tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post111386682987694261..comments2024-01-20T05:01:49.819-07:00Comments on Agora: Dancing the Pelosi Two StepLysishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-827027266626061292011-03-17T04:08:07.567-06:002011-03-17T04:08:07.567-06:00He has been indicted, yes, I understand that doesn...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.Health Bloghttp://wl0diet0.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114568142858526672005-04-26T20:15:00.000-06:002005-04-26T20:15:00.000-06:00That comment was more a poke at how chaotic and al...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.<BR/><BR/>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...<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.A_Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455074551773265259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114502298446374112005-04-26T01:58:00.000-06:002005-04-26T01:58:00.000-06:00So now it would have been ok if DeLay hadn't been ...So now it would have been ok if DeLay hadn't been caught? What a Southern Civil War mentality, Patriot.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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'.<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>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?A_Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455074551773265259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114477361072288142005-04-25T19:02:00.000-06:002005-04-25T19:02:00.000-06:00Sphincter – (I couldn’t have chosen a better name ...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!<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Finally, let’s not pretend the U.N. has any credibility until after Bolton has had a chance to clean house!<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114461353486466892005-04-25T14:35:00.000-06:002005-04-25T14:35:00.000-06:00After having that translated to me by someone else...After having that translated to me by someone else, I think I might be able to respond...<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>So here's something to debate:<BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>You can find that all in context and goodness here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.A_Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455074551773265259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114416593634452442005-04-25T02:09:00.000-06:002005-04-25T02:09:00.000-06:00amused sphincter here(gnilleps kcub hsuf)its all a...amused sphincter here<BR/>(gnilleps kcub hsuf)<BR/><BR/>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...<BR/><BR/><BR/>This is to anyone who quoted "readers digest" while trying to stick their head in the ground over climate change...<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/>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...<BR/><BR/>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 <BR/><BR/><BR/>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... <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114409141142554312005-04-25T00:05:00.000-06:002005-04-25T00:05:00.000-06:00The funny thing (funny interesting, not funny "ha ...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.)<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>The above was written yesterday, blogspot was having difficulties.A_Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455074551773265259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114331466690288252005-04-24T02:31:00.000-06:002005-04-24T02:31:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.A_Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455074551773265259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114331014178317052005-04-24T02:23:00.001-06:002005-04-24T02:23:00.001-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.A_Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455074551773265259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114331013141694852005-04-24T02:23:00.000-06:002005-04-24T02:23:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.A_Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455074551773265259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114301235055833822005-04-23T18:07:00.000-06:002005-04-23T18:07:00.000-06:00I assume our “latest Anonymous to post” is saddene...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? <BR/><BR/>Which of us don’t you understand?<BR/><BR/>What lies have been swallowed?<BR/><BR/>What are the hook, line, and sinker that have been taken?<BR/><BR/>Which one of us has had our souls extracted; and how? Or was it all of us together by disagreeing with each other?<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114300941015369502005-04-23T18:02:00.000-06:002005-04-23T18:02:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114292265436457032005-04-23T15:37:00.000-06:002005-04-23T15:37:00.000-06:00Reading this makes me very sad. I do not understa...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114245850376441052005-04-23T02:44:00.000-06:002005-04-23T02:44:00.000-06:00I suppose it's a bit too late, but I'm greatly dou...I suppose it's a bit too late, but I'm greatly doubting that Anonymous has just vanished...<BR/><BR/>Just let me re-divert the thread momentarily to add some insight that I've come to use in my recent years...<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I'm hardly trying to bring you back, but for someone so morally absolute and superior you sure gave up in a hurry.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.A_Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455074551773265259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114178328418984442005-04-22T07:58:00.000-06:002005-04-22T07:58:00.000-06:00My friend Blowhard, I do remember your first quest...My friend Blowhard, I do remember your first questions. “Teacher or Preacher?’ Do you remember my answer? “I just ask questions!”<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Now let me question you Blowhard – Rhetorically I must assume. <BR/><BR/>1. How have I deceived you?<BR/><BR/>2. I have told you exactly what I believe and have invited you to correct me in open discussion. How is that dishonest?<BR/><BR/>3. There is an agenda, perhaps many agendas, here in the Agora. I want to learn the truth. How is that dishonorable? <BR/><BR/>4. What agenda have you discovered? <BR/><BR/>5. How has it offended you? <BR/> <BR/>6. Can’t you at least tell us that so we might know why you must leave? <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/><BR/>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.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114149142665893692005-04-21T23:52:00.000-06:002005-04-21T23:52:00.000-06:00DannyBoy,Some common ground where we can find agre...DannyBoy,<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>As I have suggested before, though juries error, when the decision is handed down, acceptance of that decison is a must.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I respect and appreciate your comments. My objective is to try to participate more, as time allows.<BR/><BR/>Blowhard,<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>However, if one's design is to promote style over substance, to create dissention rather than discussion, and to praddle rather than participate, Goodbye!Kristi Meyers Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01616142971823734868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114143608162424212005-04-21T22:20:00.000-06:002005-04-21T22:20:00.000-06:00Lysis, you missed one very important point in my l...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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12273702014991706168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114143154275736452005-04-21T22:12:00.000-06:002005-04-21T22:12:00.000-06:00Just for the likes of Silver Lining, and Lysis, an...Just for the likes of Silver Lining, and Lysis, and any other who is wondering about RFB, here is an update.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>He has also applied to Airborne training, but has yet to hear back.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12273702014991706168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114122355632710022005-04-21T16:25:00.000-06:002005-04-21T16:25:00.000-06:00Blowhard here . . .I began all this with a questio...Blowhard here . . .<BR/><BR/>I began all this with a question to Lysis -- are you a teacher or a preacher?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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! <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114093852697883342005-04-21T08:30:00.000-06:002005-04-21T08:30:00.000-06:00DannyBoy – you are right – I did, and do, agree wi...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.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114090430376732342005-04-21T07:33:00.000-06:002005-04-21T07:33:00.000-06:00This has actually been some really good discussion...This has actually been some really good discussion.<BR/><BR/>To Lysis first:<BR/><BR/>I apologize if I misunderstood the following;<BR/><BR/>"You ask me if I believe that if someone is acquitted that means the charges were baseless. I would have to say yes!"<BR/><BR/>It seemed to me that you were saying that the charges against Workman were baseless.<BR/><BR/>A few things that I think I need to clarify, especially in the attempt to ease Rumpole's fears of my becoming a prosecutor. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>P.S. You also say you never claimed that Yocum was bringing baseless charges, yet you said this.<BR/><BR/>"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)<BR/><BR/>It seems that that is the comment you are making.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12273702014991706168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114066933857923662005-04-21T01:02:00.000-06:002005-04-21T01:02:00.000-06:00Rumpole, you completely made the point as I was pl...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.<BR/><BR/>Anyways... Back into the woods.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Anyways, on to the real bread, butter, and bannanas:<BR/><BR/>You first wanted a source that didn't reference deductive logic with rationality:<BR/><BR/>"Challenge: Find a formal definition of rationality in a credible source that does not include deductive logic."<BR/><BR/>Answer:<BR/><BR/>ra·tion·al·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "rationality" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rsh-nl-t)<BR/>n. pl. ra·tion·al·i·ties<BR/><BR/> 1. The quality or condition of being rational.<BR/> 2. A rational belief or practice.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>And quite ironically I found the Encyclopedia Brittanica to contain this on applied logic:<BR/><BR/>" 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."<BR/><BR/>I love the specific useage of the words "right reasoning". It's a credit to Lysis, if any.<BR/><BR/>So to recap:<BR/><BR/>C+ for researching skills.<BR/>And the dictionary strikes again with a definition of rationality that has NO MENTION of logic. Wierd...<BR/><BR/>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.A_Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455074551773265259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114047034850861792005-04-20T19:30:00.000-06:002005-04-20T19:30:00.000-06:00DannyBoy,The revelation that you intend to become ...DannyBoy,<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Blowhard,<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>If you will do the same I think you blog time will be far more enjoyable for all!Kristi Meyers Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01616142971823734868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114041885860213392005-04-20T18:04:00.000-06:002005-04-20T18:04:00.000-06:00To the Blowhard - First of all, I prefer Plato to ...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!Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1114037668988844092005-04-20T16:54:00.000-06:002005-04-20T16:54:00.000-06:00Blowhard here . . .Lysis:"When the relativists of ...Blowhard here . . .<BR/>Lysis:<BR/>"When the relativists of the 20th Century dismssed the existence of truth they invented formulas . . .<BR/>"Pseudo philosophy does not make an argument."<BR/><BR/>Response:<BR/><BR/>Formal inductive logic is not a "philosophy".<BR/><BR/>Deductive logic is the essence of <BR/>RATIONALITY! (Or is rationality just another false philosophy according to Lysis)<BR/>Challenge: Find a formal definition of rationality in a credible source that does not include deductive logic.<BR/>No, don't make one up!<BR/><BR/>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.)<BR/><BR/>-Britannica under "Logic"<BR/>"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." <BR/><BR/>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 -- <BR/>to relegate Aristotle as an insignificant "20th Century relativist" is vilification at its most reckless and taken to its most desperate lengths.<BR/> <BR/>My previous posting was almost entierly quoted from Bilsky's TEXTBOOK on formal deductive logic(Bilsky credits ARISTOTLE in the preface). <BR/>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.<BR/>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. <BR/>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?<BR/>Davis county library has a branch in Layton and they have considerably more than dictionaries.<BR/>If you were to study the theory of relativity would you go to a dictionary?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com