Margaritas ante porcos

“Ah! c’est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses,” would be the would be the rejoindre. Who needs further analysis on differential calculus? You are definitely a card.

92765 Well I would expect no less from a guy who quotes dead astronomers from conversations with Napoleon.

You can drone as much as you like. Res ipsa loquitur

The reader can roll back on his browser and peruse the the actions of Democracy Now as I have reported them.  You have built a tower of suppositions and characteri- zations. Frankly it looks all very silly from where I sit.

http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2002/2901zbig_sept11.html

Here LaRouche blames Brzezinski(and others) for 9/11

What a windbag!

IE Economy in exposition...Sumptus censum ne superet.

Guilt by association is how you tagged Berkel, Goodman and the ACLU. Relevant associations vs conspiracy theories lay in two different arenas. Your arguments stand where you left them......A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

As for Larouche, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

And associates.....

Webster Griffin Tarpley is an author, lecturer and critic of US foreign and domestic policy. He maintains that the events of 9/11 were engineered by the military industrial complex. He envisions a model of false flag terror operated by a rogue network of independent operatives in the privatized military intelligence sector and corporate media.

Webster Griffin Tarpley is an author and historian. From 1991 to 1995, Tarpley worked with the political movement run by Lyndon LaRouche, and was a frequent host of “The LaRouche Connection” described as “a news and information cable television program produced by” LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review News Service.[1]

The exposé of the Bush family.Tarpley first gained attention for co-authoring, with Anton Chaitkin, ("history editor of Executive Intelligence Review") a 1992 book on George H.W. Bush, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, which was published by Executive Intelligence Review, run by Lyndon LaRouche.[2] He has expounded the “Versailles Thesis” laying the blame for the great wars of the 20th century on intrigues by Britain to retain her dominance. He gained experience as a political operative during his years with the LaRouche movement but broke away in the mid-90’s.

Tarpley is a member of the world anti-imperialist conference Axis for Peace, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and of a research Netzwerk of German 9/11 authors founded in Sept. 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Tarpley

Mr. Shaw, guilt by association is very weak gruel. In the words of Pierre Simon de Laplace, “Je n’ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.”

I have elucidated instances of relevant omissions of fact, and bad faith dealings of the Democracy Now organization. I think I have bested you in economy of exposition.

Please tell us more about Lyndon La Rouche. I think I can be magnanimous enough to hear you indulge yourself on such a tangent.

I am just saddened that you have resorted to this Bertelesque device instead of considering the human equation in all this. Tant pis pour nous.

92471

IE “A Devastating Example of Doctrine Overriding Principle in the Case of Amy Goodman”

Paracelsus, your presumptions are amusing but they fail to wash away the underlying realities about who are really behind these conspiracy theory groups and when seeing an attack on honest journalism by these said groups, either directly or in principle, what other assumptions do I have than to believe you share some complicity in the matter? I’ve done the best I could to bring forth this relevance and see no need to apologize for it!

Now in all fairness to you I don’t know you from Adam. All I do know is you obviously and enthusiastically support and defend these groups (and complicit or not,their masters) at the expense of independent media. When we see who these folks really are and who endorses them, who they endorse, etc, we find some troubling analysis. In retrospect, my “tactics” are no different from your own in trying to “expose” Amy Goodman, Chip Berkel, the ACLU and perhaps anyone who supports or believes in the entire progressive movement, as accomplices to right wing agendas. The exception(at least in my opinion) is that Amy is a respected progressive journalist and with no need to argue further, those on your side of the coin are not respected and I see no reason promoting the idea they should be.

LaRouche is entrenched in the 9/11 conspiracy and has long been a catalyst in pitting one group of liberals against another. So when I see someone who is endorsing these groups that have such dubious associations to them, I have no logical recourse but to scrutinize them, expose them and question their motives in attacking liberals and progressives.

You now come forth and attempt to base your arguments on dated novels in fiction(about the French and Russian revolutions no less, two of LaRouche’s favorite subjects) which only reinforces my beliefs that much of what you’re expressing here comes from Mr. LaRouche or perhaps some offshoot of his “New Left” movement. The indoctrination at least seems certain. 

By attacking those who are actually trying to help the progressive movement, you only weaken it and render it incredulous and the real kicker in all of this is you’re basing your convictions on the lack of an interview and the lack of a story you believe should beset all other relevant events that Amy certainly covers.

Comparing Amy to Scooter Libby is as laughable as comparing Lydon LaRouche to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Also in supporting groups who support those who set up militia’s with their own courts and stockpile ammunition while arguing the differences between doctrine and principles is absurd!

All I’ve seen here on your part have been attacks on the ACLU and honest media. Well sir, I’ve flown to Washington on more than one occasion, have lobbied congress and joined in the good fight to preserve democracy many times. What have you done sir beyond your attempts in dragging those who have struggled to present honest media or who have tried to maintain our freedoms through the mud?

IE “It is especially shameful to engage in such mud slinging” Isn’t that what you’ve been doing to Amy Goodman and Berkel, the ACLU and God knows who else?

Need I remind, it was you sir who began these attacks in the first place, not I. By doing so you have become fair game to rebuttal. You presented your side and I exposed the facts that are hiding on that side, something I am positive that you yourself would never have willingly brought forth. Whether you are calling in to some organization or not is irrelevant. But what you are doing here seems obvious.

A Devastating Example of Doctrine Overriding Principle in the Case of Amy Goodman

Dr. David Ray Griffin had consented to an interview with Amy Goodman. There was a meeting of minds, a contract, an understanding, a coming to terms. An interview…

Unbeknownst to Dr. Griffin, he was subject to a debate with Mr. Berlet. This is the sort of tactic Fox news would engage in. It is a shabby way to treat any human being.

In comparison to the current controversy I recall, Boris Pasternak’s Dr. Zhivago. I recall how the story portrayed the lack of consideration of the human factor in the brutal pursuit of doctrine. I am also reminded of the novel, “The Tale of Two Cities”. I know well that the means are the ends. I know well that unprincipled implementation of doctrine discredits the the doctrine, no matter how worthy it may be. I am weary of media from the narrow spectrum of the current left-right dialectic that deems certain events and facts as politically incorrect. I am reminded of Ignatius Loyola’s frightening mal-aphorism, “We sacrifice the intellect to God.”

I do not phone back to headquarters. I have no affiliation. I resent that you would say I have some ulterior motive. That is exactly the tactic that Berlet would engage in. It is especially shameful to engage in such mud slinging when people’s lives are hanging in the balance! And I see that doctrine is more important than principle in some flavors of liberalism. I happened to feel the Constitution is just as gravely disregarded when someone from a political viewpoint foreign from my own is unjustly injured. How dare you, sir!

92419

There is nothing wrong with principles and trust me sir, I don’t need you to tell me what mine are. But frankly, the more I look into these groups you promote, the more I begin to realize that those who are behind them have no principles. Why don’t you simply come out and say it, come out of the shadows and tell us who you really are. Will Lyndon LaRouche have the courage to step forth? The king of the so called New Left? The guy who said the Queen of England was the world’s biggest drug dealer, who said MI6 was trying to assassinate him? The guy who said The Beatles were a creation of Britain’s psychological warfare division? Lastly and most importantly, the guy who sent out thugs to beat up on legitimate leftist organizations until they fought back and whoopt some right wing ass?

You’re a very smart guy Paracelsus. Very smart indeed. That makes me realize your endorsement of said groups does not make you an “innocent” participant or innocently mistaken. The very tactics you are using in here to smear Amy Goodman along with Chip Berkel come right out of the LaRouche play book.

As you express you compassion for the so called underdog(As LaRouche does, at least publicly) I see nothing compassionate about you or your movement beyond it’s own deranged illusion that it is more important than anything or anyone else. Well sir you are gravely mistaken.

@ Mark Shaw 92350

To quote, “Now tell me, on these grounds why should I, Amy Goodman or anyone with a reasonable sense of sanity fall prey to the paranoid delusions of a group like “We Are Change?”

Isn’t principle more important than doctrine?

@ 92340

To quote, “Well Paracelsus you can think what you wish but I have already said my peace and I’m content to stand upon it.”

There is a principle as well. I think it is well summarized be the famous Rev. Dietrich Bonhoeffer quote. Are you saying you have no care for Carrie Rowe? Is it a break with your political doctrine that makes you so cavalier?

As for Ed and Elaine Brown, you do not agree with them politically, I take it. What if the government went in and burned their house down? What if they were killed by the overwhelming force of Federal law enforcement? Would you be incurious as to finding out if the Browns had their constitutional rights violated? Do people have to share your politics in order for you to have a heart?

More on “Chip”, John Foster Berlet, namesake of John Foster Dulles:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/338820.shtml

I have read his history and he has done many good works. He is prolific in fighting racist groups. But I think his monomania can hurt innocent people who have nothing to do with racism, etc.

To quote nambase:

Since the 1970s, Chip Berlet has researched Lyndon LaRouche and the U.S. Right. Now he’s suspicious of an emerging conservative populism, and criticizes progressives who have been co-opted by insidious alliances with fascists, anti-Semites, and racists. According to Berlet, this is most evident among D.C. information junkies and on West Coast public radio. His crusade is an effort to hold progressives accountable for their unwitting naivete at best, or their political incorrectness at worst. Berlet and friends wear white hats, others wear black hats, and there are no gray hats.

NameBase indexed this diatribe because Berlet’s work is unique. It is simple common sense for all of us to be aware of who associates with whom; for this reason Berlet’s research is also valuable. But I have a problem with his presumption that a moral issue is involved, and I object to his tactics. Don’t ever trade information, participate on a panel discussion, or share membership on an advisory board with one of Berlet’s designated bad guys. If you do, he may try to undermine your work and isolate you. In my book, that’s suggestive of the very “neo-fascism” he’s trying so hard to eliminate.—D.Brandt

http://www.namebase.org/sources/QO.html

A most egregious fault of tyranny is that reality is political. Science cannot exist on its own; it must be Soviet science, or Nazi science, or Catholic Church science. Science as literally knowledge is like a tree falling out of earshot if it does not conform to the big idea. So then the tree never fell.

I find the same conundrum with ethos. Without the conformity of doctrine, the harm done does not bear recognition. This can be dangerous where media is funded by powerful institutions. For years leftists would not recognize the harm done by the Soviet Union to Kulaks. Millions of peasant farmers died because they refused to have their farms collectivized. These farmers right wing reactionaries, enemies of the revolution. Mainstream Canadian and American media for the most part ignored the slaughter. The liberal, progressive media overlooked it, though I do recognize their good work on such butchery as Augusto Pinochet, the concentration camps of Germany, etc.

http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/tracz/

http://www.boundless.org/2000/departments/pages/a00004 07.html

I question ideological monomania that ignores inconvenient truths. That seems to the way of the world, and I am saddened by this.

As for John Foster(Chip) Berlet, here’s a guy who has spent his entire adult life as a photo journalist tracking right wing movements in this country. He’s one of the first guys to expose white supremacists and anti Semitic groups who were recruiting Mid-Western Farmers in the late 70’s-early 80’s. He serves on the advisory board of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution. He was an active member of The National Lawyers Guide who are self proclaimed progressives. He exposed Lyndon LaRouche, the father of the so called “New Left” as the fanatical right wingnut he truly is. I’d like to add, LaRouche accuses many of his critics like Berlet of being part of a government-affiliated conspiracy against him.

His biggest enemy is neo-liberal Davis Horowitz, a devout Zionist/neocon who supports every military action that Bush and Israel partake in or want to partake in, especially the invasion of Iran. Other then that his other enemies come from the recent new wave of radical leftist organizations, particularly conspiracy theorists.

Paracelsus, I have an issue I’d like you to address! Why do “We Are Change” support people like Ed & Elaine Brown of Plainsfield NH? Here’s a guy who failed to pay income taxes on more than 1.3 million dollars in earned income over a 4 year period, who joined a militia he believed was setting up its own courts, who stockpiled guns and ammunition and food supplies because he thought the federal government was going to basically invade itself, who went to trial with his wife under the names of “Edward, a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel,” and “Elaine, a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel.” a guy who even admits its easy to dismiss him as a nut case?

Now tell me, on these grounds why should I, Amy Goodman or anyone with a reasonable sense of sanity fall prey to the paranoid delusions of a group like “We Are Change?” If this is the kind of change they endorse, I’m libel to cast down my lifetime roots in liberal activism and vote republican! And if the truth be told, that is exactly the effect that groups like “We Are Change will have on most Americans.

IE… I think you innocently overlooked this moral outrage.....Well Paracelsus you can think what you wish but I have already said my peace and I’m content to stand upon it.

PS I would like to add that if you bothered to watch or listen to Amy’s show yesterday you would realize that Bloomberg’s camera insurance scam was one of the main topics on her program.

Paracelsus don’t you think you’re going a bit overboard(along with the rest of the “my way or the highway” conspiracy crew? Amy Goodman has been called a lot of things in her day(always by the right), but being silent or complicit with major media has never been one of her shortcomings. If it weren’t for people like her we would know nothing about anything beyond the rantings of FOX News and other Rupert Murdoch rags. She also gives credibility to the progressive movement where conspiracy theorists on the other hand make it look comical. Michael Moore (who you seem to appreciate)respects and endorses Amy, her “Democracy Now” and her “Exception to the Rulers.”

As for Stephen Jones, all one can say is he is surrounded in controversy he himself created over his WTC theories paper that he said was peer reviewed and yet could not reasonably substantiate his assertions, at least according to most of his peers. I’ll grant you BYU is not exactly what one would call a domicile of free expression. But that aside, what do you want from Goodman? Her show was the first syndicated program to even air conspiracy theorists on a national broadcast! She featured David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, on her May 26, 2004 show. Frankly that took balls to do that!

Furthermore, Dr. Jones is no stranger to major media having been interviewed several times during several public appearances. Underexposure is hardly one of his setbacks. On one hand he “urges caution about jumping to conclusions” and on the other he “publicly asserts with a considerable degree of certainty!” Sounds like a mid-life crisis to me! Apparently so to many of his peers who refer to him as the paranoid professor.

As for Scholars for 9/11 Truth, why would a man with such an incredible scientific background surround himself with professors of the humanities rather than professors of the sciences? More questions arise when you realize Mr.Jones was a devout and loyal supporter of George W. Bush until recently. The fact he is a Mormon even adds more fuel to the fire. Will he support Mitt Romney? One only needs to wonder.

I won’t say the man doesn’t pose some interesting speculation, especially in light of the Silverstein interview stating they pulled tower 7. I even found it interesting enough to post a link of it in another dig. But again and in hindsight, that film with the venerable, evangelical/infomercial commentary of Alex Jones(of no relation), all we are seeing there are selective sound bytes just as we have come to expect from major media. To me that still leaves the jury out. 

The fact that “Right courts Left” Robinowitz is needlessly(and ridiculously) bashing Amy only adds to the notion that perhaps this is nothing more than an attempt to make the left attack itself and hopefully implode enough to allow another neocon victory.

Conspiracy theorists by nature see conspiracy in everything. That’s how I look at this whole Goodman analogy. Everyone who doesn’t agree with their theories must somehow then be complicit in the plot! That practically falls in line with Bush’s perpetual war against unseen enemies that are everywhere!

The real question here is in the legality in firing professors because of statements they make. That makes Churchill Ward just as important as Doctor Jones, at least when it comes to the 1st amendment and realizing the trashing of civil liberties is no conspiracy. Having lost a friend in the towers on 9/11 doesn’t endear me to his “little Eichmann’s” analogy but at the same time I know why he said it and what he was talking about. One needs only to understand the long term relationship of Wall Street and the “Merchants of Death” to comprehend his meaning.

Frankly I put nothing past this administration. Nothing! That said I would take the word of Amy Goodman any day before I believed a word coming out of the mouth of a Mark Robinowitz.

Godsend, I don’t believe Christ was married to Magdalene but there is no doubt that of all the apostles, she was closest to Christ. When he resurrected she was the first he appeared to. I only wish her gospel were a part of the New Testament. It belongs there as does Peter’s and Thomas. To exclude the rock of the church from the gospels seems ludicrous. Actually the other apostles were jealous of Mary, including Peter. But in Peter’s gospel he acknowledges the closeness between Mary and Jesus. It is sad that in fact today’s bible doesn’t even consider Mary an apostle. Just as Paul and the others, she went out into the world spreading the word.

But the Di Vinci Code is a sham. Though it borrowed heavily from the Gnostic’s to lend it credibility, it has already been exposed as a fraud, not only by scholars and clerics, but by the guy who wrote it. It has no reflection however on the Gnostic’s themselves who have never portended that Christ and Magdalene had sex, children or were married.

Never knew some Christian sects were calling Jesus gay or a transsexual. I would be fascinated to know who they are!

Anyway it’s back to Libby! Thanks for your input!

MS:

I didn’t think you were trying to covert me to Gnosticism. I have been ‘born again’ and no further spiritual conversions are possible or necessary There are all kinds of sects, including ‘Christian’ sects, in which I do not have the slightest interest! Any ‘Christian’ who condones or practices violence (especially bloodshed, murder or torture) CANNOT be a follower of Christ! (past, present or future). I’m also not interested in trying to find out if Christ was married to Magdalene and how many children they had, that He may have been gay, that He may have been a transsexual, cross dresser or that He was a bricklayer and not a carpenter. I don’t care who claims to have found His tomb, grave, body, ashes, teeth, sandals or contact lenses. What I look forward to and try to prepare for is really only one occasion: SEEing Him face-to-face. That’s it. I cannot possibly describe my expectation of that moment.

Godsend, I merely proposed it as a study, I wasn’t trying to convert you. All of it is Christianity and those Codecs are as old as and ligitimate the Codecs Alexandrinus which resides in London’s Museum of Science and History.

MS:

Holy Scripture is defined as “The Inspired Word of God” where I come from All men are fallible but God, Who is infallible, can choose to speak through any man (or woman) of His choosing (and usually has/does). He makes sure that there is no ‘error in translation’ or omission

There are no legitimate reasons for searching for ‘lost’ gospels that would fill some missing gap. As I said, all that is necessary to know for salvation is already available Once you find the Truth and the Life), it is redundant to keep searching for it! The Truth and the Life is Jesus the Christ!

86601 Ernest, I wholeheartedly agree!

Well Godsend I agree that God is not corruptible. But unfortunately men are and men wrote the Bible, not God. I’ll agree that most of the 50 original Gospels were similar in content and basically had the same message. Still there were some significant accountings that were diminished from what today stands as the modern Christian Bible.

The Gnostic Christians were slaughtered in what became known as the forgotten crusade. The church slaughtered them, called them heretics, then stole their land because they didn’t believe they had to worship in or more importantly send money to a man made institution. They also believed that heaven was not in the sky but right in front of us and all around us.

You should check them out. I find them a fascinating study.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

MS:

I wouldn’t be too concerned about the completeness of Scripture. Remember that the current contents are not (just?) the result of decisions made by mere mortals - they have been determined by God’s Divine Will! God is omnipotent and omniscient - and He is NOT the author of confusion or deception (that’s the Devil’s domain!).

In fact, Jesus the Christ’s recorded Word (red-letter text in most Bibles) is sufficient to stand alone and reveals all you need to know for enlightenment and salvation.

Come to think of it, the Gospel of John may be sufficient, all by itself, accompanied by the Grace of God, of course!

Read my quote from T. Austin-Sparks about the role of reason in trying to understand spiritual matters, posted here earlier. It is EXTREMELY important to realize that spiritual understanding (of Scripture, for example) does NOT come by the application of reason, in the first instance. Many theologians and their students study Scripture and other spiritual writings, thinking it can be analyzed by reason alone. Invariably, they come to a ‘dead end’ (pun intended) and do not understand anything. Just like our Constitution is not just ‘a God damned piece of paper’ (Bush) the Bible is not just ‘a God damned book’ (as Bush would say). He would say that because he trashes the Bible as well as the Constitution by his actions!

The bottom line is that Christ’s message of salvation is very simple and very clear - but very difficult to accept. Coming to Christ’s Cross with humility requires Self-denial to the utmost and complete trust in God, regardless of circumstances - possibly to the point of death. That ain’t easy!

Good point, Michael.  No doubt the swift boaters are already being lined up.  But then I get the feeling these vets will be more than up to the task.  Cerena’s observation that efforts are being made to bring these Vets before Congress and the American people is welcome news, indeed.

86525 Cyrena let’s not forget what happened in 1971 either. Remember Nixon hired and coached his own henchman, John O’Neill to try and discredit Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show. Bush will no doubt do the same and hopefully fail just as miserably as Nixon did.

Of course the passage of time can be a valuable ally. Look what the neo cons did 30 years later with the Swift Boat Vets. The fact that O’Neill didn’t serve with Kerry for a full year was rendered mute. They used sound bites and deception to discredit Kerry, making him look like a traitor, costing him the election to chicken hawk Bush.

#86511 by Ernest Canning on 7/12 at 9:46 pm

Ernest,
I know you didn’t pose this question to me, (but rather Michael) I wanted to add a note.

...."What we need to do is get Congress to bring these vets forth to testify, just as vets did in the 70s when John Kerry first appeared on the national scene as a member of Vietnam Vets Against the War.  If you link to their accounts, let me know whether you agree with the strategy....”

Just to say that not only do I agree, but that we’ve been working with these same brave men and women, (at least some of them, from the original formation of a couple of these groups)and they are (hopefully) in the works with getting this set up...just so that they CAN get an audience before a Congressional Committee. Just like back in the day.

These guys here (and on Democracy Now...also on Truthout.com) have actually made major progress, in the amount of time that they’ve had, and it has put nearly ALL of them, in conflict with those who will continue to pillory them, and use the bureaucratic tricks of retaliation, to make their lives as difficult as possible. (as if it could get much worse, for most returning vets). So, there’s been that extra strain on them, to try to get the message out. Standard tactic of the Cabal, but they’ve been braver than most.

86511 Well first of all Ernest and let me say from the start, I believe every word these guys are saying! I also believe it is a great idea to get them out there where they can voice the true situation in Iraq to the American people. I strongly agree with the strategy and I’ll do the best I can to be a part of it!

You know as I know, the corporate media won’t give these guys the time of day(lest we forget the fireworks of shock n awe being shown over and over while the results of it were intentionally edited) and the neocon hardliners will simply pass them off as a few disgruntled servicemen. The blatant arrogance of the right wing will do all they can to discredit these guys. Still I believe as you do. It took Vets to lay down the truth about Vietnam and it will take the same determination this time around.

I applaud these guys with all my heart!  I support them along with all of our troops and like them, I blame Bush and Cheney for all of it! 

And thanks for sharing the damning truth about this war and this perverted administration!

Michael, on “ending the war,” I would direct you to the vets who reveal the scope of their experience in Iraq on Democracy Now!  Here are the three links.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/12/1335208

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/12/1726251

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/12/1726248

As a vet who served in Vietnam, I know that there is no one who can provide as devastating assault on the moral bankruptcy of the occupation than those who have served.  What we need to do is get Congress to bring these vets forth to testify, just as vets did in the 70s when John Kerry first appeared on the national scene as a member of Vietnam Vets Against the War.  If you link to their accounts, let me know whether you agree with the strategy.

Well Godsend I would love to see that preemption! Also I’m glad you liked the verse. These disorderlies among us must be made to eat their own bread!

I’d like to add I enjoy biblical studies, especially concerning the Gnostic verses. When we look at it from an historical standpoint and realize Constantine’s need to quickly consolidate his power (via Christianity) meant removing 33 of the 50 Gospels it makes one wonder if the true word of God is being served as it should be. For example: Why were the Gospels of Peter and Mary(Magdalene) excluded from the Bible? Both were the closest to Jesus and yet the Emperor decided they weren’t mandatory.

86449 You know Ernest there is so much supposition out there it’s incredible. I read a blogger on Gravel 2008 who says he supports impeachment but he is more so entangled in ending the war in Iraq. that sounds like a cop out to me. I can’t find a report anywhere that shows us Gravel speaking in support of or endorsing impeachment anywhere. He didn’t have a vote on it since he’s a former senator but frankly I think you’re right.

MS:

I thought the context was what should we do about Bush? You say: Impeach him and let him rot in jail, I say: Impeach him BUT I think God will preempt us. He’s a ‘special case’ who deserves the Lord’s ‘special handling’ for all to SEE! (like A. Sharon). The people keeping Sharon alive probably don’t realize that they’re putting him through living hell! If they did, they would let him die. I could be wrong about that, of course (Bush’s fate).

It’s always good to see quotes from Scripture appear in Blogs, though

86436 LOL Godsend, that actual phrase came from Ben Franklin who of course was a deist which meant he believed in God but didn’t believe God was involved in all of our day to day activities. Frankly I consider myself to be the same.

Like many quotes that people believe came from the Bible, there is no verse that says, “The Lord helps those who help themselves.” Still some believe it is supported by some biblical verse, including the one below.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 says: “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you. Nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. Not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. For even when we were with you we commanded you this: if anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all but, are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.

86449 Breaking News Ernest, I got this from one of my Libertarian friends. According to this article two republicans supported impeachment and one of the two was Ron Paul.
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/06/three-new-co -sponsors-for-cheney.html

Michael, thanks for the heads up on Paul’ support for impeachment.  I question the accuracy of your assessment on Gravel.  When asked at the first Democratic Presidential debate for a show of hands as to who would join with Kucinich in calling for Cheney’s impeachment, every candidate, including Gravel, stood stiffly, afraid to move.  Only Kucinich had the wisdom and the courage to pull out a little pocket-sized booklet we call the “Constitution,” pointing out that this is what it is all about.  It is a booklet that Cheney threatens to reduce to an historical footnote.

As far as I know, Gravel has never explained his failure to raise his hand.

MS:

Remember the Lord helps those who help themselves.

I’m trying to remember, MS, but ‘no dice’. Where did you get that line, anyway?

Some of the Lord’s Grace falls on us all - even on agnostics and atheists and Zionists! BUT the Lord reserves the right of vengeance for those who rebel against Him and violate His commandments without the benefit of Christ’s Forgiveness. He said: “Vengeance is Mine. I will recompense.” There is no doubt that His vengeance is to be avoided at all cost! How about this line: “Is is a fearsome thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (especially if you denied that He exists, in spite of the evidence all around us)

For more information about who the Lord helps, read “The Life” on my website

I say let them rot in jail for their crimes rather than live out the rest of their lives in splendor. Remember the Lord helps those who help themselves.

The more I think about Impeachment of Bush, the more I think Bush should eat a lot of pretzels - and we won’t have to worry about Impeachment. For those of you who have visited my website, you know that I believe Bush will meet with a highly unpleasant Act of Divine Intervention. The plans of mice and men are soon forgotten but an Act of God is not soon forgotten! “The Word of God is living and powerful”!

In fairness to Gravel I had forgotten the fact he is a former senator. Sorry mike!

This article provides even further information. apparently even Gravel did not support the Kucinich bill although he claims to support impeachment for both Bush and Cheney. Apparently Dennis, along with the majority of Americans stands alone when it comes to the impeachment of Cheney!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070706/pl_usnw/more_tha n_half_of_americans_support_kucinich_s_call_to_impeach_chen ey__poll_shows

86309 The only other candidate thus far who supports impeachment beyond Kucinich is Gravel.

So far as impeachment, all I’m seeing about Paul is he stands with house speaker Pelosi. That means impeachment’s off the table. Makes Dennis look far better.

86300 According to this blog, http://digg.com/political_opinion/Lying_War_Propaganda _Against_Iran_by_Ron_Paul?t=7322252Ron Paul does not support impeachment. He does support further investigations. He also opposes a war with Iran and dismantle the FED. There seems to be a pretty big buzz going on over Paul and Kucinich. That’s a good thing. I plan on investigating this further and if I come up with anything I’ll post it.

86249 I stand corrected. You know what, I think this might not be true. The digg stated this was an experiment. I know that Libertarians for Ron Paul are calling for impeachment but this link I provided shows no proof that Paul supports impeachment.

86276 As far as I know Ernest, Paul is in support of it.
http://www.digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_says_Impeach_Bus h_and_Cheney_Video_Captured_Over_iPhone

This makes me think he and Kucinich would make a good team.

To GodSend and Michael Shaw:  Can either of you tell me what Ron Paul’s position is on the articles of impeachment which Mr. Kucinich has brought against Dick Cheney?

Good point Godsend. The truth is we would all be far better off with either Paul or Kucinich in the white house. Either of those guys would be a step in the right direction.

You make some good points about Kucinich, MS. I’ll do some more homework on him and Ron Paul before making up my mind. There’s still plenty of time before the next election - if there IS an election!

86113 Well Marshall let’s just leave it at that then. Obviously this was some kind of misunderstanding. For the sake of this board, there’s no point in rehashing it again.

You didn’t respond Marshall because you have never served in combat.  You advocate war from afar.  That makes you a chicken hawk--a coward.  Prove me wrong.

#85915 by Michael Shaw on 7/11 at 8:21 am

<<I also saw a post from Ernest to you in which you in fact had not responded to him! Not vice versa!>>

As soon as he began calling me names, I decided not to respond to him - it’s a general policy of mine regarding ad hominem attacks.

<<What does my pacifism have to do with the commute of Libby’s sentence and more importantly what do my personal beliefs have to do with them? >>

Nothing - this happens to be the thread where I read your post that mentioned your pacifism, so I chose to ask you about it here.

<<I believe you had in fact gone out of your way to find a flaw in my conversation as to discredit me and saw my pacifism as a weakness.>>

If I’d wanted to discredit you, I’d have attempted to do so.  I’m sorry you feel that way.

<<And why would Ernest Canning, a man I have come to respect, say this to you if you had not made a previous comment:>>

Perhaps this illustrates my earlier point about excusing bad behavior by blaming it on someone besides the person who commits it.  My conversation was with you, not Ernest, and I can’t speak to his motivations.

<<Certainly this did not come from your questioning me about my pacifism but rather from another post you made elsewhere in rebuttal to my explanation.>>

I’ve made no posts elsewhere regarding your explanation, Michael.

<<frankly, I don’t trust anyone who comments about me behind my back and invites others to do the same.>>

Michael - I made no comment about you behind your back nor did I invite anyone else to.  I responded to Ernest about his attack on my questions to you - questions which just yesterday you had no problem with and about which I thought we were having a thoughtful and respectful exchange.  For some reason you appear to have changed your mind about this.  This is all getting a little too complicated for me I have to say.

86092 Point taken Ernest. In my mind all I was considering was that these guys would actually get a public voice and debate on the real issues that are the most important to us.

As you know the presidential debates have been askew since the league of women voters washed their hands of it. The current version is nothing more than windowdressing where the candidates decide collectively what can and cannot be asked of them. The top runners are more concerned about the lighting and protecting their image.

I do see you point however and even a sheer joy in it. Just imagine Dennis and the others as they tear apart their corporate stooge counterparts! I would love to see Amy Goodman and Bill Moyers involved but you know as I do the RNC and the DNC will never allow it!

Patrick & Michael, while Gravel, Kucinich, Nader and Paul are a delight, lining them up together for a debate wouldn’t provoke all that much in the way of a disagreement.  If we really wanted to make it interesting, we could have a serious of debates where, in each, one of the corporatists--Clinton, McCain, Guiliani et al., would be made to sit at the far right, so as to provide a good foil.  We could have people like Amy Goodman and Bill Moyers as the moderators--you know someone who would ask real “hard” questions.  Without the advantage in numbers always given to the corporate charletons and pressed to respond to the substance of what genuine candidates who are prepared to speak truth to power have to say, it would be reminiscent to exposing an emperor who has no clothes.

85970 I would like to add Godsend, I am a big fan of Paul Wellstone and also his protege Russ Feingold.

As for Dennis Kucinich, he accepts no funding from any corporate lobby groups, including AIPAC. He only receives funding from average citizens like you and me.
Why don’t you visit his site:
http://www.kucinich.us

86030 Well Patrick, we already know where that information came from.

http://actforchange.workingassets.com/campaign/impeach _cheney?rk=zpw6xG61STd6W

I also agree with your debate line-up. If it ever comes to light, it will be the best thing to happen in this country since apple pie and the BLT!

Kucinich, Paul, Gravel and Nader, I bet if they got together for a debate on the issues, it would truely truely take the wind out of the sails of the mainstream Democrat and Republican candidates.

Back to Amy Goodmans article:

How did these political hacks discover Plames identity?  Someone with access to this info at the CIA had to offer it up.  Agents identities are not the day to day talk in a political landscape, platforms, programs and operations yes, but an undercover operatives name ....no.  This info is usually “sanitized” even at the highest levels.

The old motto was “the truth will set you free”

The new reality is not telling the truth will set you free.

85970 I respect your opinion Godsend but I would like you to go back to my last post with cyrena. 85929

Americans vote for candidates for all the wrong reasons. It’s a horse race and all bets go to the one who collects the most corporate money. I think you’ll agree that how tough or charismatic a candidate appears to an audience isn’t a free pass to good leadership either. Look at Bush, at Clinton! For God’s sake look at all of them! They all use the same tough, charismatic jive! It could be argued that Hitler’s greatest asset was his charisma. The fact is most politicians are far better at getting elected and staying in office then they ever were in regard to actual governing. (Thank you Ralph Nader!)

Who in the entire lot is in fact truly charismatic? Hilary? Obama? Ron Paul? Gulliani? I don’t see it though some could argue that point. But the truth is they all accepted PAC funding(except Kucinich) and for the most part supported the war in Iraq from the beginning until the tide of popular indifference arrived, then they flip-flopped and turned the corner right along with majority opinion. Beyond Kucinich, none of them stood up and aired the wrongs in going into this contrived war. No one had the courage except Dennis. They were more than happy to be a part of the status quo, including Ron Paul. That my friend does not denote courage. In fact and excluding Kucinich, I would describe all of their collective reactions as wimpy.

It could be argued Hilary commands an audience more diligently than Kucinich or perhaps any of the other candidates but she, along with the rest are getting all the air time. When was the last time you saw Kucinich make a speech on national TV or for that matter anywhere? Never because all the special interest money, the same money that comes from corporate media, doesn’t go to him. Beyond their constant remarks that he’s a wimp and doesn’t stand a chance, he is completely and intentionally overlooked. He frightens them because he in fact challenges them and that is the kind of leadership we need.

Paul on the other hand gets most of his funding from major corporations. Though he too is somewhat overlooked, he won’t disclose the rest of his campaign finances. Kucinich on the other hand, has fully disclosed his campaign finance, unlike any of the other candidates.

He might not be superman but he is the only guy out there who is honest, open and real. I’d take that over rehearsed charisma in front of an audience or camera any day of the week.

MS:

You may be right about the Kucinich platform. It’s just that he doesn’t have a lot of charisma and fails to project power. America needs a fire-and brimstone leader - someone who can rally people to action and speak to power without reticence or fear! A JFK type. A Paul Wellstone type. Even a Lawrence of Arabia type What stance has Kucinich taken on Zionism? Just being anti-war and anti-Bush isn’t good enough! The roots of Evil must be understood and struck without hesitation or reservation - even if they extend to the Democratic party (and they DO!)

85907 IE Dennis Kucinich is a wimp. The only guy to have the courage to take a stand against the illegal war in Iraq and the only guy in the election who will not accept PAC money and you call him a wimp! The reasons he in fact has been denoted as such is because of the entrenched powers that be, the very powers you claim must be removed.

#85836 by cyrena Here here cyrena. Every president this nation ever had coming out of Texas has been a travesty(Not that California has faired any better).

I’d also like to add that it seems people vote for candidates for all the wrong reasons. Instead of researching their platforms,investigating their stances or looking into who is financing them, they go for the superficialities that are meaningless.

For added thought:

The men American people admire most extravagantly
are the most daring liars; the men they detest
most violently are those who try and tell them the
truth

- H. L. Mencken

The most dangerous man to any government is the
man who is able to think things out...without
regard to t