Just got back from synagogue. So let’s see what’s going on.
9:45 Good fast defense of John Edwards and he’s talking about health care. Seems to be doing a good job.
9:47 Has Bush been sounding this whiney the whole time?
9:49 So Bush is blaming the recession on Clinton? Gee. There’s a surprise.
9:50 Thus far, Bush seems more comfortable in this format than he was last week. On the other hand, he had all the questions ahead of time. I’m not sure if he answered the question though.
9:52 Kerry’s doing a good presentation. On the other hand, I’m not sure if he’s answering the question either. For that matter, I’ve forgotten what it was.
9:53 Okay, the moderator just said, “How?” Bush is not answering it. Let’s see if Kerry presents how.
9:54 Nope. He didn’t either.
9:55 Well, if Kerry gets elected and winds up raising taxes, this answer’ll come back to bite him on the ášš.
9:57 Wait…”Either he’s going to break all these promises he made, or he’s going to raise taxes.” Bush just said the same thing twice. He should be writing Daily Bugle headlines. “Spider-Man: Threat or Menace.”
9:59 “Look at the record.” Mr. President, you really, REALLY don’t want your record looked at too closely.
10:00 I’ll be interested to see the fact checkers on Bush’s response about environmental initiatives.
10:02 Well, Kerry just lost Boston.
10:03 Good riposte on Kyoto by Kerry.
10:06 Good answer from Kerry about being competitive.
10:08 Bush continues to hammer the “didn’t show up” thing. I really think someone whose military history is criticized for his not showing up shouldn’t be going down that path.
10:09 Okay, DOES Bush own a timber company? Because if he does and it really is news to him, boy, that’s going to be all over the papers tomorrow.
10:11 “I don’t think the Patriot Act abridges your rights at all.” Oooooh, that may not have been the smartest thing to say.
10:12 “Whole bunch of folks.” Kerry’s starting to talk like Bush.
10:14 Kerry seems reaaaally uncomfortable in handling the stem cell question. Which is odd, because he’s been extremely firm on his opinion about it. He probably doesn’t want to risk offending the extreme religious folks any more than Bush does. Silly. They’re gonna vote for Bush either way. Might as well just go for it.
10:16 Never seen Kerry so tongue-tied.
10:17 Bush is doing better on this question than Kerry, which is interesting since so many people support stem cell research.
10:21 Kerry is absolutely knocking the judge question out of the park while Bush was muddy over it.
10:23 Kerry is doing only so-so with the question about tax dollars. I get the whole “respecting” thing, but it’s really all over the place.
10:27 “It’s never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.” And Bush is not getting it.
10:28 Ohhhhh,Bush is going right down the chute on ths question, I have a feeling.
10:28 Wow. Bush’s rebuttal was really quite awful.
10:29 Those last two should have been switched. Bush’s rebuttal on partial birth was awful. The down the chute is on the question about making mistakes, and yeah, I was right. Awful.
10:30 “Gut check time?”” I like that. “IT’S GUT CHECK TIME!”
10:31 “Saddam would be in power and the world would be a lot better off.”
10:33 You know waht would be interesting? If Kerry said, “If you guys want, I’ll hang out and answer more of your questions, unprepared. Just toss ’em out.”
10:35 Kerry’s closing was basic stump speech.
10:36 Same with Bush. “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” “9/11.” Typical buzz scare talk.
• 
An update on Amendment 36, which would change the Colorado Constitution and make our electoral colleege votes proportional:
Meanwhile, the Republican- funded group fighting the ballot initiative is airing an ad that urges Democrats to vote against it because, it says, Democrat John Kerry could win the state.
The radio ad says: “The real flaw in Amendment 36 is that it concedes Colorado to Bush and Cheney. Have you conceded Colorado? Have you given up on John Kerry? When we win Colorado, we want all nine electoral votes in the Kerry-Edwards column. We can do it. We can make it happen. No on Amendment 36.”
This is utterly @#%^’ing disgusting, and the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. Now they’re posing as Democrats?
Even worse, our Republican governor supports the group that appears to have made the ad.
PAD wrote: The down the chute is on the question about making mistakes, and yeah, I was right. Awful.
Bush completely dodged the “3 mistake” question — and I think he was totally right to do so. It was a very unfair question.
I know many of you believe Bush is an arrogant jerk who can’t figure out how to get dressed in the morning (and that only overstates the case for some of you). Even if true (and it is not), it still is an unfair question for two reasons:
1.) What person in his or her right mind would answer this question in a debate such as this? To do so would demonstrate he or she was an idiot! Let’s change this around. Let’s say the debate was in 1996 between Bob Dole and Bill Clinton, and President Clinton was asked the question. What would Clinton have done? The same thing as Bush (though of course he would have been more slick about it). Why? Cause *ANYTHING* he were to name is just handing live ammo to his opponent who is about to follow him.
2.) It is a grossly unfair question because Kerry is not asked the same question. And that is where the true hypocrisy about all of this would be on display. Name me just *ONE* example of any real substance where Kerry would admit a true mistake? Just one? He would not. (And don’t give me his clever line that he made a “mistake” in how he talked about the $87 billion. Nice soundbite, and a good way to gloss over his dumb comment, but not an admissions of substance.) I think it is because, like Bush, he does have some (in my opinion liberal) core convictions, and he does think he has made the right decisions.
For Charlie Gibson to have used this question at the end was unfair and borders on biased since it is a no win question for Bush. Short of saying the words some of you want to put in his mouth that he lied about WMD’s and should never have gone to war, there is nothing he could have said that would have really made a difference.
Jim in Iowa
Wow, I didn’t realize states could change how their electoral college votes were “spent”, neither HS or college American Government classes brought that up. I’d have thought that be a federal, US Constitution thing…
Yeah Jim, just as fair as the Bush/Cheney “If Kerry is elected, we will be attacked” garbage…
Maybe if Bush had been a man and answered the “What’s your mistake?” question when it was originally asked, there’d have been no reason for Chuck to ask it…
Why do the anti-choice religio-fascists have the right to force their religios beliefs on others? YOu don’t believe in abortion? Then don’t have one stupid! But don’t you DARE tell someone else they can’t. It’s none of your gøddámņ business. IT’s unconstitution to legislate your religious beliefs into law in this country. Maybe you’d be happier living in Iran where religion rules…
Kerry’s answer about abortion was a joke. You cannot truly believe that something is murder and then say that someone else should have the right to choose. If it is murder, then you are morally obligated to try to prevent it.
Let’s change the scenario. Some believe that the death penalty is murder. They believe it is wrong to execute someone, even if the person was a serial murderer. I don’t see that person being satisfied with saying “I believe the death penalty is wrong, but go ahead and practice it if that is what you really believe.” It doesn’t happen. They protest. They write movies. They vote against people who believe in the death penalty.
Comments such as Bladestar’s above show the real sentiment behind this and it demonstrates the hypocrisy of it. Why do you, Bladestar, want to force your belief, whatever the source, on someone else? Because that is what you are equally doing.
The fact that a given belief has a religious context is ultimately irrelevant. There are many who oppose abortion who have no given religious convictions (just as there are those who support and reject the death penalty, etc., on both sides of the “religious” fence).
Why do you believe stealing is wrong? The Bible says it is. Am I guilty of legislating my religious beliefs? This argument about the separation of church and state is very one sided. Those who argue as Bladestar has want to say the “church” or any “religion” should have no say in what society sees as right and wrong. Yet when the tables are turned, as they now are in California, a religious organization is being forced by the government to go against their religious convictions with the ruling that Catholic insurance has to provide birth control. I personally don’t agree with the Catholic church position, but it is wrong for the government to impose this rule on a Catholic charity.
Back to Kerry: His answer is a joke because it shows he really does not believe abortion is a true murder. I don’t know of *anyone* in any other context who would say they believe something is murder, but since the other person does not agree, the first person will not interfere in the murder happening. Such a stance is morally wrong and absurd.
The comment that we don’t want the “Pope” dictating policy misses the point. Anyone elected should have a core set of values. Those values should be admitted. We, the voters, then can decide if we want to elect someone who holds those values. If we don’t agree with the Pope’s view on the issues, then don’t vote for a Catholic who actually believes and practices his religion. That is not a case of the Pope dictating things to a President, it is a President being consistent with what he says he believes.
Bush missed a chance to point out that Kerry’s position is logically absurd. Whether Bladestar and others would agree is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is Kerry has no true problem with abortion.
Jim in Iowa
Maybe if Bush had been a man and answered the “What’s your mistake?” question when it was originally asked, there’d have been no reason for Chuck to ask it…
My question still stands: Kerry has been in the Senate for 20 years. Do you honestly think he would answer that question? What would you say was his mistake?
I can think of at least one: During the first Gulf War, when we had the coalition Kerry demands and when Saddam clearly invaded a neighbor, Kerry still voted against the war. Was that a mistake?
Jim in Iowa
>For Charlie Gibson to have used this question at the end was unfair and borders on biased since it is a no win question for Bush. Short of saying the words some of you want to put in his mouth that he lied about WMD’s and should never have gone to war, there is nothing he could have said that would have really made a difference.
>Jim in Iowa
The question was thrown out because it is on people’s minds. It’s on people’s minds because the president has been asked on numerous occassion about anything he feels could have been done differently during his administration and he has failed to think of a single area that he believes he could have or could do better.
Fair or unfair, Bush could have turned this around simply by saying, “Sure, I’m human, I’m not infallible.” Non-specific, but makes the point. I truly would give George his props if he gave any indication at all about having some/any insight about his own flaws as a human being, president or not. Whether he sees this denial as a stregth to be shown to others or truly can’t come with something, I have a difficult time trusting or having faith in a leader with this mindset and lack of response.
Fred
Fair or unfair, Bush could have turned this around simply by saying, “Sure, I’m human, I’m not infallible.”
Bush has essentially said that at other times. The reason it does not satisfy is that in regards to the “big question” of whether he should have gone to war in Iraq, the answer is still yes.
Jim in Iowa
Tell me Jim, I’m dying to know…
How is letting a woman decide for herself if she wants to have an abortion “forcing my belief on someone else?”
I’d really like to know, áššhølë.
How is letting another person decide what to do with their body “forcing my beliefs” on them? I’m not forcing them to have an abortion if they don’t want one, and I’m not telling a woman its forbidden to have one if she wants one.
SO how the HÊLL do you figure I’m forcing anything?
Capital punishment is PUNISHMENT for an action. Capital punishment and abortion are two TOTALLY different things.
Gøddámņ you are stupid Jim, laws about stealing have nothing to do with religion. Stealing affects many people. Abortion affects only the woman having one. A woman’s abortion has NO BEARING on YOUR life. You have NO RIGHT to stop her or ban her from having one.
And until the churches, catholic or otherwise start paying taxes, they can shut up and obey the laws of this country, including providing the full range of medical services on any insurance plans they may offer.
Abortion isn’t murder, it ain’t a baby till it’s born. And even then not until it can exist outside the womb (without the aid of medical equipment).
Incidentally, for those still wondering about whether or not Bush was wired for the first debate, here’s his spokesman:
“I love this. Am tempted to say, ‘I cannot confirm or deny,’ and let the story get some legs. Or, how about, ‘Since we put the metal plate in his head, we have had some measure of success with audio transmissions to the President.’ Or, ‘Yeah, but it clearly broke down during the debate.’ Unfortunately, the truth is not nearly as interesting. The answer is, ‘The President has never been assisted by any audio signal.”
Glad to see them giving it the attention it deserves. Bush really ought to work in some reference to this nuttiness in the last debate, tie it into the whole “reinstate the draft” fraud and make his oppoenet look like a member of the hard core tinfoil hat brigade (an unfair comparison but that’s politics.)
Also, for those who still believe it–try Cinefoil. It’s extra thick and colored black on both sides so it will keep your head warm.
But at least you’re tolerant, so that helps cancel out the bigotry, right?
Umm, actually, it means I don’t feel the need to kill a bunch of people to satisfy some disgusting mental problem.
And I can’t say I really care for the word “tolerant” since all it means is “not intolerant”. People like Bush and that classmate of mine? They’re intolerant of gays.
So no, I’m not tolerant, I’m supportive – I have gay friends, a gay relative. I support gay marriage. And I support them doing what they want when the way, to the point where it becomes offensive, same as any hetero couple.
It’s a good thing you’re not fond of the word “tolerant,” because I was using it sarcastically. I was referring to your cavalier disdain for the religious beliefs of hundreds of millions of people. If anyone referred to the Koran or, for that matter, to the Veda as a “great work of fiction,” as you termed the Bible, there would be people in the streets with pitchforks and burning torches. Anti-religious bigotry is no more attractive than religion-inspired antipathy to homosexuals. So why are you so selective in the groups of which you’re supportive?
I’m not saying you have to accept the lunatic in your high school class. In the immportal words of Mr. Garrison, “Tolerant, but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn’t mean you have to approve of it! … ‘Tolerate’ means you’re just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off! Jesus Tapdancing Christ!” This is why the ACLU backs the Illinois Nazis’ right to march– they’re áššhølëš, but we tolerate áššhølëš in this country (and in fact both parties keep nominating them for political office). But I do maintain that if you’re going to overshoot your criticism– if you’re going to go from reasonably criticizing one fanatic to insulting an entire culture– then you may be less violent than she is, but you’re no better. Perhaps I’m overreacting, but I think I interpreted you correctly.
Abortion isn’t murder, it ain’t a baby till it’s born.
In your opinion and many medical professionals disagree with you entirely.
You have a hard time acknowledgeing the fact that not everyone against abortion is religious. But your rants show that you don’t let facts get in the way of your thinking anyhow.
No, I don’t let other people’s ignorance get in my way.
The whole gøddámņ point is if you don’t want an abortion, DON’T HAVE ONE!
But you have no right to use force of law to force others to live the way you want them to.
Examples: Posted by Bladestar at October 9, 2004 10:37 PM :
“Gøddámņ you are stupid Jim” and
“I’d really like to know, áššhølë.”
Nice. Strong language and personal attacks and not just these two…sigh…precisely the reason I do *try* to avoid posting on blog follow-ups and message boards and the fact that no matter how little I write–or what exactly is written–there’s always *someone* on peterdavid.net wanting to mince words with my POV or opinion from. Gee, I’ll be suprised if this one gets off the hook.
Peter, by the way, I have emailed you 2 or 3 times in the last couple months…did you receive my emails or do you no longer use “Padguy@aol.com”?
You sure don’t let your own ignorance get in your way, Bladestar!
if you don’t want an abortion, DON’T HAVE ONE!
In other words, if you don’t want to commit murder, than don’t commit murder!
Baldestar wrote: How is letting another person decide what to do with their body “forcing my beliefs” on them? I’m not forcing them to have an abortion if they don’t want one, and I’m not telling a woman its forbidden to have one if she wants one. SO how the HÊLL do you figure I’m forcing anything?
You *are* forcing your viewpoint on at least one person: the unborn child.
At least right now, it is currently impossible for medical science to know when human life begins. We don’t know if it is at the second of conception, or 3 days after, 3 weeks after, or 3 months after.
What medical science has done is vastly roll back the age a child is that can survive outside the womb. Medical science is currently showing that the baby, at a very early stage, reacts to pain, sucks its thumb, and shows other signs of self-conciousnes. Is it really “human” at that stage? I don’t know. But neither do you. But these signs are as early as late in the first trimester.
At least for now, both sides of the debate have an opinion on when life begins based on whatever belief or faith they profess. The Bible, which I do hold as true, does not explicitly say when life begins. But it is clear that it begins at some point while the child is in the womb. But even if the Bible said nothing, my common sense would say that I should not kill something that might possibly be alive.
Go back 200 years and you find the same arguments made about slaves. They were treated as cattle and as less than human. Such logic was necessary to justify the terrible brutality done to the slaves from Africa. Some used the Bible to support this view. But others used the Bible to show slavery was wrong. Go read the history of England. You will find that it was so called “fundamentalist Christians” of that day that fought for an end to slavery in England — and they won. They “imposed” their morality on others who said just what you did, that if they thought slavery was wrong, then just don’t own slaves.
The anti-slavery movement also owes a large part of its success to “fundamentalist Christians.” They helped lead the charge against slavery. Some of the great thinkers of the day who agreed with you, who thought Christians were just trying to legislate their morality, who fought to keep slavery legal.
Obviously slavery and abortion are two different issues. The fact that Christians were right about that issue does not mean they are right now. But it does demonstrate two things. First, someone is always legislating their morality on someone else. The wonderful thing about America is that it ultimately lies in the hands of the voters, not a church or any one politician. If I don’t like that Kerry is effectively pro-abortion, I don’t have to vote for him. If you don’t like that Bush is proudly pro-life, then don’t vote for him.
Second, Christians, overall, tend to at least be honest about their beliefs and what they mean. I consider Kerry dishonest. Either he does not really believe abortion is murder, or he does but doesn’t really care. Which is worse? I want a candidate whose values are not left at the door. If Kerry wants to be pro-choice, that is his right. He should do so, without hiding behind absurd exceptions as he did in the debate. Most of us who are pro-life agree to an exception when the life of the mother is physically in danger. Kerry does not have the guts to actually say what he clearly believes about gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues.
Jim in Iowa
But you have no right to use force of law to force others to live the way you want them to.
Does that mean you’re opposed to antidiscrimination laws?
At present, biologists cannot agree on when life begins. (For that matter, there’s still some controversy about exactly what constitutes “life”, but that’s a whole other matter…) Therefore, there can be no objective law forbidding abortion – if it’s not yet alive and human, destroying it can’t be murder. Any law outlawing abortion per se would have to have at its base an assumption of just what a “human life” is – a decision which, so far, must be based on faith, not reason.
**you missed Bush saying “Missoura”
ME: Big deal. I
Posted by: Joe V.
Okay, I may be mistaken here, but my impression is that even most regular church or synagouge-goers don’t take the Bible literally literally – the world only began 10,000 years ago, Noah put two of every species on the Ark, etc. – so acknowledging it as fiction doesn’t attack every member of a faith involving the Bible … although that may or may not be what Craig J. Ries intended ….
If abortion is murder then so is birth-control. The millions of male sperm cells are alive. They have a life cycle. They start out young, grow old and die. So does the female ovum. The fact that they are not yet fully-formed, live-outside-of-the-womb babies does not mean that killing either the sperm or the egg isn
Luke K. Walsh: Well … I would like to think that he, or his people, had read the whole thing; so, if so, he probably should have held out for some changes. But in the immediate wake of 9/11, everyone was understandably concerned about reacting as strongly and as quickly as possible.
Luigi Novi: Ah, but my question was not merely why he voted for the Patriot Act, but why he was stating here in the debate that we were not going to let the terrorists reduce our constitutional rights in the same breath as he was admitting that he voted for it?? This seems like a contradiction.
Anthony White: Does Bush get any points for punking Charlie Gibson? It was pretty good debate up until Bush went all “Jerry Springer” on us.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, I was really distressed by the part where Bush said,
Joe V.: Like when he said the government should help pay for abortion since it a woman
Thanks for mentioning that Fred, I’ve always felt that way, but it’s not just poor people that want/need abortions. that why I didn’t bring it up.
I’d rather a few hundred tax $$$ go to an abortion as a one-time thing rather than paying welfare/ADC/Food Stamps, etc for the next 18 years…
“Abortion isn’t murder, it ain’t a baby till it’s born. And even then not until it can exist outside the womb (without the aid of medical equipment).”
Ummm…so let me see if I get this right. You are saying that a baby born with any condition that necessitates it being placed in an incubator is not, in fact, an actual baby and could therefore be killed without any fear of being brought up on murder charges?
Ooooookay (backing up very very slowly, reaching for door handle)
Carried to term. Is that phrasology more to your liking?
Secondly, if the parents WANT extra measures taken to safegaurd a preemie, then by all means, take every step needed to save a WANTED baby.
Although yes, I think the parents of babies born with life-long debilitating disease SHOULD have the option of euthanasia…
Luigi Novi: Did Kerry say he thought it was murder?
But the reason some who might believe it murder might still be pro-choice is because they recognize that that conclusion is a personal belief, and is not an empirical conclusion, and would not feel it right to make it a law in the absence of an empirical conclusion about where life begins. We can argue about theft and the death penalty empirically. We cannot argue about where life begins empirically, for there is no scientific consensus on where life begins. The most we can come up with are personal feelings on that question, which is why pro-choicers, even ones who personally believe abortion is wrong, refuse to legislate such feelings.
Kerry did not explicitly call it murder at the debate. But a few months ago Kerry clearly stated that he agreed with the Catholic teaching that life begins at conception. In the debate, the implication was there, that he personally believed it began at conception.
If that is true, if he really believes this, then he is morally bound to oppose abortion. Your argument is not logical. This is not just a “feeling” I have about when life begins. It is a conviction and a belief.
But that misses the greater point. If we do not know when life begins for sure, and we don’t, then on which side should we err? You should *ALWAYS* err on the side of protecting life. Which is worse? Yes, a woman bearing a child to term is an inconvenience, but in the overwhelming number of cases, it is only an inconvenience. Yes, an “unwanted” child may struggle, but only if that child is allowed to stay in that condition. But if the unbornd child is alive as I believe it is, then to end the pregnancy is murder. That is not just and inconvenience, it ends the life of a totally innocent human being. Until you can demonstrate empirically that the unborn child is not alive, the burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine. It is immoral to assume for the sake of convenience that the child is not alive and therefore abortion is all right.
Luigi Novi: And yet it also indicates that fetuses are not considered human beings afforded the same rights as the post-born, and that causing miscarriages is not unlawful in the eyes of God. Exodus 21:22-25 indicates that God does not believe that causing a miscarriage is a crime. Hosea 9:14-16 depicts God causing woman to miscarry. Genesis 38:24 supports the killing of a woman who is pregnant. Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 and Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 make the point that it is sometimes better to end a pregnancy prematurely than to allow it to continue into a miserable life.
This is not the place to get into a theological debate, so I will keep this brief. Exodus 21 is not as clear as you imply. Many commentators believe that if the child is born dead, then it is considered murder, and just punishment can be taken. Genesis 38:24 is a story, not a command, and does not in any way say God agreed with the suggestion. Hosea 9 talks about punishment for sin, which is often the natural consequences of bad choices. Ecclesiastes is being figurative and poetical, and does not mean someone should actually kill an unborn child.
Luigi Novi: Slaves are as human as non-slaves, and this can be argued empirically. The same does not hold true for embryos and fetuses. The fact that there is no consensus on where life begins, nor any way to argue empirically that it begins where pro-lifers say it does, is precisely why this is not a situation where one group
Sorry, forgot to bold the second paragraph. Lugi’s full comment was as follows:
Luigi Novi: Did Kerry say he thought it was murder?
But the reason some who might believe it murder might still be pro-choice is because they recognize that that conclusion is a personal belief, and is not an empirical conclusion, and would not feel it right to make it a law in the absence of an empirical conclusion about where life begins. We can argue about theft and the death penalty empirically. We cannot argue about where life begins empirically, for there is no scientific consensus on where life begins. The most we can come up with are personal feelings on that question, which is why pro-choicers, even ones who personally believe abortion is wrong, refuse to legislate such feelings.
Section 215 allows the FBI, without a warrant, to order any person or entity to turn over “any tangible things,” so long as the FBI “specif[ies]” that the order is “for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” They can conduct secret and unchallengeable searches of Internet and telephone records, and the FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity. The FBI can investigate U.S. citizens based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights. For example, the FBI could spy on a person because they don’t like the books she reads, or because they don’t like the web sites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy. Those served with Section 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing the fact to anyone else. Those who are the subjects of the surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been compromised.
Wrong. Section 215 allows the Federal Government to order documents, and it does prohibit disclosure of that fact to the suspect. I have absoltely no problem with the secrecy aspect– we don’t let the Mafia know we have their houses or phones bugged, so why should we tip off terrorists that we’re checking their email records? But your claim that this is conducted by the FBI “without a warrant” is directly contradicted by the Act itself. The Patriot Act permits a senior official in the FBI to “make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.” Notice the words “make an application.” The next paragraph of that same section provides that the application must be made to a Federal court or Federal magistrate. So what precisely do you think a warrant is, if not an order issued by a judge after an application made by a law enforcement agency? The only thing new about this warrant system that the Feds couldn’t already do is the secrecy provision, and I’ve already stated that I don’t have any qualms about that.
Section 218 of the Patriot Act allows your home to be searched without probable cause.
Behold the entire text of Section 218:
SEC. 218. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.
Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and section 303(a)(7)(B) (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)(B) and 1823(a)(7)(B)) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 are each amended by striking
The evensts of the bible cannot be proven, thus, it is a book a fiction.
Just because in PAD’s books, gravity works (and gravity is a FACT) doesn’t mean the New Frontier, Apropos, and Knight series aren’t all fiction.
You sprinkle in a few facts among the lies and fabrications and that doesn’t make the book any “realer” or truer.
Bladestar wrote: The evensts of the bible cannot be proven, thus, it is a book a fiction.
Your argument would be true about most of the history we have of the ancient world. You cannot “prove” history like you can a lab experiment.
You do not have to believe the Bible is true. That is fine. But there is a very large number of events and people in the Bible that have been verified from other sources. The Bible has been proven to be a very accurate historical document.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa: Your argument is not logical. This is not just a “feeling” I have about when life begins. It is a conviction and a belief.
Luigi Novi: Semantics. The point is, it is not one based on empiricism, or objective criteria. You don
Too many idiots, so little time!
Luigi, I believe the problem here may stem from phraseology. You describe the Christian Bible as “a work of mythology and fiction”, a phrase which can plausibly be applied only to works completely devoid of any historical accuracy (as, for instance, Bullfinch’s Mythology, which describes the ancient Greek myths as if they had happened – but was never meant to be taken seriously). However, there are events described in the Bible which, at least in part, did happen – as when Pharoah Ramses II, for reasons he declined to disclose in official records, evicted the Hebraic slaves from his kingdom, or when Haggai, of the Persian province of Judah, successfully petitioned the Governor to authorize the rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple. The surrounding material in the Bible may or may not be historical fiction, but its historicity must be acknowledged.
(Ironically enough, as Isaac Asimov has noted, one of the most easily verifiable parts of the Torah was regarded as “apocryphal” by the Christian Church – the Books of the Maccabees, describing the short, only partially successful Maccabean Revolt against the invading Persians. It’s even more ironic when you consider that without this tale, most of us in the modern world would never have heard of the Zealots…)
Jim in Iowa: Yes, a woman bearing a child to term is an inconvenience, but in the overwhelming number of cases, it is only an inconvenience.
Luigi Novi: It is not only an
“The evensts of the bible cannot be proven, thus, it is a book a fiction.”
Since this has degenerated into a argument over semantics and basic logic, let me jump in and say that this statement, at least, is unsupportable.
Many things that are “true”–ie. real, actual, happened, the way things are, etc.– cannot be “proven”. Evolution cannot be proven. The Big Bang cannot be proven. Germ theory cannot be proven. The preponderance of the evidence dictates that I am on solid ground in stating that all 3 are “facts”.
If one were to dig up a chunk of papyrus tomorrow that described an actual event of the year 750 BC, with a level of accuracy that would make Asimov look like Dan Rather, it would probably be forever “un-provable”. But it would not be fiction.
One could also show the fallacy of the statement by simply reversing it–would it be at all logical to say that if one cannot PROVE a book to be fiction it must therefore be nonfiction?
Penn and Teller addressed the bible on one of their “Bûllšhìŧ” shows on Showtime. Do I need to tell you what their take was on the subject? I’m not sure if you can still get it OnDemand. I bet it will be available when their next season starts, though.
The blurb on the P&T bible show from the Showtime website:
We’ll reveal the many discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible. Why all the confusion? Shouldn’t anything that is “divinely inspired” be crystal clear? Did Noah build an ark big enough to hold all those animals? Did Moses part the Red Sea? Did Jesus even exist? We’ll take on the most sacred of sacred cows to show that the Bible is about as factual as the National Enquirer. Hey, we’re going to burn in hëll anyway, why not buy a first class ticket?
Karen:
>The blurb on the P&T bible show from the Showtime website:
>We’ll reveal the many discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible. Why all the confusion? Shouldn’t anything that is “divinely inspired” be crystal clear? Did Noah build an ark big enough to hold all those animals? Did Moses part the Red Sea? Did Jesus even exist? We’ll take on the most sacred of sacred cows to show that the Bible is about as factual as the National Enquirer. Hey, we’re going to burn in hëll anyway, why not buy a first class ticket?
I love these guys! Their 1st season is available on DVD. I rented all 3 discs from a local video rental store and so there are some out there to be rented, if not outright purchased.
Penn & Teller are not only highly entertaining, with sharp wit, but take time to explore many topics that they see as “bûllšhìŧ”. The 1st season dealt with a dozen or so different topic, including space abductions, ouija boards and mediums, chiropractors, Save the Earth movements, fung shuai (spelling? I’m clueless), anti-smoking laws, and much more. Regardless of where you fall on these topics, certainly amusing, insightful and worth watching.
Fred
Fred,
I haven’t missed one yet. Like the Daily Show they use humor to inform. Although it’s a little sad that a fake news show cuts through the BS, while regular news just repeats it. Anyway, I agree completely with your review. 🙂
LOVE Penn & Teller’s show. Of course you had better have a strong degree of confidence in your opinions since it is likely that at least once or twice during the course of the last 2 seasons they will be skewering something that you yourself believe in. At least they do it with wit.
I’m surprised they haven’t been killed by enraged animal rights activists by now.
Karen:
>I haven’t missed one yet. Like the Daily Show they use humor to inform. Although it’s a little sad that a fake news show cuts through the BS, while regular news just repeats it. Anyway, I agree completely with your review. 🙂
Two liberals agreeing on this site, go figure. 😉
>Bill:
>LOVE Penn & Teller’s show. Of course you had better have a strong degree of confidence in your opinions since it is likely that at least once or twice during the course of the last 2 seasons they will be skewering something that you yourself believe in. At least they do it with wit.
>I’m surprised they haven’t been killed by enraged animal rights activists by now.
Hëll, I’m surprised that they haven’t taken on circuses and their treatment of animals, while throwing in several Siegfeld & Roy jokes. I’m guessing that it is a matter of time….
Fred
Penn wrote a very funny article for Razor magazine discussing animal rights groups like PETA.Dont know if it was the same material as the show but is was funny as hëll.Of course I tend to be a cynical bášŧárd anyway so i appreciate any humor at the expense of “established” concepts.
“If that is true, if he really believes this, then he is morally bound to oppose abortion. Your argument is not logical. This is not just a “feeling” I have about when life begins. It is a conviction and a belief.”
Simply being a conviction or a belief still doesn’t make something a fact.
monkeys.
“If that is true, if he really believes this, then he is morally bound to oppose abortion. Your argument is not logical. This is not just a “feeling” I have about when life begins. It is a conviction and a belief.”
A president is obligated to represent ALL the people, not just the people that happen to agree with him religiously. That is why there are laws and a seperation of church and state. Tell me, how does Bush reconcile starting a war when his religious beliefs state “Thou shalt not kill” Or for that matter why is he pro death penalty? You want it all ways so long as they agree with your point of view.
No, it’s not a federally mandated situation. Two states, Nebraska iirc and another I can’t recall now off the top of my head, already use the proportional method of distributing electoral college votes.
I was referring to your cavalier disdain for the religious beliefs of hundreds of millions of people.
Well, it’s hard to not have such distain when various groups of said religious people have killed, destroyed, and forcibly converted others because of their beliefs, among other things.
The concept alone that the world was created in 7 days? Well, I just can’t accept it.
Yet, people can accept this as fact and then be so horrible to their fellow human beings, regardless of religion, sexual preference, etc, is just mind numbing.
In general, I just flat out think we’re better off without major religion.
The Bible has been proven to be a very accurate historical document.
Perhaps the best term is “historical fiction” then. I do wonder at times how much of the Bible can be proven to be historically accurate.
Take The Three Kingdoms (or Romance of the Three Kingdoms). 1800 year old Chinese history written about 600 years ago. Considered to be “seven parts history, three parts fact”, yet there are numerous historical records from the time period to show what was true and what was false.
Still makes for a great tale in it’s current fictional form though.
Definately.
Craig:
>>The Bible has been proven to be a very accurate historical document.
>Perhaps the best term is “historical fiction” then. I do wonder at times how much of the Bible can be proven to be historically accurate.
Much can be proven as historical fact, while a great portion must be relied upon with faith.
I’ve always been incredibly curious about the pile of books that were purged from the Bible and destroyed by various religious figures and monarchs. Guess history really is written by the victors….. or edited anyways.
Fred
Well, it’s hard to not have such distain when various groups of said religious people have killed, destroyed, and forcibly converted others because of their beliefs, among other things.
To be fair, if people weren’t fighting over religion, they’d be fighting over culture, race, property, world communism, or the color of paint to be used when remodelling the kitchen. War and oppression will end if and only if our species becomes extinct. The remarkable thing about the Abrahamic religions is that they are a set of belief systems that have as central tenets the declaration that morality consists of people being civilized to one another, even if those tenets are inconsistently obeyed. No idea has ever killed or hurt anyone. It’s awful people behaving in unacceptable ways that cause trouble.
Besides, if you’re unwilling to show respect for other people’s beliefs, why should we tolerate yours?
Luigi Novi wrote: If you have a specific claim