jefferiah

deleted

I agree. She should not be blackballed or kicked out of the media. We are just pointing out that most mainstream media would not print a column like this from either side of the spectrum. That's why Ann Coulter isn't doing opinion columns for mainstream newspapers. I don't care if CBC prints it. However...... Instead of saying Mallick should be neutered because of tax dollars, I'd say tax dollars should be neutered because of Mallick. If CBC wants to be an ideologue news source, they can do it on their own dime. When I want to read Ann Coulter, you dont have to buy the book for me.

I don't think it's a big deal. I don't think it was aimed at Palin. As American Woman pointed out Lynne Cheney has used the expression before, and I think Barack has as well (before Palin came on the scene). And even if by some chance he did mean it, who cares? Sticks and stones. It would hurt him more anyway.

I didn't whine or complain about it. I just pointed out the difference. You are the one whining and cussing. And so is Mallick. I dont take offense to the article she wrote. I dont even care about it. She makes herself sound like an infant who is not getting her way. With Coulter I get a sense that she is actually laughing while she writes, but Mallick sounds as if someone got to her and she is pissed off.

The difference being that Ann Coulter could not get a job as a CNN reporter. And also that Ann is actually funny.

I find Canadien's comment kinda weird. It's like he is getting defensive over his criticism of Palin over nothing (and so are you). Because the thing is American Woman, no one actually came after him very hard over criticizing Palin. No one came after him at all. No one is calling him out on anything. It's like he is overreacting to nothing. All Pliny said was that maybe he should have all the information before he condemns her. It's not like he started calling him a rabid hateful misogynist bigot. When I did the same thing as Canadien ( sarcastically apologizing for calling Barack Barry), I think I had more of a reason than he did. I called Obama Barry (ooooooooooooooo) and you said I had no respect and that it showed my opinions on him are invalid, blah blah blah.

Why would it matter that wiretaps did not identify Faris and Kalid Sheik Mohammad did? That's a no brainer anyways. Unwarranted wire taps could not be used to even identify Faris, nor to arrest him. That info has to come from elsewhere, anyways. I never claimed that wiretaps caught Faris himself. I claimed that the NSA found out about the terror plot on the Brooklyn Bridge because of the wire taps. Which caused the police to tighten security and set up cameras. Which caused the operative to make a call to Pakistan saying "The weather is TOO HOT". At this point they did not know who was saying the weather was too hot. The just knew what they were intercepting. I already acknowledged in an earlier post that it was Kalid Shiek Mohammad who gave up his name. That was the "overseas information" which uncovered Faris. That all happened afterward. But the surveillance on the bridge began before he was fingered, and because of the wiretaps!

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=...eywords=wiretap and Lyman Faris Faris' investigations into obtaining the necessary tools for the dual-operation involved asking a friend where he might purchase welding equipment, and researching the structure of the bridge on the internet. He concluded that the operation was unlikely, and sent a message back to Pakistan calling off the plot, stating that "The weather is too hot". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyman_Faris

No actually it didn't. First off investigators found a vulnerable spot on the bridge where Faris could have worked unseen. Later, when they raided his apartment they found equipment needed for the task, complete with plans which indicated the exact same spot. The fact that they abandoned the task does not mean it was "implausible"--not exactly-- but that it was now implausible because of the increase in surveillance due to the NSA wiretaps. The ensuing wiretaps after the increased surveillance picked up conversations saying it was "too hot" on the bridge. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=...eywords=wiretap

Yeah, you are right. They would have enough evidence about a terrorist attack and who was responsible if they simply let them happen. Or maybe they could open up an bureau where prospective terrorists could go and state their intentions beforehand.

The "implausibility of the scheme" comes from papers like the New York times. The scheme was highly plausible. When it was pointed by the police that they found a place where a person could work unseen for hours on the suspension cables, the media dismissed that because they said there was no way he could work unseen given all the surveillance on the bridge. This argument reminds me of that song "There's a Hole In My Bucket Dear Liza". The reason the cops were surveying the bridge in the first place was because they were tipped off by the wire taps, not because it was under heavy scrutiny since 9/11. Here is a profile of Lyman Faris, the guy who was to carry out the attack: He travelled to Afghanistan to meet with Bin Laden in 2000 He bought airline tickets for Al Qaeda members to travel to Yemen. He met with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2002 (does that name ring a bell). Faris was not just some loner. He had contacts with Al Qaeda. The media dismissed him because he was a truck driver?????? Does that matter? Were the 9/11 terrorists all nuclear physicists? Do you think a bunch of journalists know better than National Security about the plausibility of threats? After surveillance had been ordered on the bridge, they found out from the captured Mohammed Khalid Sheik the name of the guy charged with the task of bringing down the bridge. This is the same guy who was connected with masterminding another group of nobodies to crash planes into buildings, something I suppose everyone would be calling implausible had it been intercepted before it happened.

But at least I'm giving a reason. And my reason is not based on what I think is best for Canada. The world at large just votes on this poll, but doesn't have to say why, so you don't even know the merits of their argument. Maybe you dismiss mine. That is fine. I may be wrong. But I am trying to help. But just as an example, I would say that when a guy like Hugo Chavez makes statements to the effect that he finds it alot harder to negotiate with Bush and that he prefers Clinton, that should not be taken as a compliment for Bill and an insult to George. That means George is doing a better job.

"The World Wants Obama" is another pretty good reason to not vote for him, IMO. I mean I am sure the world wanted Jimmy Carter too. The Germans like Obama. They probably liked Chamberlain too. People from other places in the world, when choosing an American candidate they like, probably do not always base their choice on America's interest. They don't contemplate Obama's tax plan when they won't be paying those taxes, and they dont say to themselves "hey I really want to know what's best for my American brothers and sisters." Alot of the world does not like America (and thats not Bush's fault either). They didn't like America ever. And in choosing a candidate for your president they want the weakest one possible.

The Patriot Act allowed National Security to intercept the plots to attack Fort Dix, to destroy the Brooklyn bridge, the bombing of Kennedy airport. You don't think thats effective? You would have rather those things happened?

McCain/Palin have the monopoly on the issues too. Obama wants to raise taxes on the people who already pay the highest rates. He thinks people who make over 100 grand should pay even more. That is not going to help stimulate a better economy. Raising the minimum wage at this point in time won't either. It will probably result in higher unemployment rates. He wants to drastically increase the capital gains tax, even though history has shown that lower capital gains taxes actually generate more tax revenue because there is a greater incentive to sell. He wants to further cripple the Patriot Act. I know that is a controversial subject, but I think it would be unwise to do so. Despite the claims that proponents of this are fear-mongering, the reality is that the Patriotic Act has been vital in stopping terrorist attacks since 9/11, though the media largely ignores this. Everyone who drives across the Brooklyn Bridge right now should be grateful for the Patriot Act, imo. Obama makes entire speeches about how John McCain and Palin are ignoring the issues and then launches into the same old bit about "Er um, JOhn McCain.....is not the, er um, agent of change we need in this country." By talking about change and how John McCain does not talk about the issues, Obama seems to divert people from the fact that he isnt talking about them either. At least no more than McCain/Palin have thus far.

You have hardly begun to scratch the surface here. The real question is: If I bend over slightly, reach down with my arms, and grab onto my feet, can I lift my feet up off the ground and thereby hang suspended in mid-air? That's the real question.

Is there a press 1 for English option with this post?

So the fact that she prays that God will help guide her in making the right choices disqualifies her as a valid candidate? So, in essence, you are saying that Christians (a demographic among which it is not uncommon to pray that God will help them to do what is right) should not hold high office. (Note: I don't think she actually demands that "everyone" ask God what that plan might be. She asked people in a Church to ask God to help guide them to make the right choices.) In the end these people will make their choices. They will still analyze facts like anyone else and try to make the best decision they see fit. And they will pray that God helps them to see things clearly in order to make the right decisions. Do you think that praying about it will curse it somehow? That sounds.. ummmm....superstitious.

Did she mix "superstition" with governance??? This was Palin in a church asking people to pray they were doing the right thing. Since when is praying in a church a violation of the 1st amendment, which actually didnt ban mention of God in Public in the first place until recently.

In alot of churches it is a pretty common thing to pray for your leaders and that they are doing the right thing. There is no scandal there.

No. It is not sounding like interpreting Biblical prophecy. It's sounding like you can't understand the difference between someone praying that what they are doing is in accordance with God's will, and actually saying that something is God's will. Palinology?? Huh, its written in bloody English man. This is like trying to explain the word "is" to Bill Clinton.

Same as my interpretation. Which is the obvious interpretation. Thanks for helping Betsy, but it still doesnt seem to be sinking in with WIP.

No. It says: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right; also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right; also (PRAY) for this this country that our leaders (our national leaders) are sending them out on a task that is from God. Thats what we have to make sure we're praying for: That there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." It doesn't say anything remotely like "God handed the plan down to the people. It is God's plan for war." I can only think of so many ways to explain English to you and WIP. Is there anyone else who can help? Listen to this sentence. Think. "Thats what we have to make sure we're praying for: That there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." Lets break that into two parts. Part 1 "THATS what we have to make sure we're praying for" she says. what is it that we have to make sure we are praying for???? She answers that right after by saying: Part 2 "That there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." Or lets put it this way: That there is a plan and that plan is Gods plan is what we have to make sure we're praying for. GET IT? Or better yet.....We have to make sure that we are praying that there is a plan and that plan is God's.

I didn't include it because it still doesn't change the meaning of what she is saying. But let's add it in. "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right; also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." There, that only further supports my argument anyways. I don't know why you think that changes it. She says we have to pray we are doing the right thing. "Thats what we have to make sure that that is what we are praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's." We have to make sure that we are praying that we are doing God's will, that this there is a plan and that it's Gods plan. She is saying we have to be sure there is a plan, and that its Gods plan, not that "it is God's plan". Reading your posts WIP, it seems you have a decent command of the English language when you write something. Why is it that you have no comprehension when you read? Is that deliberate on your part?

Let me paraphrase that. I don't believe you actually believe yourself.