Essentially the one and the many are equally ultimate in trinitarian doctrine. Unitarianism, for instance, has dithered between anarchism and statism. No prototype for a workable model---it accepts either the ultimacy of the individual or the state. (So do most on these threads.)
Drudge is interviewing a WSJ reporter right this minute. Apparently Clarke has donated several thousand to democratic candidiates.
The WSJ reporter doesn't think their are two Clarkes, but three.
Also the Aldridge thing, how Stehpanopholos bulied the media over his book---and how Stehpanopholos is passing Judgement on Rice. Also, the Richard BenVeniste presence on the 9/11 panel is being explored.
Clarke voted for McCain in the Virginia primary in 2000.
Gee after the shit that the Bush administration has put him and the country through I wouldn't be surprised if he did donate money to the Kerry campaign.
But then again on meet the press he said he would not endorse Kerry and that he would never work in government again.
Your WSJ reporter is obviously spinning (and making money off of a five minute search on opensecrets and google).
What do both Steven Andreasen and Jamie Metzl (the congressional candidates he's referring to) have in common? Both have worked on the NSC. Andreasen looks like he was under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton. Metzl worked under Clinton.
So these guys are his former coworkers.
You know what this reinforces for me? That Clarke is very loyal to his friends.
Essentially the one and the many are equally ultimate in trinitarian doctrine. Unitarianism, for instance, has dithered between anarchism and statism. No prototype for a workable model---it accepts either the ultimacy of the individual or the state. (So do most on these threads.)
Yes . . only the religious . . . not even . . only those in your religion know the proper balance . .. perhaps then you should institute that proper balance in a form of social organization . . in fact in the organ of social organization known as Government . .hmm? but then what if the government thinks my "Participation" isn't "total" enough . . . sounds like the foundations of a theological "total"itarianism . . .
hence keeping any of it OUT OF GOVERNMENT
And yes, home schooling and private schools probably give beter educations than public school . . . no surpirise there
but why all this mumbo jumbo . . .
and just another thing: it is tyical of a "religious" person to believe that it is only they who know the fine balance between individual and state . . . as if people not Bli . . I mean guided by a "religion" can not think about the balance between self and other . .
and your assumption that anyone who is not a Christian is an Athiest is wrong
I for instance am not an Athiest though my concept of God is so far removed from yours that Athiesm is not entirely wrong . . . just not right either
Now as far as Clarke . . .and Rice:
Ed Bradley really gets into it with her . . at least in print:
Quote:
ED BRADLEY::
But even the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Hugh Shelton, has said that the Bush administration pushed terrorism, and I'm quoting here, farther to the back burner.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
I just don't agree. I don't know, Ed, how after - coming into office, inheriting policies that had been in place for at least - three of the eight years of the Clinton administration, we could've done more than to continue those policies while we developed more robust policies.
ED BRADLEY::
After 9/11, Bob Woodward wrote a book in which he had incredible access and interviewed the president of the United States. He quotes President Bush as saying that he didn't feel a sense of urgency about Osama bin Laden. Woodward wrote that bin Laden was not the president's focus or that of his nationally security team. You're saying that the administration says fighting terrorism and al-Qaeda has been a top priority since the beginning.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
I'm saying that the administration took seriously the threat - let's talk about what we did.
ED BRADLEY::
But no, I understand-
ED BRADLEY::
But you - you listed ?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
-priority.
ED BRADLEY::
You'd listed the things that you'd done. But here is the perception. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at that time says you pushed it to the back burner. The former Secretary of the Treasury says it was not a priority. Mr. Clarke says it was not a priority. And at least, according to Bob Woodward, who talked with the president, he is saying that for the president, it wasn't urgent. He didn't have a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. That's the perception here.
Thanks for the heads up. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Rush Limbaugh, my friend Joe from 3rd grade, most police officers, and 98% of politicans are, too. Can we get one if these signs here?
He registered in Virginia to vote in the Republican Primary and voted for McCain. I don't know how he voted in the Election... but if you have a quote of him saying it, I'd like to say it.
Where did you get that from. From what I've seen he's only said how he voted in the primary.
Quote:
(Also the WSJ guy critisied why no one lost their jobs after 9/11.)
Good criticism, but is that an subtle way of saying Clarke in particular should have lost his job? You realize that within a couple weeks a major Iraq hawk held his position. In other words, the problem is with the delusions of the admin itself.
Or was it in reference to Cheney's counter-terrorism taskforce that was supposed to stop attacks like 9.11 but never actually met?
Is that supposed to be some sort of mystical-body malarky . . .
try and be coherent . . .
I will do the same . .
. . . individual responsibility exists despite the fact that we are also profoundly related, even at our very core . . . the language through which we relate to the world, interpret the world, ourselves, our identities our essential general meaning that it gets its significance from being shared . . . identity, is general . . . words mean through many variations . . . they pass around like money and only 'mean' because of that. Our individual experiences are enlighteend by inter-subjective generalities.
there is a balance between the experience and life of the individual as it relates to the world and is interpreted through the medium of language . .
Our experiences are ours yet the language through which we speak them is not ours . . . . [it is in this terrain that the Christian notion of 'the word' is profound] Our identities are inter-subjective and yet individual; that is a fine balance and one need not be member of an established religion to understand that . . . and the Constitution is founded on a similar belief as well: responsibility yet civility
Where did you get that from. From what I've seen he's only said how he voted in the primary.
I believe that's what he said.
Quote:
Good criticism, but is that an subtle way of saying Clarke in particular should have lost his job? [/B]
It sounded more like guys like Tenet should have been canned---and that the current admin is very lenient to the loyal. (But then that is politics for you)
IIt sounded more like guys like Tenet should have been canned---and that the current admin is very lenient to the loyal. (But then that is politics for you)
perhaps it is more like they need the loyal . . .people who get the shiit heaped up on them by the constant passing of the buck!!
makes you wonder about the real credential it takes to get into that administration . . . makes me think about how Powell had seemed to hold different ideas then the admin at some points but now seems dogged into absolute concurrance with anything that is demanded . . . \
I would like to see the quote where Clarke says that, because I can't find it.
Quote:
It sounded more like guys like Tenet should have been canned---and that the current admin is very lenient to the loyal. (But then that is politics for you)
Our experiences are ours yet the language through which we speak them is not ours . . . . [it is in this terrain that the Christian notion of 'the word' is profound] Our identities are inter-subjective and yet individual; that is a fine balance and one need not be member of an established religion to understand that . . . and the Constitution is founded on a similar belief as well: responsibility yet civility
Logos---that is the key. In order to have individual beings, yet not lose that individuality in the "One" we have to have an over arching principle that dictates just that. I guess that is a trusim.
responsibility yet civility---you must admit that the idiom of the day at that time was natural law, that laws were "discovered" as a feature of "the law of nature and nature's God'---as a natural unity of the idividual as opposed to the state.
It's getting late---I'm getting close to cut-and-paste mode. More tommorow.
Comments
Originally posted by pfflam
'resistance is futile'
oh be nice pfflam!
Essentially the one and the many are equally ultimate in trinitarian doctrine. Unitarianism, for instance, has dithered between anarchism and statism. No prototype for a workable model---it accepts either the ultimacy of the individual or the state. (So do most on these threads.)
The WSJ reporter doesn't think their are two Clarkes, but three.
Also the Aldridge thing, how Stehpanopholos bulied the media over his book---and how Stehpanopholos is passing Judgement on Rice. Also, the Richard BenVeniste presence on the 9/11 panel is being explored.
Good Stuff.
Gee after the shit that the Bush administration has put him and the country through I wouldn't be surprised if he did donate money to the Kerry campaign.
But then again on meet the press he said he would not endorse Kerry and that he would never work in government again.
Condi Rice and Cheney are liars.
What do both Steven Andreasen and Jamie Metzl (the congressional candidates he's referring to) have in common? Both have worked on the NSC. Andreasen looks like he was under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton. Metzl worked under Clinton.
So these guys are his former coworkers.
You know what this reinforces for me? That Clarke is very loyal to his friends.
(Also the WSJ guy critisied why no one lost their jobs after 9/11.)
Originally posted by dmz
oh be nice pfflam!
Essentially the one and the many are equally ultimate in trinitarian doctrine. Unitarianism, for instance, has dithered between anarchism and statism. No prototype for a workable model---it accepts either the ultimacy of the individual or the state. (So do most on these threads.)
Yes . . only the religious . . . not even . . only those in your religion know the proper balance . .. perhaps then you should institute that proper balance in a form of social organization . . in fact in the organ of social organization known as Government . .hmm? but then what if the government thinks my "Participation" isn't "total" enough . . . sounds like the foundations of a theological "total"itarianism . . .
hence keeping any of it OUT OF GOVERNMENT
And yes, home schooling and private schools probably give beter educations than public school . . . no surpirise there
but why all this mumbo jumbo . . .
and just another thing: it is tyical of a "religious" person to believe that it is only they who know the fine balance between individual and state . . . as if people not Bli . . I mean guided by a "religion" can not think about the balance between self and other . .
and your assumption that anyone who is not a Christian is an Athiest is wrong
I for instance am not an Athiest though my concept of God is so far removed from yours that Athiesm is not entirely wrong . . . just not right either
Now as far as Clarke . . .and Rice:
Ed Bradley really gets into it with her . . at least in print:
ED BRADLEY::
But even the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Hugh Shelton, has said that the Bush administration pushed terrorism, and I'm quoting here, farther to the back burner.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
I just don't agree. I don't know, Ed, how after - coming into office, inheriting policies that had been in place for at least - three of the eight years of the Clinton administration, we could've done more than to continue those policies while we developed more robust policies.
ED BRADLEY::
After 9/11, Bob Woodward wrote a book in which he had incredible access and interviewed the president of the United States. He quotes President Bush as saying that he didn't feel a sense of urgency about Osama bin Laden. Woodward wrote that bin Laden was not the president's focus or that of his nationally security team. You're saying that the administration says fighting terrorism and al-Qaeda has been a top priority since the beginning.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
I'm saying that the administration took seriously the threat - let's talk about what we did.
ED BRADLEY::
But no, I understand-
ED BRADLEY::
But you - you listed ?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
-priority.
ED BRADLEY::
You'd listed the things that you'd done. But here is the perception. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at that time says you pushed it to the back burner. The former Secretary of the Treasury says it was not a priority. Mr. Clarke says it was not a priority. And at least, according to Bob Woodward, who talked with the president, he is saying that for the president, it wasn't urgent. He didn't have a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. That's the perception here.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Condi Rice and Cheney are liars.
Thanks for the heads up. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Rush Limbaugh, my friend Joe from 3rd grade, most police officers, and 98% of politicans are, too. Can we get one if these signs here?
How dare he be honest!
Yes . . only the religious . . . not even . . only those in your religion know the proper balance . .
--but there is no separation to balance.
Originally posted by dmz
If I remember correctly, he voted for Gore.
Where did you get that from. From what I've seen he's only said how he voted in the primary.
(Also the WSJ guy critisied why no one lost their jobs after 9/11.)
Good criticism, but is that an subtle way of saying Clarke in particular should have lost his job? You realize that within a couple weeks a major Iraq hawk held his position. In other words, the problem is with the delusions of the admin itself.
Or was it in reference to Cheney's counter-terrorism taskforce that was supposed to stop attacks like 9.11 but never actually met?
Originally posted by dmz
--but there is no separation to balance.
Is that supposed to be some sort of mystical-body malarky . . .
try and be coherent . . .
I will do the same . .
. . . individual responsibility exists despite the fact that we are also profoundly related, even at our very core . . . the language through which we relate to the world, interpret the world, ourselves, our identities our essential general meaning that it gets its significance from being shared . . . identity, is general . . . words mean through many variations . . . they pass around like money and only 'mean' because of that. Our individual experiences are enlighteend by inter-subjective generalities.
there is a balance between the experience and life of the individual as it relates to the world and is interpreted through the medium of language . .
Our experiences are ours yet the language through which we speak them is not ours . . . . [it is in this terrain that the Christian notion of 'the word' is profound] Our identities are inter-subjective and yet individual; that is a fine balance and one need not be member of an established religion to understand that . . . and the Constitution is founded on a similar belief as well: responsibility yet civility
Originally posted by giant
Where did you get that from. From what I've seen he's only said how he voted in the primary.
I believe that's what he said.
Good criticism, but is that an subtle way of saying Clarke in particular should have lost his job? [/B]
It sounded more like guys like Tenet should have been canned---and that the current admin is very lenient to the loyal. (But then that is politics for you)
Originally posted by dmz
IIt sounded more like guys like Tenet should have been canned---and that the current admin is very lenient to the loyal. (But then that is politics for you)
perhaps it is more like they need the loyal . . .people who get the shiit heaped up on them by the constant passing of the buck!!
makes you wonder about the real credential it takes to get into that administration . . . makes me think about how Powell had seemed to hold different ideas then the admin at some points but now seems dogged into absolute concurrance with anything that is demanded . . .
Originally posted by dmz
I believe that's what he said.
I would like to see the quote where Clarke says that, because I can't find it.
It sounded more like guys like Tenet should have been canned---and that the current admin is very lenient to the loyal. (But then that is politics for you)
Being loyal is Tenet's entire job.
Tommorow
to see teh whole thing go to the environmentalist site and put in your (or anybodies e-mail address)
very funy and appropriate
Originally posted by pfflam
Our experiences are ours yet the language through which we speak them is not ours . . . . [it is in this terrain that the Christian notion of 'the word' is profound] Our identities are inter-subjective and yet individual; that is a fine balance and one need not be member of an established religion to understand that . . . and the Constitution is founded on a similar belief as well: responsibility yet civility
Logos---that is the key. In order to have individual beings, yet not lose that individuality in the "One" we have to have an over arching principle that dictates just that. I guess that is a trusim.
responsibility yet civility---you must admit that the idiom of the day at that time was natural law, that laws were "discovered" as a feature of "the law of nature and nature's God'---as a natural unity of the idividual as opposed to the state.
It's getting late---I'm getting close to cut-and-paste mode. More tommorow.
Originally posted by pfflam
This cartoon is very funny:
Tommorow
to see teh whole thing go to the environmentalist site and put in your (or anybodies e-mail address)
very funy and appropriate
That's great.
[MEET THE PRESS]
RUSSERT: Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
CLARKE: No, I did not.
RUSSERT: You voted for Al Gore?
CLARKE: Yes, I did.