the UN when it even went against the Monroe Doctrine, our longtime foreign policy. I'm rather glad that Bush appointed an ambassador who can see the fault in a corrupted organization.

Ares said...

Well, perhaps Bush can see the possibilities that the UN holds and level-headedness is something to be praised. But I think that it is in the best interests of the US to move away from the UN, but then again, isn't that the effect the war in Iraq has had, whether intentional or not?

As a side note, Lysis mentioned Bush's social security plan and I just couldn't help myself with this statement.

A couple of weeks ago, I saw a commercial where an old lady had a clogged sink and the plumber told her that the only thing to do was to totally rip the house down and start over, which they then proceeded to do. Then the narrator, in his infinite wisdom said something to the effect of: "you wouldn't do this to your house, why should we do this to the social security plan?" (this was sponsored by the AARP, if I remember correctly) That bothered me for about five seconds until I realized that they had the problem wrong. Here's my take on it.

Instead of a clogged sink, what if the old lady had a house full of termites and one board had broken in her house. The carpenter comes out to look at it and says, "Look, we can replace this one board, but what you need to do is get your roof totally re-done. We can fix it temporarily, but it needs a permenant fix."

Anyway, sorry to take everyone away from the main flow of Lysis' topic, I just couldn't resist.

I say Bolton should do what needs to be done, and that is to give the UN a good old fashioned American buttkicking. It's the only way to salvage it, and perhaps we should do as Bircherboy says and just dump it.

patriot said...

These attacks that Lysis is making are no better than those of the Democrats of which you hate. With President Bush's self-described political capital depleting without any real accomplishments, even the Republican majority finds no other choice but to fight with Democrats.

Bush rambles on about social security when he should be fixing medicare, medicade, and the thousands of illigals coming into this country daily! President Bush has done nothing in his first four months in a second term. One of the biggest reasons for Tom Daschle's defeat was the fillibustering of ultra-conservative judges. President Bush and the Majority Leader threaten to fight back with the nuclear option? I'm shaking in my boots! Anyone that watches the ten o'clock news knows that the Republican's talk a big game, but when it comes to getting results, they go down in flames.

When you defend Tom "The Cheat" DeLay, you forget to mention the meat of the accusations. The fact that he has been bribed with cash donations to his own campaigns and trips/gifts have been received by DeLay in exchange for key votes, Your response? Well...Nacy Pelosie is crooked too!

The bickering is despicable and your lies are baseless. If you want to blame someone, blame the Republicans for raising our country's debt, allowing our security to be in compromize on the borders, and cutting the nation's military bases in a time of WAR. This is Unprecedented and shameful.

Dan Simpson said...

First,

What are you ranting about the "security at the borders" 'patriot'. You couldn't actually be a real patriot, or you would know that our country was founded on free and easy immigration. Not beaurocratic, expensive, full of stupid rules and by laws regulated immigration. Please, explain your ideal border rules so that I may decimate the very premises on which you base your ideas.

Second, Lysis, how can you truly defend DeLay. He is, probably, the single greatest problem in the Republican party today. He has been indicted, yes, I understand that doesn't mean he has been found guilty, but neither can you pretend that there is nothing but "baseless allegations" against him. What are you basing that on, his statements?

Even Republicans in the House want him gone. He has strong armed members of his party, and replaced them on committees when they have refused to back him. He is all that is bad about a politician.

I understand why you are so dedicated to the Republican party. I rarely disagree with you, I think I am more conservative than the Republican party most of the time, however, I cannot remember a time when you have admitted a fault on their side.

Tom Delay is the wrong battle to fight. Remember these words, he will be found guilty, rightly, and more and more will come out that he has done.

He "is a crook"

A_Shadow said...

As I don't have much information of Delay, I'm going to take a few shots at some other interesting comments brought up by posters, here:

Bircherboy:
It's entirely arguable that if the United States HAD joined the league of nations, it wouldn't have failed. There were so many important nations that were involved, it only needed Americans to support it. We just held onto our last card and played it elsewhere, bringing it down around us.

The UN is much the same. If the US leaves, it will fail and crumble. The US isn't the only fish in that pond, but to have an international peacekeeping force, you need policemen. The world may complain about us acting as the policemen, but who would you have do it? The French? Mind you their biggest military action in years just took place a few months ago: They annhialated an African countries entire airforce (three fighters) and at last I read, deployed fifteen hundred troops...

"Patriot":
I don't suppose you have a real alternative to republicans "fighting" with democrats? The point of having two parties is that they won't agree all of the time. It'd just be nice if we'd see a little bit more sportsmanship/less childishness when it comes to talking about each others ideas. I understand that there are many challenges that face the country (your mention of medicare, etc.) These were hardly problems brought on by Bush, and I remember them being brought up well into Clinton's era. I know they need to be taken care of, but I could imagine that there are a few too many problems to get them all fixed. Terrorists outside the country wishing to bring us to our knees, and problems of mismanagement from past generations, and just their shear bulk to deal with from within.

But I, like Dannyboy, would like to hear of your anti-immigration plans. I can only assume that you'd post one man within site of another all along the border so that they could snare everyone. Or better yet, is there still legislation out to build a wall around America? Isolationism is hardly the best thing we could do for our country. I can understand the pros, but there are plenty of unconsidered cons.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

It is good to hear from some new as well as old voices this morning.

BircherBoy: I would be more inclined to fix and use the UN than to dump it entirely. I think Shadow has a point. If the US would have properly developed and supported the League of Nations much of the evil of the 20th century could have been avoided. I am a big supporter of Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, and DannyBoy, very critical of Cabot Lodge and the Republicans for supporting isolationism after WWI. You see; I can be critical of Republicans – all they have to do is make a mistake. Therefore, it is as BircherBoy says - The world should be glad to see an ambassador who can see, and hopefully fix, the faults in this corrupted organization.

Ares – Your analogy on the rotting roof and Social Security is very apt. Although this was not the main thrust of my post, the idea that those against the President’s plan blur the truth and use scare tactics to prevent progress, is spot on.

Patriot – welcome. When you say my attacks on the Democrats are no better than the Democrats attacks on the Republicans, are you attacking my attacks? Come on! There is a significant difference between pointing out hypocrisy in an attacker and trying to drive a man from office, in the case of DeLay, or prevent him from serving, in the case of Bolton. If I were to take your implied advice I would sit by and let the Democrats lie their way into power or America into the pits. One can stand against evil without become evil. One can point out lies without becoming a liar. You call me a liar, show me the lie and I will correct it. As for DeLay taking trips paid for by other than taxpayers. I say good for him. I also point out that Pelosi has taken far more such trips – and that the Democrats, the minority party, have taken the majority of trips abroad during the last year – paid for by their supporters. As for Nancy Pelosi being crooked too; I never said TOO! Tom DeLay, for all the name calling, has not been found guilty of committing any crime or ethics violation. Nancy Pelosi was found guilty and force to pay a $26,000 fine. Pelosi is a crook – DeLay is not. Or don’t you believe in innocent till proven guilty either? Oh I forgot; Democrats are innocent even when proven guilty!

Patriot – you also claim that President Bush has not accomplished anything with his political capital. Your problem is that you are so busy listening to the propaganda that you miss the news. First of all, there are presently hundreds of bills before congress – most of which will be passed and most of which will strengthen and improve life in our country. Just because your “media outlets” find reporting these successes antithetical to their goal of reestablishing Democrat control of the White house, doesn’t mean these things aren’t happening. Here are a few accomplishments of note:

1. A new law on bankruptcy. Having been a landlord ripped off of the money I needed to pay my own mortgage payment by a crook who sought a “no fault” bankruptcy, I am delighted to see the Republican Controlled Congress stand up to the mob and demand they pay!

2. Laws limiting class action law suits. This very difficult legislation was push through against the well funded trial lawyer’s lobby that carries the Democrats around in their very deep pockets.

3. The Death Tax has been permanently removed from estates of less than one and one-half million dollars. This great service to all of us, who want to leave anything to our children, and especially to small business and small farm owners, is one of the greatest gifts of a Republican controlled Congress.

4. We could also add the law that sent aid to the Tsunami victims in East Asia; money that has already paid dividends in the worlds largest Muslim Nation.

5. In the mean time, the Bush Administration has continued the very effective war on terror and has overseen the creation of democratic governments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine and Kajikistan.

6. And please consider nine very good appointments to the Cabinet. Placing Secretary Rice at the head of the State Department is enough of an accomplishment in its self to be worthy of admiration!

It seems that whoever’s propaganda Patriot is spouting, it has been very effective in closing his mind at least.

Patriot – you fault the Senate for not adopting the “constitutional option.” Don’t count the Republicans out until the vote comes up. I too am greatly desirous to see the President’s appointments supported. In spite of what the media is pumping out concerning the 90%+ approval rate of Bush nominees – it should be noted that 64% of his nominations to the highest level of federal judges, the ones just below the Supreme Court, have been blocked by threat of filibuster. Action must be taken, I am confident it will. If the majority in the Senate backs down on this, DannyBoy, you will hear me fault the Republicans!

As for the Mexican border. This is a far more complicated issue that the “Minutemen” would like us to believe. The truth of the matter is that Mexico is a bomb with a very short fuse sitting next to the heart of the United States. Some facts to consider: Almost every president of Mexico in the 20th century was assassinated in office. Mexico is not a stable country – it is rotten with corruption and patronage. Gangs, Drug Lords, and War Lords control the lives of millions of Mexicans and the democratically elected government must move toward any kind of control very deliberately and cautiously. The second larges source of money to Mexico – behind oil production – is money sent back to Mexico from Mexican citizens working in America. ONE IN TEN Mexican Citizens lives in the United States. The simplistic “solutions” to “Immigration Problems” are childish and dangerous. Most are tantamount to hacking off ones leg to cure a blister!!! The best way to solve our issues with Mexico is to help Mexico to become a successful economy and democracy. Once life in Mexico is tolerable, the people will stop fleeing and start building their nation. This will be difficult and costly for America – but believe me compared to dealing with a Communist Monster State, or a Mexico consumed by revolutions, civil war, and crime, it is a bargain! Once again we need to answer Shadow’s question and come up with some real plans – we need to find out the facts and quit shouting propaganda and sound bites!

DannyBoy and Patriot – where are the Democrat’s plans for solving any of our nations problems? What is their solution to Iraq? (The UN?) What is the Democrat solution to Social Security? (Put off solving the problem until they can get credit for it?) What is the Democrat solution to the Immigration problem? (Opening the borders and legalize non-citizen voting?) What is the Democrat solution to the problems in the judiciary? (Turn the “ultimate power” of the judiciary over to liberal judges who will legislate their social agenda from the bench?) I would be encouraged if the Democrats would even offer the ideas suggested above. But they do not – their only plan is to tear down the Republicans and make sure that America fails! This is their only hope of obtaining what they really want – POWER.

The attacks on Tom DeLay are the best possible example of this. They are not attacking DeLay because he is a crook – as all of us have argued – by most definitions they are all crooks – their motivation is entirely political. Like sharks or vultures they circle continually looking for any sign of weakness, and then, with their friends in the media, they attack in hopes of starting a feeding frenzy in which they will get back on top.

DannyBoy - the Democrats have made DeLay a problem. This is the only way they can seize the media in order to derail the President’s agenda. To quote my friend Rumpol, “What they are doing has noting to do with what they are doing!” If they can get “even Republicans” to buy into the fact that DeLay is a liability; they will trash him and move on to the next soft spot. Remember what Yokum did to Workman in the Salt Lake County Election. I do not defend Workman’s indiscretions – but the attack against her by the democrats was solely for political purposes. The subsequent election of a Democrat as County Mayor and Workman’s acquittal show the truth behind all the smoke and mirrors. If the folks of Salt Lake County wanted to dump Nancy Workman for hireling here daughter they had every right to do so, in the voting booth. But to shark up unfounded criminal charges in order to steal an election, is the only tactic left to a party that is so bankrupt of ideas and moral courage that they have been reduced to scavengers feeding on the body politic. When such scavengers attack, they need to be confronted at once, not allowed to burrow their way into our national soul.

Dan Simpson said...

First, please do not lump me with patriot. I do not, and will continue to not, defend democrats in Washington. Nor do I think the Republicans pale in comparison. I am holding Republicans in congress up to a standard of what they should do. I have NEVER mentioned, or even implied that the democrats are on the high ground.

I did mention the fact that there are many within Delay's own party that do not agree with his tactics. For example, when the members of the congressional ethics comittee would not change the rules, Delay removed the Republicans on the comittee and replaced them with individuals who would vote to change the ethics rules. Now, being indicted for a crime is not something that the congress can look at.

Before you reply with innocent until proven guilty, which I agree with, lets understand one thing. Aqcuital does not mean that charges are baseless.

This takes me to my second point. As someone who was able to vote in the mayoral election for Salt Lake County, I thought it was a disgrace. Workman, in my opinion, is unethical and shouldn't be in office. Caroon, has shown me nothing that is good. I voted for Eliss Ivory.

Something you are misconstruing COMPLETELY is your claims about Workman. Please explain this to me.

In what way were the charges against Workman baseless?

The decision to indict was put through several rounds of oversight to make sure that there was not political underpinings (something a regular defendant would not get), an independant prosecutor was brought in.

Did you read the indictment? There was more than ample evidence to go forward with the charges.

I am curious. Do you think anytime someone is acquited, that the charges were baseless? If the answer is no, please explain to me what you rely on to claim the charges against Workman were baseless.

To recap

-me and patriot-NOT on the same side

-Tom Delay-I think he is a crook, not in relation to democrats, but in relation to what he should be.

-Workman-she was aqcuited, that doesn't mean she was innocent. It means she won't be punished.

Lysis said...

DannyBoy, I didn’t mean to lump anyone in with anyone. Your arguments seemed to share some points with the Patriot; I was wrong not to differentiate. I clearly see the difference in your positions – and I also agree that Republicans should be held to the same standard as Democrats. My problem remains that they are not. As I said above, I do not excuse DeLay by saying that Pelosi did it. Let’s prove something against DeLay and then kick him out for that – not offer him up as a sacrifice to the desperation of the Democrats.

Now to the Workman situation - . You are right; I am in over my head here. I have not read the indictment – all I know is that they were thrown out. You ask me if I believe that if someone is acquitted that means the charges were baseless. I would have to say yes! I am reminded of that first trial – the one before Athena – which Aesculus tells. The goddess of Justice strictly instructs that the burden of proof is on the prosecution – and that if Orestes is acquitted he will be acceptable of functioning as king though he freely admitted he had killed his mother.

This is the formula as I understand it:

Innocent until proven guilty

Not proven guilty then innocent.

It applied to O.J.; it must apply to Nancy Workman. I would be glad to hear the justification for your determination to hold Workman guilty in spite of her acquittal. If you still found her odious, then it was your right not to give her vote. I would enjoy hearing the fact in Workman’s case and in that of Tom DeLay. The point I continue to try to make is this: the Democrats have lost control of the government of the nation and the majority of the states because they have nothing to offer the people of this country. There would have been no Democrat in power in Salt Lake County if the Democrat prosecutor had not attacked Workman. If the Republicans had wanted Ivory they surely could have nominated him to run. This is what I would have done. But the fact remains; for all the lip service we give the justice system, many seem more that willing to throw out the underpinning claim – that people are innocent until proven guilty. You tell me to think before I bring up Innocent until Proven Guilty. I have though it over, my answer is yes the charges are baseless. And that claim is the basis for believing that Workman – whether or not she was a good leader – was not guilty of the charges leveled against her. She was in the middle of a political campaign and those who sought to sully her did it to replace her with someone of their own party. Since Pelosi has been found guilty I maintain she is a crook while DeLay, who has not been found guilty of anything, is innocent. And I still believe that the attacks on DeLay and Bolton are politically motivated. They are the desperate attempts of those who cannot grab power legitimately.

As for DeLay’s throwing out the Republican members of the Ethics Committee who would not support the rule change; that seems perfectly reasonable to me. The majority of the majority wanted the change. Those who must implement the rules should support them even if they do not agree with them, otherwise they should step down.

To recap:

1. I will not lump you with anyone. Sorry.

2. Please tell me why you believe Tom DeLay to be a crook. Other than that is what the Democrats have been saying.

3. We must disagree on acquittal not meaning innocence. – No matter how odious, unless proven guilty, a person, even Nancy Workman, is innocent.

patriot said...

Defense of a crook! You support the bribing of public officials? I should have guessed. Congressman Bishop said recently that there is no greater politician than one who can have lunch with a lobbiest and vote against him. I agree. However, when a key leader in one of the mostpowerful institutions in the world will blindly vote for something because someone offers him a free vacation, this is theft...stealing from the credibility of the House leaders and the institution.

A bill was brought before congress that would give millions to a job/works program. This bill was supported by the great DeLay and the majority whip even tried to get other members of his party to vote for it...the problem? The program doesn't exist!! These crooked politicians are shameful. DeLay even said to one congressman, "vote for this bill. It doesn't do anything, but it'll make you look good back home. Go ahead, it's something to help you for re-election." Wow, thank you Tom DeLay and your wonderful leadership. And what's worse, the Legislation passed! Thank you Republican majority! Defend him if you must, but realize you defend a petty theif!

dannyboy2- agree, this country was founded on immigration. But when terrorists can easily cross the border to attack this country without the knowledge of even being here, that should raise a few questions (i.e. the terrorists crossing the Canadian border to blow up the Space Needle in 2000). If we are spending so much time and money to build up the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq, why is this president so against spending any money on protecting our own. I say we take some of those soldiers who are in active duty in sothern California, New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona to patrol the borders. Or even better, instead of closing bases in war time, why not build a couple of national guard stations to help patrol the US/Mexican border? Don't argue for the sake of arguing. It makes sense.

I am glad you raise the point of me attacking your childish attacks. The Democrats and Republicans are bickering and you chose to join them. I saw it as a welcome inviation to argue with fact rather than just simply fighting with fiction. It's a human's nature to attack when they aren't winning. The President isn't doing anything of real benifit to this country, so it is understandable that one would blame the opposing side for their mistakes and inaction.

My media scources are the same ones that you use, Lysis. Sadly, they're not mucch better than that of communist North Korea. I should know, I've been there. What we hear in the media is quite different from the truth. I understand that you know this, after all, you and propaganda are one in the same...otherwise your blogging career would serve no purpose.

64% (I'm relying on your data, although I have my doubts) of Bush's nominations have been filibustered. How sad when such a small Democratic minority can bully around such a large, effective group. The sarcasm in my voice is actually making me sick as I write this, but I digress. Has President Bush gone on the offensive? No. Has the Republican leadership launched the Nuclear Option? No. Instead we find the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, defensless against a Democrat from Searchlight, Nevada. This must explian why the President's approval rating is at an all time low, 42%. But that's ok. At least we have our commander-in-chief spreading the word about social security to the people of Podunck, South Carolina! Heaven forbit we try and pass any legislation to promote it.

And yes, there have been some great pieces of legislation, well under five, but that's all one can hope for with the congressman we've got. The death tax and the bankruptcy bill are very good bills, which president Bush has not suggested or proposed. In fact, these were neither suggested or propsed by the Republican leadership. They were done by Republican Senators, not by the leadership.

Another thing, don't generalize the deep pockets of the Democratic Party. The class-action bill was supported by a number of Dems. You want to talk pocketbooks? We'll never finish if we start on which party is richer.

Your arguments are beggining to compel me, Lysis. However, they are not persuading me. Suprising, seeing as how we both have such and open mind!

patriot said...

This is off the subject, but while I was hesitant to use your facts, I proved myself worthy of hesitating. While re-reading your blog, I think you should research a little harder. Maybe you can find out who this Senator Reed of Arizona is. I've never heard of him. The only senators I'm aware of from Arizona are Senators McCain and Kyl. But of course you already knew that.

Lysis said...

Patriot - - - Lobbyists are legal – so is having lunch with them; so is voting for or against their recommendations. Many causes I support are championed by lobbyists. It is not a dirty word; although it is a dirty job!

Please tell me the name and number of this “mystery bill” for a program that doesn’t exist. By the way; are you saying that it is wrong for congressmen to vote for what they think will get them reelected? Isn’t that the reason we have elections – so our representatives will need to represent us in order to get our votes?

To confuse the War on Terror with the other very real challenge of Mexican American relations is a poorly disguised scare tactic. If the terrorists are swarming into Seattle, why not deploy the troops along the Canadian border? Isn’t it because we fear Mexicans, not terrorists? Border patrol is a law enforcement responsibility, not a job for the military. This is not North Korea and the U.S. should not turn law enforcement over to its warriors! We do need more border police – let’s try to get them by voting for Representatives that will fund them, maybe we could lobby our congressmen.

By the way Patriot . . . you keep mentioning “base closures” in war time. If these bases serve no purpose in our defense, if they tie down our troops and burn up our resources - - CLOSE THEM!

As for attacks by Democrats and Republicans: It is also human nature to attack in self defense. To leave the Relativist’s attacks unanswered is to surrender. Let’s spend some capital on defending the boarders of Truth. I can’t help mentioning that the new Pope has stated the need to FIGHT the totalitarianism of Relativism. Let’s go Benedict!!

As for the laws passed or not passed by Congress – few things seem more important to me than preserving Social Security. You, Patriot, like those indicated above, are talking out of both sides of you mouth. You condemn President Bush for not pushing legislation; then belittle him when he does. Get a new play book. We know that game here!

As for deep pockets – I have nothing against many of them. It is the specific deep pockets of the Trial Lawyers that offend me.

Your arguments are compelling to me, and I look forward to being persuaded.

A_Shadow said...

Geez, it's good not to be bickering with Blowhard so much, anymore, but many of the same mistakes.

Before I run off the deep end and accept your quotes from DeLay, I'd like to read them in ANY context but your own. It's nothing personal, but quoting such libelous "evidence" without a source would make me doubt it no matter whom it's against. I could just as easily quote you as saying something you haven't, but can I prove it? I'd like to see it in context.

I think it's funny when so many people that are anti-Bush are complaining about how much he's spending already, and Patriot wants more spent. At least he's original. I don't see how opening more bases in the border states would greatly improve border security. But what I do hear is that you're trying to remove INS from the loop and patrol our borders with soldiers. Hmm... I don't think I necessarily agree that our peaceful borders need soldiers posted on them like we're waiting for invasion. Did the terrorists of 9-11 come down over the borders of Canada and Mexico? And what about our coastline? The Cubans and Puerto Ricans are quite an issue in Florida. Should we start up additional naval bases there? It's just a human wall to erect isolationism. As many people as the Iron Curtain kept in, many still made it through. Nothing will keep out a determined individual. Just check into drug traficing anecdotes of the officers. They dig tunnels that are miles long. Military bases are going to stop that, I assume?

I love that you're taunting Republicans over the fact that they can be filibustered. That's the point of it. It works that way for anyone who wishes to use it. It's a cheap trick to play when you aren't strong enough to get your way. It's a way for the minority to cause quite a ruckuss if they wish it. I think that between you pushing for the securing of our borders by armed military personnel and by scoffing at the ability of a filibuster from Nevada stopping forward momentum that you don't like the little guy much? You wish to stop the original basis of the founding of America, without really explaining why it bothers you so much, or why it's such a problem. And you wish to squash the voice of the little guy, no matter how potentially misguided, just because bringning up that fact makes the Republican part look week. What's the deal? I don't agree that it's the best thing to do in a losing battle, but removing that tactic because it stalls a party is a little rediculous. Were it ever used in an important instance, I'd support the filabuster 100%.

And actually I would dare you to pull the "Who has deeper pockets?" card. I've actually found quite the little gem for that when I was researching the 2004 elections and the allegations that Bush is super rich, etc. He's quite under handed, unlike what most would peg him as.

Lysis said...

Patriot - - - Thanks for keeping me honest. Reed is from Nevada. Now, show me were any of my augments are wrong. I will be just as quick to correct my errors in reason as I am my error in Geography.

Ares said...

Well well well, I leave for a few hours and we all decide to have a party, do we? (Shadow's words, not mine there)

I am brought inescapably back to patriot's first post where he said that Democratic congressmen were being blocked by "ultra-conservative judges." Perhaps I am ignorant, but how can someone in the JUDICIAL branch effect someone in the LEGISLATIVE branch? Unless of course they do something illegal (can anyone say Pelosi?). If you could straighten me out, patriot, I would be extremely grateful.

Patriot,
If you are so much in support of soldiers protecting our borders, why don't you do something about it rather than just spew propaganda around? You could always try writing to your congressman (perish the thought, that might be lobbying).
Also, I haven't heard you give any solutions for SS or medicare or medicaid, the two that you stressed. If you would do that, then we can have a debate, but when you use Blowhard's tactics i.e. just dodge it, eventually we will forget about it, someone will see through it sometime and then you will get caught with your face in it. Please respond to the questions brought up many times in this blog, by Lysis, Shadow, DB2, and myself.

Shadow,
Let's hear your stat about the deep pockets in Congress. Personally, both parties have people that are a lot richer than I will probably ever be, and I think that it's rediculous. Is it just me or is one bill that seems to pass every time with firm support by both parties is the one to raise their own salaries? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like that's how it is here in Utah's legislature at least.

Lysis,
Thank you for the kind words.

-Ares

Rumpole said...

Wow! It looks like I've been missing all the fun! Please indulge me for a few moments on some thoughts about this post and its related comments:

1. Guilt should never be condoned. While I firmly endorse this principle, relativists do not. Rather they try to take advantage of that principle to promote their own agenda. As Lysis so accurately quoted, "what they (the democrats) are doing has nothing to do with what they are doing."

Remember that I do not condone guilt. That being repeated, the Delay ethics debate has nothing to do with Delay. It's a worn out tact used by the democrats that still works. It consists of two parts, as follows:
A. It redirects attention away from the issue that is a threat to the party agenda (in this case, the filibuster).
B. It sends the threat message that if anyone offers opposition to the party agenda they will be dealt with in the same manner.

That being said, if the republicans knuckle to the Delay smear, they fall right into the hands of the strategy.

Delay may be the biggest jerk of all time, and if he is he needs to be removed from office. But don't forget why the debate rages (A and B above). What troubles me is that there is no disussion of the same kind of ethics breaches by democrats. The media is party to the diversion and threat.

My solution? Pass the legisation to solve the filibuster problem. Then proceed with the Delay crucifiction. If he is guilty, get rid of him like the voters did with Workman.

It won't happen. Even enlightened conservatives like yourselves appear to have missed this most important point about the entire debate.

2. I must agree with Patriot on one point about Delay. Trips paid for by those with an agenda make a good politician dirty. When DeeDee Coradini solicited donations from the wealthy and influential from Utah, how could she believe there were no strings? Allow my poetic license in desribing one possible response of the donators to the solicitation, as follows: "Sure DeeDee, here's $100,000 to help you save your house. By the way, what can you do to help me get that new stadium we need funded by the taxpayers?"
That being said I still stand by my origninal premise. Don't be caught up in the diversionary tactic. Pass the filibuster legislation, then if Delay is guilty, butcher him. But again, I have to agree with Patriot, I don't think the republicans have the backbone to go through with it. Lysis, I really hope I am wrong, but that is how I see it.

3. Workman was unworthy, but not guilty. I am glad the voters decided she wasn't worthy of her trust. Were I a resident of Salt Lake County, I wouldn't have voted for her. But she was found not guilty. DannyBoy's comments that she was acqitted but not necessarily innocent are deeply troubling to me. Here is why.

I'm sorry I don't remember his name, but during the Shivo debate a prominant democrat Senator made the comment that it was important for an ultimate authority (in this case a federal judge) to exist to make a final decision on such matters. I would suggest that the Constitition was written to make the people that final arbitor.

In the case of Workman, the people's final arbitor was a jury of her peers. That jury said that she was not guilty. So be it. I don't need any attory or judge to tell me otherwise.

Do jury's make mistakes? Certainly. But we must accept those decisions. The alternatives to not are completely unacceptable to me. I don't have the confidence in giving one man that power.

Unfortunately our legal system has evolved (not by design of the founding fathers) into a system that accepts the premise that the unnamed Senator suggested.

Sadly, we live in a time when we are guilty by accusation. I emphasize here that I wouldn't have supported Workman in an election, but a jury found her not guilty. What is her reward? A $250,000 legal bill. Is that justice? And what was Yocum's reward? He used the democratic tact I mentioned above, and he achieved his goal with $250,000 of the taxpayers money. DannyBoy, I can't say I know Yocum personally, but I will tell you there is no way his motives in Workman's prosecution were truth, justice, and the American way. Please spare me the rhetoric if you believe otherwise. We will simply have to agree to disagree.

Ultimately I would sum up my feeling as follows. When Rush first went on the air he was asked what the difference was between a liberal and a conservative. His answer is the best definition I have ever heard. "A liberal wants to make decisions for you. A conservation wants to make decisions himself." The Constitution empowered the people to be the final arbitor.

Anonymous said...

Blowhard here . . .
Lysis posts:
"I can't help mentioning that the new Pope has stated the need to
FIGHT the totalitarianism of Relativism."

Lysis needs to know that the "new" and the "former" Pope identified the UNITED STATES and its foreign policy as one of the worst secular and materialistic; ie, relativistic, of societies.
The "totalitarianism of Relativism" that the "new" pope is meaning to FIGHT is the moral relativism that smugly masquerades as moral absolutism in the United States -- I am pleased that Lysis should choose a REAL absolutist to tell us where the moral relativists are.

-We have found the enemy, and he is us."

Anonymous said...

Blowhard here . . .

Just because Lysis introduced the subject --
I wonder if the Pope would consider Lysis to be an "absolutist" or a "relativist"?(consider Lysis' opinions about the war in Iraq and his justifications for collareralization)

On the other hand, I wonder if Lysis would consider the Pope to be an absolutist or a relativist?

What fun! Dualing absolutists!

Lysis said...

Welcome back Rumpole! I agree with you on the filibuster rule. I think it will be a real test of the courage and resolve of the Republican Majority and a challenge to the power of the left wing media here in America. The Media will certainly continue to defend the relativist left leaning of the American Courts – and therefore label the constitutional option evil. They will spew propaganda that will have no basis in fact or reason; they will rely solely on emotion and rhetoric. They will thus sway a large number of the “sheep” in this nation to believe the misinformation pumped out by the Democrats in their last ditch effort to maintain power through judicial fiat. The Democrats and the media will ask slanted questions in polls to push the opinions of the masses and intimidate those who know better. Will our Senators vote for what is right according to the truth, or will they buckle? It will be an interesting test. Bush has already shown his resolve. He has re-nominated all of the unconstitutionally blocked judges. He has thrown down the gauntlet of truth. Now our champions in the Senate must fight for the right!

Blowhard – glad to have you back. I too will enjoy the debateing with the Pope. It will be easy and straight forward since when two absolutists debate, there is a right and a wrong, a true and a false. Thus, as my beliefs and those of the Pope come into clash, there will be a place for reason and discovery. I believe the Pope to be an Absolutist; I do not believe he is infallible. If we clash, one of us may be right, or both of us may be wrong; but since we both accept truth as absolute, we will not insist that both of us can be simultaneously in disagreement and right.

I will agree with the Pope on far more things than I will disagree. I agree that the United States is a bastion of relativism. We live in a nation where judges put greater value on the life of a cat or dog than on that of a disabled human being. We live in a nation which routinely murders one million babies a year for convenience and selfish comfort. We live in a nation were legislatures seek to legalize addictive drugs that enslave and handicap the fools they ensnare. We live in a nation were relativists have control of higher education and the minds and futures of our young people. America has fallen victim to atheist fanatics who force the religion of non belief on the majority to satisfy the vindictiveness of the few who so hate God that they cannot bear to hear any of His names mentioned. The Pope is right – there is much to disparage in America. On the other hand – America gives even more treasure that the Church to the poor and afflicted through out the world. America is willing to risk the infinitely precious lives or our heroes on the battlefields of the world. The same generosity of spirit that saved Benedict XVI from the clutches of the Nazis has saved the peoples of Afghanistan from the Murdering fanaticism of the Taliban and Iraq from the monster Saddam. I have not heard this Pope’s pronouncement on the justice of the liberation of Iraq. I have not heard his stance on the spread of freedom. If he is against these things; I maintain that he – like John Paul before him – is wrong. He will probably continue to maintain that membership in his particular domination is requisite for salvation. I will not agree with him on this belief either. These disagreements will not lesson the support I will give him on those points where he is right. Should he re-establish the inquisition I will oppose him, should he continue the Church’s stand against abortion, murder, slavery, and ignorance; I will continue to support him. That is the beautiful thing about absolutists. You know were they stand and can agree or disagree; you can discuss and find the truth; if you are willing to accept the truth when discovered and reject error when it is revealed you will gain.

DannyBoy might come back on line to explain to Blowhard the difference between absolute statements, which both the Pope and any one of us can simultaneously make, and absolute truth, which cannot contradict absolute truth – but DB's excellent explanation is available under the proceeding web log (Dust in the Wind).

I join with Ares in calling on Patriot to tell us just what wonderful legislation he would call the government to produce to solve the problems of Social Security and Health Care. If you have the solutions to these problems - I will gladly join you in lobbying our Congressmen.

Dan Simpson said...

So many things to respond to, luckily there is unlimited space. Gotta love the internet.

First, perhaps I did not explain myself well enough. For the Workman matter. Legally, Workman is innocent. As a future prosecutor (hopefully only a few months away), and as someone who has actually prosecuted individuals (I have done two entire jury trials as the prosecuting attorney), I believe implicitly in the Justice system.

When a jury returns a verdict of not guilty, that is how it is. I completely accept that ruling. My point was a little different than that. While the ruling means she is LEGALLY innocent, i.e. the state can no longer punish her.

My point is whether or not she actually did the crime. This goes to the previously stated opinion of worthiness to hold office. From the words that came from her own mouth, I found Nancy Workman to be obstinant to the law, and completely unabashed at what she had done. She was, in my opinion, wholely unfit for the office that she held.

Second point, it troubles me greatly that Lysis, and Rumpole, continue to label the prosecution as baseless, and speak of Yocum's motives as nefarious. Please answer the following questions.

1. Is there anything that either of you can point to, besides the fact that Yocum is a dem. and Workman a Rep. that give any creedence to the claim of impropriety.

2. What more could have been done to insulate this prosecution from mishandling? There was a comittee of DA's from other districts that reviewed the facts and found enough evidence to go forward on the charges. (Not that I think it matters, but the majority of those DA's were Republicans). There was also an independent prosecutor brought in from a different office, not subject to Yocum's authority, to try the case.

3 Are you willing to say that there is prosecutorial misconduct in every case of acquital? (this is especially pertinant to me as I plan on being a prosecutor, and you can't win every case.)

If charges are baseless, then there is prosecutorial misconduct. That point cannot be argued it is the law. I can cite to the ethics rules for prosecutors if you want.

If, as Lysis' arguments assert, every acquittal means the charges were baseless, then every prosecutor would be subject to sanctions if he did not win his case.

I have worked in a prosecutors office for the last year. I have seen the work that goes into decidin who to charge, and with what violations, based on the law, the evidence, and the specific defendant. The arguments that have been made here, while probably with good intent, are of the most damaging nature to our justice system. I am not saying that the people should not be able to question. But when aspersions are cast on prosecutors as a whole, something usually reserved by Johnnie Cochran type liberal trial lawyers, it breaks down the system from the inside.

I cannot dispute that the democrats in Washington do what they do for nefarious reasons. I am sure they are motivated in their attacks on Delay by their political leanings. However, to apply that judgment to David Yocum, a man who has worked as a prosecutor for decades (and believe me, that isn't were the money is) is, in my opinion pretty foul.

Rumpole, I challenge you to give me ANY evidence to back up your claim that Yocum's reasons were less than proper. I give Lysis the same challenge. And it must be more than the fact that Workman and he had different political leanings, and that the prosecution lost the case.

Dan Simpson said...

Now to one of my biggest pet peeves. Immigration.

While it cannot be argued that people with bad motives could cross our borders there is really only one fool-proof way to stop that. Completely close the borders forever.

Now, unless you are willing to take that step, we have to rationally discuss what we can do.

Can we stop people with bad motives from entering our country? No. The citizens of the U.S. need to understand this. It is not possible to stop all individuals that want to do harm to our country from coming here.

What are the consequences of increased border patrolling. Deaths of those trying to come across. Is that a price we are willing to pay? Is it important enough to keep a poor Mexican from making his way to Idaho to pick potatoes for pennies on the dollar. Is it important enough to keep them out of the chicken factories of East Texas? I knew A LOT of illegals in Nacogdoches, Texas. The ONLY reason they were here is because they couldn't make enough money to support their kids staying in Mexico. They worked hard all week, would share a small trailer with five or six other guys to cut down on costs, and send all their money home.

Now, say that you are fine with the consequences. Let's assume that we all collectively say that it doesn't matter if people die trying to evade the border patrol, and lets look to how our country was set up.

Without immigration, it is unlikely that any of us would be here. Few people can trace their geneaology back to purely pre-constitution families. Most people are descended from individuals that struggled to come here under the hope of a job, some land, freedom etc.

What was the reaction of the Americans of the time?

Keep those Irish out of here, they're going to steal all of our jobs.

Keep those Italians out of here they're going to steal our jobs.

Keep those Eastern Europeans out of here they're going to steal our jobs.

Keep those Jews out of here, we just don't want them.

And finally

Keep those Mexicans out of here, they're going to steal all of our jobs.

It was a stupid argument when it was first made against the Irish, and it continues to be a stupid argument.

How can anyone, who has been blessed to live in this land, possibly seek to deny those same freedoms to others.

Lysis is right, the best road will be to help improve others countries so they can enjoy the same freedoms and safety that we do, but some will still want to be U.S. citizens. Some will still yearn to live here, for the same reasons most of us would never wish to discard our citizenship and join with another country. Too many people today have forgotten the neccessity that our country be open and welcoming to all who desire to come. One of the most beautiful statements that could be made on this subject is forever engraved on the Statue of Liberty.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Anonymous said...

Blowhard here . . .
To respond to DBS' and Lysis' arguments concerning "Absolute Statements" made in previous postings.
DB posted:
"However, what makes the 'equation' work is the truth of the statements."

And also DB:

. . . "All flowers are green."

"Now all the statements are absolute, but because the first one is not true, IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT IT IS SET UP IN THE 'LOGIC MODE'."

-"Patterns of Argument
By Manuel Bilsky

"A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. And whether it is valid DEPENDS SOLELY ON ITS FORM. The validity has nothing to do with the content, that is, with what the argument is about. Consequently we can have a valid syllogism (what DB calls "logic mode") EVEN WHEN ONE OR MORE OF THE STATEMENTS IN IT ARE FALSE. Here is an example of a valid syllogism in which the premises are both false and the conclusion is TRUE: (all caps my own)

All angels are animals.
Bush is an angel.
Therefore: Bush is an animal.

And here is an example in which all three parts are false and yet the reasoning is valid:

All angels are liberals.
Lysis is an angel.
Therefore: Lysis is a liberal."
(some alteration from the original)

DB correctly asserts that my "major premise" (another 'logic mode' term) is. . .
All Killing is immoral.
The morality/immorality of killing is not determinable by empirical means. DB wants to determine the "truth" of the premise by empirical means -- you cannot determine an "ought" from an "is".(doing so is what I have contended all along is "cost benefit analysis)
Deductive TRUTH (and that is the only place truth exists in logic) depends on the FORM of the WHOLE syllogism/argument, not with the content of any of the premises.

Hence, Lysis' "absolute truth" in DBs' analysis, that "what makes the equation work is the truth of the statements." . . GO BOOM!

A_Shadow said...

I think this one calls out a "WTF?" from the peanut gallery.

You have done what, in my opinion, is the greatest sin in journalism. Recreating quotes while simultaneously editing them to your own means. Now we've got to go read it in context of originality to make sure you don't hurt yourself with that sharpened tool...

From the dictionary:

"syl·lo·gism Audio pronunciation of "syllogism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sl-jzm)
n.

1. Logic. A form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion; for example, All humans are mortal, the major premise, I am a human, the minor premise, therefore, I am mortal, the conclusion."

And after researching this technique of argument a bit myself, I figured out what is really being said, not what Blowhard's twisting it to say.

As long as the syllogism (the argument)consists of "a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion" (as quoted above from the dictionary) it is a valid argument. At least in this form. But that doesn't make it true. Just as DannyBoy has mentioned before. Pause for a deep condescending sigh.

For example you could read the valid arguments here: (http://www.mines.edu/academic/courses/econbus/dahl/695/st-log/log.htm)
that have been shared for example. It says that they are all valid arguments, not that any of them are even remotely right. It's a circular form of logic so that by the process you can say anything you want. Let's have me try one on for size:

Blowhard is a decendant of simians.
Blowhard makes posts to the Agora.
Therefore any simian can make a post to the Agora.

You're using a definition, without caring what it really says. You posted something that said "This is a valid argument" and made a statement that "If I use this form of argument, my arguments are true, and anything said against that won't work." In other words: "LALALA! I can't hear you, I'm not listening..." Forever and ever, which is basically what's been happening anyways.

But you did make a correct assertion that there isn't any way to measure morality scientifically. Thus presenting the other half of information gathering. That's the point of discussions of absolute truth done with reason and faith. It can't be measured, but you're going to tell me that all killing is wrong. That's your moral absolute, no answer to what killing is being spoken of (i.e. the difference between killing a human being, animal, bug, or vegetable.) ALL KILLING IS WRONG. That's your stance. You don't find that the least bit ridiculous? I find that all killing of another human being is wrong, but there are some instances where I'd sacrifice my eternity for it. If I new someone was about to destroy the world (my world, yours, THE world, or anyone elses) and the only way was to kill him. I would. I suppose in that instance I would go to hell, and everyone would be happy, but I'm not entirely sure that I would be damned for something like that. Same if I killed in defense of another. But I won't kill in defense of my self. The problem that you've run into with absolutes that you haven't figured out yet is that they won't conflict with each other, but some of them are active before others. In my immagination it's much like lines of text in a program, some things happen long before others, but they're all true.

Yes, I believe that killing is wrong. But there are circumstances where I believe it is right. And many, many, people agree with those circumstances. Thus I don't find my reasoning overly flawed. If God deals in the strict absolutes of "Thou shalt not kill." and won't clarify those. That being your absolute you will go to hell, I will, and so will everyone. There are very few people that I know that live off of a purely nutrient soup generated in the laboratory. They would be the moral absolutists with your arguments.

So while you're thinking on that, if you ever do walk away from your computer screen and think, eat a banana. Enjoy the potassium, and live with the thought that it sacrificed it's life so that you may live.

Lysis said...

DannyBoy – I will leave Rumpole to deal with Nancy Workman and Yocum. I told you, you are right – I don’t know. I think you are doing a little lumping yourself! I never said Yocum’s prosecution was baseless. I did say that I would not defend Workman’s indiscretions. It was the jury that said Yocum’s charges were baseless. Did Yocum have an obligation to prosecute Workman if he thought she was guilty? Surely! Should prosecutors be careful in whom they indict? Absolutely! Should they be censored or punished when they lose a case? Never! Prosecutors are tools of the state. Their job is to seek justice, to dig for the truth. But if they want to be held blameless when they losea case, they must not enter the court motivated by personal passion or questionable agendas. DB – you are quick to defend Yocum’s accusations against Workman; why not mine against Yocum? Finally, DannyBoy – I am very excited that you have chosen to be a prosecuting attorney. Anyone, including Yocum, who would thus place their lives, safety, and fortune in the service of my life and my family, of community and country, is a hero. No less a hero than those who wear the uniforms of the Fireman, the Policeman, or the Warrior! I wish you every success!

Now to immigration. . . Here DB and I are very close to agreement. America is the recipient of the enormous benefit of those who came to this country from all over the world. In spite of the “wretched refuse” the French wished on us; the vast majority of immigrants have been the best their countries have had to offer. This not only applies to my Irish ancestors, and to the talented Chinese, Eastern Europeans, and Indians who come to America today; but to almost all of the courageous and noble Mexicans who come to the U.S. to make our dream theirs. When Mexico and the U.S. unite into one nation, or even if they only become separate but equal friends sharing a common future as well as a common continent, the world will be a better place. The idea that at the very moment in history when the barriers between the sworn enemies of Europe are collapsing similar barriers should be put up between our nations, who have so long been friends, is abhorrent!

Now to Blowhard. . . There are false religions and there are false philosophies (pseudo-philosophies) I don’t know who Manuel Bilsky is but I do know what he is. When the relativist of the 20th century dismissed the existence of truth, they invented formulas to deal with ideas. Utilitarianism, Social Relativism, Modern Art, Situational Ethics, Cost Benefit Analysis, and a philosophy that is no longer based on ideas or truth but confined to formulas. (If p then q) (If not p they who?) Unable to discuss right and wrong, they carved out a college curriculum and professorships based on discussing words and symbols. Thus they rendered themselves useless in guiding society or finding truth. Once more I call on Blowhard to give us something to discuss – some claim to examine – some “truth” to challenge. Quoting obscure professors of Pseudo-Philosophy does not make an argument!

Lysis said...

Shadow – you posted while I was writing my response. Thank you for the examples and for taking time to look up definitions and find references. I am almost glad I didn’t read your post before I wrote my comments to Blowhard – it would have made them moot, as it is I think my words might serve as something of a back up to your research.

Anonymous said...

Blowhard here . . .
Lysis:
"When the relativists of the 20th Century dismssed the existence of truth they invented formulas . . .
"Pseudo philosophy does not make an argument."

Response:

Formal inductive logic is not a "philosophy".

Deductive logic is the essence of
RATIONALITY! (Or is rationality just another false philosophy according to Lysis)
Challenge: Find a formal definition of rationality in a credible source that does not include deductive logic.
No, don't make one up!

Logic is the essence of Rationality as codified and defined by ARISTOTLE (perhaps Lysis has heard of him; also the father of Biology and the modern scientific method -- Just another obscure professor.)

-Britannica under "Logic"
"The first system of the logic of noun expressions was worked out by Aristotle in the 4th CENTURY BC. Aristotle was right when he claimed that in creating syllogistic logic he was a pioneer. The collection of Aristotle's logical treatises is known as the Organon, which reflects the view that logic is a TOOL FOR SHARPENING THOUGHT. It consists of the Categoriae, the De interpretatione, the Analytica priora (two books), the Analytica posteriora (two books) the Topica (eight books) and the De soophisticis elenchis."

I seem to remember that Aristotle is the only person to occupy two complete books of the "Great Books";(Lysis could verify this easier than I -- my set is home) so important was his contributions to knowledge -- oh the irony --
to relegate Aristotle as an insignificant "20th Century relativist" is vilification at its most reckless and taken to its most desperate lengths.

My previous posting was almost entierly quoted from Bilsky's TEXTBOOK on formal deductive logic(Bilsky credits ARISTOTLE in the preface).
Both Deductive and inductive logic are essential esoteric studies that are at the heart of what is meant by argument, rationality and truth -- something more than can be had from looking the word up in a dictionary.
One might even encounter such a study as requisite in the rigours of a law degree -- I know that's where my book came from.
Shadow, why don't you buy one? Even a small one would surely help. I will even let you borrow mine -- What are you afraid of?
Davis county library has a branch in Layton and they have considerably more than dictionaries.
If you were to study the theory of relativity would you go to a dictionary?

Lysis said...

To the Blowhard - First of all, I prefer Plato to Aristotle. Plato talked about the existence of absolute forms that allowed us to believe in absolute truth and to seek that truth in all things. By sharing with us the words of his great teacher, Socrates, Plato let us consider love and friendship; contemplate the immortality of the soul, allowed us to understand that justice is worth fighting for and freedom worth dying for. Aristotle organized things into piles and discussed their similarities to his arbitrary systems of classification. He filled books with his opinions; much of it is beautiful; most of it is gibberish. Aristotle got lost in the “observance of things” he did not understand. He tried to “dictate” (hence his nickname – the great dictator) the truth as he saw it. Many, like our friend Blowhard, over whelmed by his name, refused to question him for two thousand years. You’ll remember it was Aristotle that claimed that every object in the universe had been handcrafted by the Almighty and that the earth, due to its weigh, was the center of the universe (world). Dropping the names of Philosophers we know does no more good for your position, Blowhard, than dropping the names of ones we don’t. We are not impressed by their books or their degrees. We are looking for the truth. You can go on defining p’s and q’s till we are all worn out; you still have not given us a single belief to consider, a single position to measure with logic and reason against the universal form of absolute truth. We believe in reason, give us one of your beliefs to put into the arena of logical discourse and let us test it. The twentieth century “philosophers” of relativism were left with nothing to do but write books defining nothings. They gave up talking about right and wrong, about good and evil, and tried to cram the universe into the their formulas. But, like Blowhard, they could never get past discussing the formulas, never come to grips with beauty, goodness, virtue, the existence of God, or the value of Justice. Since they cannot discuss these things, they call them uninteresting, and spend their time in recitation and let’s pretend. None of that gets us anywhere were fast!

Rumpole said...

DannyBoy,

The revelation that you intend to become a prosecutor helps me better understand your frame of reference; however, that same revelation also concerns me, and I will explain why momentarily.

You suggest that when a jury returns a not guilty verdict, that is how it is. You then suggest that Workman still may or may not have committed the crime. If your belief in the justice system is as implicit as you suggest, why are you so seemingly willing to cast aside the opinions of the twelve who were empowered by the justice system that you so implicity believe in to make that decision?

As I stated earlier, do juries make mistakes? Certainly. But it seems to me that if we are to support a justice system that we implicitly believe in we have the responsibility to either accept the decision of the jury and move on or try to legally change the system. It appears to me you have done neither. Is your judgement after reading the indictment on Workman more educated and accurate than the jury's?

In his book "Bias" Bernard Goldberg explained that the biggest problem the liberal media has in being oblivious to their bias is that the media belives the liberal position to be the truth, and conseratism to only be opinion. Hence, by stating their position (the liberal view) the media has stated the truth and is therfore by definition unbiased.

It appears to me that in this case you have adapted that same falicy. I respect the time and effort you have exerted to reach the goal of being a prosecutor; I respect the time and effort that goes into generating an indictment; and, unfortunately,in the end, I believe that effort to irrelavant to the decision. The jury said Workman was not guilty. When you become a prosocuter you will be a far greater asset to the people of your juristiction if when you indict in error you can acknowledge that fact, independent of the work you put in to get the indictment. If you cannot remove your emotion from that kind of decision, maybe you ought to become a divorce lawyer.

Was Workman's prosecution baseless? I don't know. I do know that I never suggested that the prosecution was baseless. I did suggest that Yocum's motives to pursue prosecution were less than pure. You have given me no evidence to the contrary.

As I previously stated, I don't know Yocum personally. I spend my days supporting my family, so the best I can do is research as well as I can and draw the best conclusion I can. If you are somehow suggesting that every charge that comes out of a D.A.'s office is pure because of the time and effort invested, then why do we need juries? It appears to me that more important than understanding the law in such matters (which understanding is absolutely very important) one needs to have a basic understanding of human nature. Prosecuters are not devoid of political leanings.

Finally, I have to say that your statement that these arguments are of the most damaging to our legal system is the most concerning to me. If you have assumed I believe all prosecuters to procede according to their own agenda, as you imply, you are incorrect. However, every prosecution should be and MUST BE questioned from members of the society that has empowered the prosecuter. As I stated before, I don't have confidence in giving one man that power, or even a committee of lawyers who work for that same man. As repetitive as it is, if all of those prosecutions were pure, why would we need a jury?

A law degree does not automatically bestow the wisdom necessary to pass judgement on the law; passing the bar does not automatically qualify an individual to make life altering decisions; based on our current system, being empaneled on a jury does.

Blowhard,
If I may, please use this as a framework for your arguments. I have specifically stated my view and reasoning on the subject at hand to DannyBoy.

I don't agree with DannyBoy, but I respect his opinions and his right to disagree. I'm fairly certain that he will. When he replies I am confident the response will be clear, well thought out, and to the point.

If you will do the same I think you blog time will be far more enjoyable for all!

A_Shadow said...

Rumpole, you completely made the point as I was planning. We could all stand to learn from your examples of arguing skills. I have a newfound respect for you.

Anyways... Back into the woods.

In typical fashion, Blowhard's research skills pull out a C+. I'm recently moved from Layton, their library and volumes are a bit distant from me, currently. And by the time you find out where I am this time, I'll likely be elswhere. Though it's impressive that you bothered to get that much. A clue.

Anyways, on to the real bread, butter, and bannanas:

You first wanted a source that didn't reference deductive logic with rationality:

"Challenge: Find a formal definition of rationality in a credible source that does not include deductive logic."

Answer:

ra·tion·al·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "rationality" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rsh-nl-t)
n. pl. ra·tion·al·i·ties

1. The quality or condition of being rational.
2. A rational belief or practice.

Yup, it's our friend the dictionary. You can bring forth your great encyclopedias and your wonderment to all, but I can easily sidestep it with the dictionary. Of course I wouldn't study the great works of man from the dictionary, but I likewise wouldn't try to understand math devoid of the knowledge of what a variable is. Since I didn't know what syllogism was, I looked it up. I'm actually quite proud, I usually don't use it that much. But since none of us will deny it's accuracy, merely it's precision, I feel it's plent enough a source to unravel the frivilous fabrics of your arguments. If your arguments don't outlast the definitions that they're built upon, you really don't have much to say. It's my opinion that the definitions are the most integral to a debate. Without stiff definitions, you're lost to arguing semantics. Not a very pleasant thing to be lost in.

I would have to be Lysis' second in this case: I am rather reluctant to hear from your "professors" and their "textbooks". Of course, you've at least sited the source this time. But essentially you're bringing a relativst to the table to argue in favor of relativsm. I suppose that's the only thing you have. But for an expert to be truly accepted as such, they have to be accepted by both sides in an argument, isn't that how it works even in law?

And quite ironically I found the Encyclopedia Brittanica to contain this on applied logic:

" the study of the practical art of right reasoning. The formalism and theoretical results of pure logic can be clothed with meanings derived from a variety of sources within philosophy as well as from other sciences. This formal machinery also can be used to guide the design of computers and computer programs."

I love the specific useage of the words "right reasoning". It's a credit to Lysis, if any.

So to recap:

C+ for researching skills.
And the dictionary strikes again with a definition of rationality that has NO MENTION of logic. Wierd...

I like it when you puff up your arguments with ample usage of the caps key, by the way, it makes a much more satisfying sound when their deflated.

Dan Simpson said...

This has actually been some really good discussion.

To Lysis first:

I apologize if I misunderstood the following;

"You ask me if I believe that if someone is acquitted that means the charges were baseless. I would have to say yes!"

It seemed to me that you were saying that the charges against Workman were baseless.

A few things that I think I need to clarify, especially in the attempt to ease Rumpole's fears of my becoming a prosecutor.

The jury's role in a criminal trial is to decide whether or not the evidence has shown "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed a crime. A jury can in fact all believe that the defendant committed the crime and still vote not guilty.

I believe in the system. I believe that the standard required to convict is right and just and a requirement that helps the system as a whole exist. If an individual is aqcuited when I prosecute (something that has already happened actually), that is okay. It doesn't bother me specifically because I do believe in the system. I think you missed my point on this one.

The jury's ruling and actual fact may be different. A jury ruling of not guilty cannot change the fact of the matter if the defendant did in fact do the act.

Now, from that statement I believe the following. The state does, and should, have NO power to punish an individual who has been aqcuited. However, we as individuals are not held up to the same standard. Let me give you an example.

If you had seen a man beating his child, and he was prosecuted for the same. And if that man were aqcuited of the charges, for whatever reason. Would you thereafter feel comfortable leaving your children alone with him? My point goes to the fact that as individuals we have to make personal judgements.

I will admit that it is a dangerous balance. I don't think people should be ostracized for just being charged with a crime. That is obviously wrong. However, after watching the news and hearing Nancy Workman's own words on the matter, I did not feel that she was an honest steward of the county. I did not feel that she should be entrusted with that responsibility. It wasn't because Peter Caroon told me that, I don't care what a democratic nominee has to say about a republican. I didn't trust Nancy Workman based on listening to her own account of the matter, and made the decision then and there to not vote for her.

Now, would you say that my personal judgement should have been overruled by the jury? I am not claiming that their judgement should be overruled by mine.

As to Yocum. I cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove that he had no bad motives. I can, and have I would remind you, listed all the reasons that I believe this prosecution was specifically insulated to keep it from being politically motivated. Please read my last post before you say I have given no reasons.

You have made a positive statement. I would appreciate if you backed up that statement with something. Even if it is just why you have a gut feeling on the matter.

As to people judging prosecutors. I agree that prosecution should be open, and under strict scrutiny by not only the courts but the public. Prosecutors are public servants and should be held to high standards. I have never asserted that they should be above reproach. What I consider dangerous is statements such as yours.

You have cast aspersions on the District Attorney of Salt Lake County. You have offered no evidence for your opinion, you have merely claimed his motives were not pure. This is dangerous. This is wrong. If you spoke out against a prosecution because the prosecutor breached his duty of ethics, or if you felt there was bias (based on something, not relying on the claim itself), then you should, and can, definitely say something about it.

Finally, I appreciate your comments. It is nice to argue with an individual who will actually respond to what I say, instead of to invented arguments.

P.S. You also say you never claimed that Yocum was bringing baseless charges, yet you said this.

"He used the democratic tact I mentioned above, and he achieved his goal with $250,000 of the taxpayers money. DannyBoy, I can't say I know Yocum personally, but I will tell you there is NO WAY his motives in Workman's prosecution were truth, justice, and the American way." (capitalization added)

It seems that that is the comment you are making.

Lysis said...

DannyBoy – you are right – I did, and do, agree with the jury – Yocum’s charges were baseless. I do appreciate the power of your question about placing my child under the care of someone accused of child abuse. Once such an accusation has been made, the reputation of the accused is forever destroyed. Thin of the power that gives his enemies! Even standing before a hostile media in an attempting to justify ones actions, would bring little hope of clearing one’s name. Socrates lost his life over such a charge. He was not given the chance to live long enough so that no one would believe them. I hope Yocum will outlive my accusations, I guess I’ve been rather hard on him without a lot of facts. Thank you for providing some. Now I am forced to consider: Do I defend DeLay in the face of so much politically motivated vitriol, or accepting the fact that he is damaged goods, and take "my children" out of his care? I guess while the jury is out, I’ll have to judge the character of those who attack DeLay as measure of the weight of the accusations against him. As I have repeatedly admitted I don’t know a lot about Yocum’s motivations. I think I have heard enough of Pelosi and Harry Reed.

Silver Lining said...

I know it is a departure from the current threads, but I am going to post briefly re: the original post and responses regarding Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc. (Not living in the SLC area anymore, I have virtually nothing to contribute on the Workman issue. Congresswoman Pelosi is currently a lot closer to home.)

I understand where Patriot is coming from. I loathe the response he/she started it, or I am only reacting to what you did first. However, I don't believe Lysis is guilty of this in pointing out the hypocrisy of Nancy Pelosi. You see, Tom Delay may or may not in the end turn out to be a crook. The thing of it is is that Nancy Pelosi and those with her are calling on the Republicans not to change ethics rules for their party in the House in order to protect Delay. Her hypocrisy is at the core of the issue here, as she is not in a position to dictate changing ethics rules. In fact, if her party applied many of the same rules and standards, she may have suffered more than a fine. Furthermore, I was quite fine with the ethics committee agreeing to investigate Tom Delay. I don't mind the investigation of John Bolton. I find it telling and interesting that Ms. Pelosi does not accept that. It is a hold up of getting real business done in order to make a show to hurt a party. It seems political nonsense. I hope that the investigations are done and yield what they need to. I then hope that we can all remember when it comes time to deal with the filibustering of judges like Janice Brown etc. that we remember that they don't want to investigate and then have an up or down vote on these people. The problem is they have been investigated and given clearance by some organizations. They are being held up purely for politically ideological reasons.

I find it interesting that so many like Patriot are angry with Pres. Bush over what is not being accomplished in the legislature. It may be keeping in the direction in which our modern politics have evolved, but simply put, the President is not the Legislature. The job of legislation belongs to the legislature. Bush can push and encourage. There is little else he can do. If one is extremely frustrated by the Republican Party's refusal to use the nuclear/constitutional option, perhaps one should contact John McCain. Last time I checked, he was still hoping for the Party nomination in 2008. One could also contact Harry Reid. He would be in a position to do something about it.

Briefly to the arguments offered to us from Blowhard. Lysis, thank you for not making the Agora an esoteric community. Very few of us know all the rules for formal logic, but the sharing of ideas has and will always be worthwhile. It is when I read a lot of this that I particularly miss Real Fruit Beverage. He too knows a great deal about formal logic and the rules of philosophy, but he has always allowed the rest of us common folks to share in the discussion, and I, at least, can say I have been better for it. I get the distinct impression that most of what Blowhard argues is meant specifically for Lysis and that there is some other argument exisiting there from what goes on in the main postings of the agora. Perhaps that is why I so often read the back and forth arguments there with only a shadow of true and deep understanding.

As for the position that those in law school need to be well trained in all the rules and formulas of formal logic, I will leave that to the likes of DannyBoy, RFB, Aeneas, etc. I will say that a lack of training in formal logic has yet, in my estimation, to take from someone's intelligence or ability to seek the truth. Where is Mr. Brimhall and his song I hate debate when you need it?

Anonymous said...

Blowhard here . . .

I began all this with a question to Lysis -- are you a teacher or a preacher?

You abandon Aristotle, Logic and Rationality in the blink of an eye, because you prefer Plato? Well, the Dialectic is a precursor of logic -- why not employ some of that? -- Plato/Socrates did! Or are they and theirs to be abandoned to "personal preference" in a post when you aqain feel the need to pull that "rip-cord" before impact.

I thought you taught the Great Books because you had RESPECT for ALL these writers' contributions to knowledge, not just the ones that fit your politics. It is entitled The Great Books of The Western World, not Plato et al, afterall!

You know, this isn't fun anymore. I never have liked being the one everyone agrees with -- so that WAS fun. But, because of the nature of this forum, ie; teacher-preacher/students/former students, I increasingly find Lysis' responses (to me) to be deceptive rather than honest.
I NEVER would have participed if, at the time, I hadn't felt ALL of Lysis' intentions to be honorable; I have never had an experience with him that proved otherwise --BUT, now I think there is another agenda at play in this Agora. I feel that Lysis'is choosing an AGENDA rather than honest intellectual discourse (with me) and that shall be my cue to leave.

Dan Simpson said...

Just for the likes of Silver Lining, and Lysis, and any other who is wondering about RFB, here is an update.

He is currently awaiting orders. He thinks he will either end up in Alaska, Italy, or Fort Bragg (Fayetteville, N.C.) Having been to Fayetteville N.C. (or as I like to call it the rancid maggot infested arm pit of America, I am hoping he gets Alaska, or Italy).

He has also applied to Airborne training, but has yet to hear back.

Dan Simpson said...

Lysis, you missed one very important point in my last post. A jury verdict of Not Guilty does NOT mean the jury found the charges baseless.

If the charges were TRULY baseless, then Yocum, and the five other D.A.'s who screened the case, as well as the independant prosecutor who tried it, should all be brought up on disciplinary charges. Baseless means there is NO evidence. Not guilty means the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to see the difference.

And once again, please read my posts, I understand that charges can ruin a persons life. I believe this is why the prosecutors that I know try so hard to be sure of the cases they bring.

I also agree completely with your assesment of Pelosi and her bunch, I think todays refusal to lift the blockade in the rules comittee even after the republicans agreed to investigate Delay proves your point. I have never argued against your point that the Democrats are doing it for nefarious reasons.

However, the two cases are distinct. The Democrats in washington can be low down dirty scoundrels without making Yocum one as well. I think it is truly flawed logic (something I know Lysis uses, despite Blowhards comments) to automatically lump Yocum, a Utah Democrat, in with Pelosi, a California democrat.

Rumpole said...

DannyBoy,

Some common ground where we can find agreement! Juries certainly can error. Their decisions can deviate from actual fact. That deviation could even be intentional. That was stated clearly in both my previous posts on this topic.

We can also agree that Nancy Workman was not fit for public office as was clearly stated in my previous posts. I also absolutely agree that as people we must make personal judgements.

I wholeheartedly aggree that your personal judgement when speaking to the character of an individual should not be overruled by anyone, including a jury. You must determine on your own the level of trust you place in Nancy Workman or anyone else for that matter.

Where I struggle in my understanding of your position appears to be similar to your struggles with mine. If I could use some poetic license by borrowing from you for my own purposes, when we cast aspersions on the decisions of a jury as to guilt or innocence we threaten the very foundation of the legal system. I believe it to be far more dangerous to questions the decisions of a jury than the motives of a D.A.

As I have suggested before, though juries error, when the decision is handed down, acceptance of that decison is a must.

So that there may be no misunderstanding, I do not suggest that the not guilty verdict means that Nancy Workman is fit for office. It simply means that she was not guilty of that which she was accused.

The critical issue here is the responsibility that is required of the citizens in the jury pool of our Republic. The self rule we are governed by will fail if the populace does not take personal responsibility in its success.

Unfortunately seldom is the individual who is wrongfully accused ever viewed the same as before the accusation. We live in a time when quite often we are considered guilty by association to a crime. The man who is wrongfully accused of sexual harassment unfairy has difficulty ever finding employment again. The father who is wrongfully accused of child abuse never is freed from the disgrace of that accusation.

That is where the crux of my right to question a D.A.'s motives lie. I must tell you I will not deviate from that questioning. In my view the awesome power to pass judgement has shifted from the committee of twelve to the office of one. Nationally it appears to be shifting from the elected body of 535 (the Congress and Senate and I know my number is probably not dead on), the Executive (the President) and the quorum of 9 (the Supreme Court), to solely the quorum of 9.

It appears to me that when we give up the right to question we give up our rights. It is too much power to turn over to one without a critical eye.

As I stated before, I don't know Yocum personally and my conclusions are based on the information I gather through media and friends. If I could borrow from you again, would you say that my personal judgement should be overruled by the virtue of the D.A.'s office?

Finally as to the question of "baseless" charges. My suggestion as to the purity of Yocum's motives as you repeated said nothing about the so called "baselessness" of the charges. I only suggest that I believe Yocum's motives weren't pure. I do not connect the two. If you do, you do so in error.

I respect and appreciate your comments. My objective is to try to participate more, as time allows.

Blowhard,

If I may, in this forum where you suggest teacher-preacher/students/former students, where do I fall? I am none of those as to my relationship with Lysis.

Where are Lysis' intentions dishonorable? I am not familiar with his agenda. Perhaps you could explain it to me since I do not fall into any of your listed categories.

Or perhaps you can't explain it to me since it doesn't exist. Open, thoughtful dialogue is all I know to ever have been promoted at the Agora. It is always wonderful to welcome another to drink from that well.

However, if one's design is to promote style over substance, to create dissention rather than discussion, and to praddle rather than participate, Goodbye!

Lysis said...

My friend Blowhard, I do remember your first questions. “Teacher or Preacher?’ Do you remember my answer? “I just ask questions!”

What makes you think I have “abandoned” Aristotle? I appreciate the truths he sought, I question his opinions? He questioned Plato and Socrates. Did he abandon them?

As for respecting all of the authors on the “Great Books List”; NO WAY!!!! I question them all and some have no answers. For Pete’s sake; Marx is on my list! Someday I would like to tell you why I question the value of Homer’s ODYSSEY. It has always bothered me that Homer would make a hero of a lying, cheating, and jealous murderer! But that sould be another discussion. Some of the greatest contributions to the search for knowledge are authors whose writings serve as bad examples, as material to be questioned; something to rip apart with questions. One can even both respect and disagree with them; with any person.

Now let me question you Blowhard – Rhetorically I must assume.

1. How have I deceived you?

2. I have told you exactly what I believe and have invited you to correct me in open discussion. How is that dishonest?

3. There is an agenda, perhaps many agendas, here in the Agora. I want to learn the truth. How is that dishonorable?

4. What agenda have you discovered?

5. How has it offended you?

6. Can’t you at least tell us that so we might know why you must leave?

I shall be sad to see you leave. I have learned a lot from the questions you have raised and answered. You will miss us (Even Rumpole). You will not easily find friends so eager to hear or to challenge you.


Silver Lining – I think you (and DannyBoy) have pointed to the main problem with DeLay and Pelosi, Reed, and the rest. Whether it is with the Ethics Committee, or with the filibustering of judges, or with the continuing delay in the vote on John Bolton – the problem is the same. The Democrats – unable to have their way, will not allow the country to go on with its business. These endless whinings and misrepresentations, these petty charges and unfounded rumors get the headlines because they hold up the movement of the government and because they weaken, or at least can be claimed to weaken, the President. In their endless desire to push this story the Media gin up a host of “dog biting men” and then spend their time reporting on them. Meanwhile the success of the President and the nation get no air or copy.


DannyBoy – You are right, Yocum showed he had a basis for filing the charges. In an attempt to shave face, I suggested that the jury denied that basis – but it was just a word ploy. Please read MY post – I have already apologized to Mr. Yocum. You are right – I didn’t know the details, and I accept your more careful view. I also agree with Rumpole (and you), that because of the awesome power placed in the hands of prosecutors, they should be very careful in the nature and timing of their charges. Rumpole suggests that Yocum’s motives were not pure – Perhaps Yocum should (perhaps he did) have made a greater effort to avoid so obvious a conflict of interest in presenting accusations on Workman’s conflicts of interest. Having rambled a bit more, I continue to agree with you – Yocum at least believed he had a case – that is a basis! Now once more to Pelosi – Yesterday’s offer by the Republicans did indeed prove that the Democrats are only interested in stirring stink – not in serving America. The same party selfishness is evidenced in Reed’s threat to “Shut down the Government” if the Republicans reinstitute “up and down” confirmation votes for judges. With the media in their back pocket – the Democrats stand a good chance of convincing some weak kneaded Republican or other to shift his (or her) vote. As always, ignorance is the greatest enemy of Democracy.

A_Shadow said...

I suppose it's a bit too late, but I'm greatly doubting that Anonymous has just vanished...

Just let me re-divert the thread momentarily to add some insight that I've come to use in my recent years...

But anyways, I think I found a bit of an answer to one of the points I believe Anonymous was trying to make. How we can believe that killing is wrong, but collateralization is justifiable if the ends is just. It's a difficult task to come to understand, but let me explain. I believe in absolute values. But some values overlap or provide mitigating circumstances. In the instance of "Thou shalt not kill" being an absolute, I would not deny a person the right to defend itself to the utmost: to kill. That's my judgement, I'm going to have to mirror Lysis here and ask for a reason that you could give me that it would be unjustifiable. Anyways. That seems to be a contradiction. But many value the sanctity of their own life far above that of any other, and really why shouldn't they? Basically if you can't care to survive, how could you hope to help someone else survive? So in a survival situation, I believe that you have the right to defend yourself, even if that means killing. It's a hierarchy of overlapping values that gets very involved. One intervenes and pre-empts the other, but they aren't totally in conflict.

Another form of this happening, albeit it is wanting for more accurate reference, is the mathematical concept of the Order of Operations. If you have a long string of algorithms and equations, some pre-empt the others. If you do it wrong, you get the wrong answer. They never conflict with each other IF you follow the order of operations. Math deals specifically with absolutes. It will never conflict with itself unless it is wrong. I join in Keppler's belief that it very well could be the language of God and his pencil with which he drew the sketches of the universe. Another time, perhaps, I can get more involved with that and my hybridization of science and religion. So, admitting that it's not a good reference in terms of killing and collaterization. I believe it can explain the seeming relativism and leniance of our arguments. A tree that is firmly rooted will be broken by the mud. But a flexible one will survive. A bit of a bastardization of Antigone. We so love the Greeks here, after all.

I'm hardly trying to bring you back, but for someone so morally absolute and superior you sure gave up in a hurry.

You asked the question if Lysis was a preacher or a teacher, I asked you what the difference was and why he couldn't be both? Why can't a preacher of truth be a teacher of truth? What do your pastors do in your church that is so different than teaching? What did the Quakers do, the Catholics, or Mormons do in their churches but preach (teach) their gospels?

Anyways, the meat of the post was directed at the hierarchy of values and truths. I would like some input from the rest of you, as well. I just recieved it from a previous teacher of mine and found it to be very accurate and fulfilling.

Anonymous said...

Reading this makes me very sad. I do not understand how all of you think. hook line and sinker you buy all of it. one at a time you all lined up and had you human sol extracted, repeating the lies, willfully ignorant.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

I assume our “latest Anonymous to post” is saddened by Blowhards relativism, Ares rejection of the UN, by Patriot’s condemnation of Lysis, or was it by Rumpole’s debate with DannyBoy – was it when I agreed with DannyBoy or disagreed with him that concerned you Anonymous? Was it Shadows contimplation on Truth or Silver Lining's "truth" about Pelosi?

Which of us don’t you understand?

What lies have been swallowed?

What are the hook, line, and sinker that have been taken?

Which one of us has had our souls extracted; and how? Or was it all of us together by disagreeing with each other?

We have all had the courage and the honesty to tell the world how we feel, if you are so saddened by what has been said; take the time to tell us the truth. You are as willingly listened to as anyone else here. If we are so pitiable, can’t you at least give one example why?

I wish you would be sad enough to help us, otherwise we are left to believe that your attacks are groundless, that you are repeating phrases to attack what you do not understand, or with which you do not agree, or which you do not understaed.

A_Shadow said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A_Shadow said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A_Shadow said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A_Shadow said...

The funny thing (funny interesting, not funny "ha ha" because it's so disturbing) is that when Republicans OR Democrats, liberals OR conservatives blindly ally along those lines (polarize has been the term lately) their attacks can be used against them.

You are sad, for what ever reason, by what you see here. I am equally saddened by those who buy into pointless and idiotic attacks against whomever. There have been plenty of reasons for believing that the accusers in the above cases aren't after what they claim. In at least one case it was well defended and refuted. But most of the time simply stopping and asking "Why?", or a why based question, derails a pointless, baseless argument.

Enemies of the state claim that we went to war with Iraq over oil. Why is it that gas prices continue to soar? That's an easy example to which I have never found an acceptable answer. You remember way back in 1991 when we liberated Kuwait from Iraq? Why did Iraq invade Kuwait? For their oil. Kuwait is still on rather good terms with us, so what's to need Iraq's oil for? And it's helped us so very much that we're planning on drilling in Alaska which could still have unforeseen consequences (Lysis, I understand your disagreements that it will devastate the ecosystem, and I respect that, but I believe to think that something of that ilk having no affect what so ever would be a blind statement.)

So tell me why you would side against us, against any one of our statements. For us being such a like minded group of individuals we managed to drive DannyBoy off for a time in frustration. Something that I find ultimately inevitable (to disagree into frustration), but not something I ever want to have happen. I just don't need to participate in form of "Uh-uh, uh-huh" arguments that will never cease until Blowhard has decided something at a random time and leaves. Blowhard never gave us anything aside from literature to argue with. Bringing authors of the past to bear down on actions of the now, and of the future. If you'd like to follow that up with a better means to an ends, we are still eager to take on that challenge.

The above was written yesterday, blogspot was having difficulties.

Anonymous said...

amused sphincter here
(gnilleps kcub hsuf)

its all about sitting upon the yet to become scarce and yet to become $5 a gallon say what you will, proceed to yet again be blind willingly... whole goddamned atrociety is the oil. It is also helpful to have huge entrenched millitary bases in the reigion with perhapse the most strategic importance in the world a a time when demand is increasing and supply is kept static...


This is to anyone who quoted "readers digest" while trying to stick their head in the ground over climate change...
The very fact that you are using the word debate shows how pervasive this campaign of disinformation and deception has been. There really is no debate about global warming. What you have on one side are more 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the U.N.(say what you will arseholes world govt must exsist) in what is the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history. What you have on the other side are basically a very small handful of so-called greenhouse skeptics, the majority of whom have been paid by the coal and oil industries, and for that reason, it has -- because of the megaphone they have been given by industry, they have created the impression in the minds of journalists that it is really a debate, and as a result, most stories, until recently, have portrayed it as a he said/she said kind of thing. And I think the public basically took the attitude after a while, that, you know, come back and tell us what you know when you make up your mind. And as a result, the public has sort of turned off to this issue, even as the signals from the planet are becoming very shrill, and the timetable for action is very slow and narrow.


But to step back for a second, when you are asking me how serious it is, the head of this intergovernmental panel on climate change, Dr. Ragendra Pachauri, said recently that we have about a ten-year window to make very, very deep cuts in our carbon fuel use, if, quote, “humanity is to survive.” This is a scientist. He speaks normally in very conservative and measured language. So, to hear that kind of talk is very, very troubling. Just to give you one last quick example, scientists have documented already the deep oceans are warming, the glaciers are melting, the icecaps are falling apart. We're seeing violent weather increase. We’re seeing a change in the timing of the seasons. And all of that has happened from one degree of warming. By contrast, we're now looking to a century of three to ten degrees of warming. So, I think the urgency is very, very important...

Hmm seems a bit different than the "LALA the rainbow shines over the oil rig LALA where the antelope playLALA and the carabou LALA and seals LA LA LA LA just luv that oil!" of the much aclaimed o'so wise and allknowing digest


It would be hilarious if it wern't so damned sad that many of you bicker and slop over whiny politics... and then hitch up 300 horse to go to the WAL * MART to get some prestone propylene glycol to spill in to the storm drainage...

Humans are in some serious shist and damn it only the 3 people next to nobody are doing anything about it makes me verra sad.

300 billion for a war to "prempt the possibility of the chance that sadam will kill us all with those large nubers of evil chemicals and supersecret towel head a-bomb mushroom clouds" ja that makes sense go drop what's getting close to half a trill on an endless war Ey wonder why suddenly this record deficit admin has so many problems with it's most sucessful goverment safty net ... hmmm best part about it though is after that huge cum huddle hide and quiver under the umbrella of power media campain in 2003 terrifying the people about the threat that sadam posed. Cum 2005 turns out we didn't find nuffing neva wah anthang tha, ah shucks better check in iran... and thats why we need gud ol "fuck the UN" john bolton. gotta have someone who really knows how to give the UN the finger when we want to shit on human rights and international law a little more. Yeah if we tried this admin like we tried the nazis they'd all hang, every smirkin oilly one of em'

A_Shadow said...

After having that translated to me by someone else, I think I might be able to respond...

But seriously, I'll even side step the obvious credibility issues with spelling, grammar, and your ability to talk about how funny it is that we call this debate.

So here's something to debate:
"Not only are there major reasons to believe that models are exaggerating the response to increasing carbon dioxide, but, perhaps even more significantly, the models' predictions for the past century incorrectly describe the pattern of warming and greatly overestimate its magnitude. The global average temperature record for the past century or so is irregular and not without problems. It does, however, show an average increase in temperature of about .45 degree centigrade plus or minus .15 degree centigrade with most of the increase occurring before 1940, followed by some cooling through the early 1970s and a rapid (but modest) temperature increase in the late 1970s. As noted, we have already seen an increase in "equivalent'' carbon dioxide of 50 percent. Thus, on the basis of models that predict a four degree centigrade warming for a doubling of carbon dioxide we might expect to have seen a warming of two degrees centigrade already. If, however, we include the delay imposed by the oceans' heat capacity, we might expect a warming of about one degree centigrade--which is still twice what has been observed. Moreover, most of that warming occurred before the bulk of the minor greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere. Figure 2 shows what might have been expected for models with differing sensitivities to a doubling of carbon dioxide. What we see is that the past record is most consistent with an equilibrium response to a doubling of about 1.3 degrees centigrade--assuming that all the observed warming was due to increasing carbon dioxide. There is nothing in the record that can be distinguished from the natural variability of the climate, however."

You can find that all in context and goodness here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

Before you spout off about more thing that you know nothing about, something that our previous anonymous did. I take mass transit, I own a car (if you can call it that) and I take this matter of the most seriousness. But your 2,000 scientists can hardly agree with their countless adversaries on whether or not it's just a natural trend. Trends have been observed in geological studies. I'm sure the Mammoths were all driving their SUVs around town when the glaciers melted in the first place. The end of the latest Ice Age was quite a change in climate too, wasn't it? Most people can hardly agree what man was doing then, but perhaps our small fires brought about that change as well.

My skepticism doesn't lie in the fact that I am in the deep pockets of oil companies that you so fear. I wouldn't be traveling accross the country for work if I had that kind of cash to play with. My skepticism lies in the simple logic of it, annalysis of the facts. You can't prove to me that it's anything worse than a warming trend that's happened before. And additionally we can't even say with 100% certainty what this will do. Some things are happening that might be related to some global warming, but since scientists have no firsthand data of something like this ever happening before, how can they know with any certainty that it's happening now?

I know the impact this will have on our way of life. I wholeheartedly support the finding of alternate fuel sources, more efficient fuel sources (perhaps if you've been lurking for long enough you can go back a few topics and find where Lysis and I disagreed on this subject). So before you come into this place and attack me with everyone else, perhaps you can do more than get the media's fear inspiring story of the day, or do more than a half whitted attempt at a Google search: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-04-24-global-warming-edit_x.htm

Yeah, that's the article that you used for your evidence. So between that and your misconceptions that because we're conservative, or Republican, that we're the other and we drive SUVs, get money from oil companies and hate the Earth in the stead of the almighty dollar. You come into here thinking that you're going to blow us over with idiocy and half concocted thoughts?

So fush buck spelling, or should a few of those letters be alternated? Amused sphincter, if you pulled your head out of it, perhaps we might find something common to talk about, other than ill concocted attacks at each others person.

Patriot said...

Lysis-As I was reading the news on MSNBC, i came across a story titled "Documents Show Trip Was Financed by Lobbyists". This story was released by the Washington Post. As you say, if DeLay can get away with having payed trips by someone other than taxpayers, good for him. Although you may see this as ethical, you would also be violating the law. House ethics rules say that members are not allowed to accept trips from registered lobbyists. He did! I don't understand how there can be any argument. I don't care if Pelosi did it. DeLay is the one under investigation. I'm sure the majority of congressman do this, but they're not leadership and, I'm sorry to say, DeLay got caught. He broke the law.

Lysis said...

Sphincter – (I couldn’t have chosen a better name for you myself!) I guess you just couldn’t hold it back! But it was good to hear from you – someone with opinions, no matter what orifice they come from, is a pleasant change for the “I don’t know so you can’t” drivel we so often have had to deal with. Still: Let’s be reasonable. If the U. S. really wanted Saddam’s oil we could have bought it all from the U.N. for $300 billion!

I was interested by your attack on the Reader’s Digest. You might consider that the Reader’s Digest is the most read magazine in America. And as the name implies it takes its material from every available source. Ignore it at your peril. Tell me why it lacks credibility? Is it because it is conservative? Show us a flaw; don’t just blow foul air.

Comments on the global warming are moot. Shadow has already enlightened all of us – including Sphincter – on the proper prospective, and has provided sources for much more information. Your “2000 + Scientists for and few against” quote is just like the “100 species a day going extinct” line fed to us by those who make their living scaring donors into supporting their causes.

Finally, let’s not pretend the U.N. has any credibility until after Bolton has had a chance to clean house!

As for the cost of our government – and the cost of freedom – let’s get some of “our” oil out of ANWR and the shale in Utah. Let’s start making ourselves rich! What a great way to pay down the deficit; with something more substantive that techno- bubbles.

Patriot – I understand the “lobbyist” used money from a non-profit organization to pay for DeLay’s trip. If that is the case – maybe MSNBC failed to mention it – that would make it “technically” legal. I guess, to some, legal technicalities only apply to Democrat Presidents who abuse their employees in the Oval Office, or to judges who want to pull the plug on handicapped women. Be that as it may; if DeLay broke the law – LET'S PUNISH him. As I recall, it is the Republicans who want to bring him before the Ethics Committee and the Democrats who are blocking it. The Dem’s probably think they will get better press on MSNBC before the facts come out. In this argument, your unwillingness to punish Pelosi, or anyone other than DeLay, shows your true objectives. Justice demands that all crooks be treated alike. Punish all or none, not selectively for political purposes those you do not like.

Patriot said...

Lysis-Punish all or none? How can you say this? If there is evidence to convict, you convict. When you want so badly to have your hero DeLay get off on a technicality, then take a step back before you question MY motives. The fact that the lobbyist money was used makes it illigal. It is illegal for lobbyists to finance these trips. Don't dance around it. Republican ethics committee leadership is supposed to enforce the House rules. They havn't yet and DeLay broke the law.

When you say that technicalities only apply to Democratic Presidents, you are the one who wants to persecute others, but because you are a party loyalist, you see Republicans as higher than the law. When a law is broken, they should be tried. Bill Clinton was tried and was never convicted. The fact that he was never convicted makes him innocent? I think he's a scum-bag myself but use the same set of ethics rules to compare Clinton to DeLay. I'm sure you were attacking him before he was even allowed to make a statement about it or before he was investigated. Yet you are so quick to defend DeLay. Where do your loyalties lay...To your party or to the law. If they were truly to law, you would wait for him to be tried before making such rash judgements with so little knowledge of the subject. Documents and evidence show that he broke the law.

Republicans don't want him to appear before the ethics committee. All they have said is they want a 'swift investigation.' A swift investigation?! The Democrats have everything to gain and nothing to loose. Republican leadership will change if he is brought before the ethics committee. His lack of ethics make him an easy target. Say Pelosi broke the law, maybe she did. As any kindergartner would tell you, 'two wrongs don't make a right.' I don't see Pelosi up for investigation. Next DeLay decides to break the law, he should cover his tracks a little better.

A_Shadow said...

So now it would have been ok if DeLay hadn't been caught? What a Southern Civil War mentality, Patriot.

I have read the news on this subject as well and the Democrat's are blocking the investigation. They claim that under the current rules DeLay would get off. The Republicans are in a hurry to push it under the carpet. To torch him if he did wrong and move on. The democrats, finding little to battle Republicans with after the Iraqi election are fillibustering in the legislature and harping on DeLay. So much for speedy trial, they won't let it get that far and don't seem to want any judges period.

I don't care if he's innocent or guilty or of what. At this stage I don't think that those trips made any difference in anything. But if he broke the rules he should be punished. The Dems just want it done by their terms and not the Republicans'.

And I'm sure Lysis appreciated you pulling his text out of context for your usage: "Justice demands that all crooks be treated alike. Punish all or none, not selectively for political purposes those you do not like."

Punish all or none, not selectively. That's what he said. If you're going to punish based off of a slant of any leaning, than you might as well do nothing for you can't uphold anyone's "justice" but your own. What's so hard to grasp about that concept?

Ares said...

Well, things have really taken off here at the Agora. I just have a couple of corrections for Lysis, as I can't really contribute much this late in the game.

I did not reject the UN, I simply stated that perhaps it is the best way to go and that we have effectively done just that by invading Iraq without UN support. It was Bircherboy who said that we should move on. I said that Bolton should go in and clean the place up.

Not that it is very different from what you said, Lysis, semanitcs, I suppose.

Shadow,
Now that someone has interpreted Anonymous' post for you, would you do it for me?

A_Shadow said...

That comment was more a poke at how chaotic and altogether pointless the first several paragraphs were to me. It came out of left field as far as I'm concerned (and no, that's not a comment on the left). And just the idiocy of making such blanketing statements like that.

It doesn't really need translating if you know how your opponents opperate, or at least their patterns. And I've heard and seen this type of attack so many times that it's not even remotely humorous...

Scientists are often heralded for their "answers" to everything. I don't like that, and my aims to become one don't shift that in the slightest. We have an educational and belief system that takes Einstein's theory of relativity and teaches it to our school children as gospel truth. Note the keyword: theory. Scientific evidence should be greatly admired for what it is, but not given powers that are not due to it. 2,000 scientist from any number of countries doesn't make something true. But having them all at least agree on a "warming" trend is helpful to certain things.

I guess I just live in an area that .6 degrees Celcius isn't that big of a deal. And I've seen nothing but snow since I've been here.

Did you guys know that it's likely that the Earth's magnetic field will invert? Making the current magnetic north appear at the south pole? Theory has it that it could cycle down to nothing, turning the northern (and southern) lights (auroras) into cosmic weapons. Basically pulling out the shield while the dragon continues to breathe. There is evidence, and much theory, that says that we could all die if the magnetic field cycles to zero. Why's that important? It's just a theory floating around that if I decided to be a fear monger, I'd use. I suppose there might even be a reason that it would be Bush's fault, too. Given enough time to come up with why it happens.

I don't believe that it cycles to zero, but there is a periodic cycle that could coincide with that which worries me. A topic for another time, I suppose.

Health Blog said...

He has been indicted, yes, I understand that doesn't mean he has been found guilty, but neither can you pretend that there is nothing but "baseless allegations" against him.