Great!

 

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/incoming-house-intelligence-chief.html

Apparently, Nancy has a lot of favors to repay.

Unfortunately, I think that to many of people that we have walking the halls of Congress are not necessarily all that bright.

 

This is true of both parties, and we have to hope that those in Congress that are well read have the power to hold sway with those that don't do their homework.

 

 

Frances

Unfortunately, I think that to many of people that we have walking the halls of Congress are not necessarily all that bright.

 

This is true of both parties, and we have to hope that those in Congress that are well read have the power to hold sway with those that don't do their homework.

 

 

Frances

Why would smart, hard-working individuals want to put themselves through the meat-grinder of American politics?

 

The freedom of speech that has been bandied about in the other thread as a strength of this country has led to the best candidates not wanting to run for our most important political positions. How ironic is that?

Why would smart, hard-working individuals want to put themselves through the meat-grinder of American politics?

 

The freedom of speech that has been bandied about in the other thread as a strength of this country has led to the best candidates not wanting to run for our most important political positions. How ironic is that?

 

I would submit that it isn't the exercise of free speech that leads to all of the mudslinging and attack ads we are inundated with each election period. Rather, it is the abuse of the right to free speech, and the incredibly low standards that we show by embracing these attack ads that are the culprit.

 

 

Frances

When a Republic does this they are an idiot and a GWB follower.

 

A democrat does it and all of a sudden there are idiots everywhere in Congress and it's ok.

 

This is hilarious. This is why I just stay out of these forums most of the time.

I would submit that it isn't the exercise of free speech that leads to all of the mudslinging and attack ads we are inundated with each election period. Rather, it is the abuse of the right to free speech, and the incredibly low standards that we show by embracing these attack ads that are the culprit.

 

 

Frances

If the argument is that we have to allow all free speech even the free speech that turns our stomachs than how can their be abuse?

Great!

 

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/incoming-house-intelligence-chief.html

 

Painful to read. Reyes loses a lot of credibility right off the bat.

 

If the argument is that we have to allow all free speech even the free speech that turns our stomachs than how can their be abuse?

 

I don't think there is necessarily an abuse. But there is a lack of responsibility among voters who reward incompetence with their votes. If incessant attack ads didn't work, no one would use them.

If the argument is that we have to allow all free speech even the free speech that turns our stomachs than how can their be abuse?

 

When I say "abuse" in this instance, I am referring to the use of speech to commit character assassination on a potential candidate.

 

This goes back to a point that I make on a recurring basis - the use of rhetoric and hyperbole in place of debating the issue at hand. Our populace has demonstrated a tremendous inability to discern between talking points, rhetoric, hyperbole, character assassination, and the well conducted debate of an issue.

 

And yes, you can "abuse" a right. We have the right to bear arms, but when someone stockpiles assault rifles, rocket propelled grenades, and a couple of claymore mines in their home, they have abused that right.

 

We have the right to assembly, but that does not mean we can openly riot in the streets. We have to obey laws that prevent such occurrences, by placing limits on that right.

 

The same is true of free speech. We cannot openly threaten the life of the President of the United States, lest we spend time in jail and be watched for the remainder of our natural lives by the Secret Service. So, yes - the right to free speech can be abused - and in terms of socially acceptable behaviour, it is. You and I can debate the issue of abortion, by exercising the right of free speech. On the other hand, if you choose to call me a proponent of killing babies, you have crossed that line. If you commit libel or slander, you will suffer the legal penalties for doing so.

 

 

Frances

What is more embarrassing for Reyes is that apparently none of his advisors or "handlers" knew enough to help him answer this question correctly, either.

When I say "abuse" in this instance, I am referring to the use of speech to commit character assassination on a potential candidate.

 

This goes back to a point that I make on a recurring basis - the use of rhetoric and hyperbole in place of debating the issue at hand. Our populace has demonstrated a tremendous inability to discern between talking points, rhetoric, hyperbole, character assassination, and the well conducted debate of an issue.

 

And yes, you can "abuse" a right. We have the right to bear arms, but when someone stockpiles assault rifles, rocket propelled grenades, and a couple of claymore mines in their home, they have abused that right.

 

We have the right to assembly, but that does not mean we can openly riot in the streets. We have to obey laws that prevent such occurrences, by placing limits on that right.

 

The same is true of free speech. We cannot openly threaten the life of the President of the United States, lest we spend time in jail and be watched for the remainder of our natural lives by the Secret Service. So, yes - the right to free speech can be abused - and in terms of socially acceptable behaviour, it is. You and I can debate the issue of abortion, by exercising the right of free speech. On the other hand, if you choose to call me a proponent of killing babies, you have crossed that line. If you commit libel or slander, you will suffer the legal penalties for doing so.

 

 

Frances

I have sent you a PM about a situation concerning this debate.

I think it would be more important to understand the functions of the various intelligence bureaus and how they work/don't work together. This guy was former Army and Border Patrol. I'm guessing he knows at least a little about Intelligence.

Kind of like Bush not knowing the names of India's leadership in an interview before the 2000 elections, and yet, some still voted for him. LOL

13 posts, you just knew it was coming. Still, it's going to be a lot of fun being on the other side of the fence for a while. It would be a lot more fun if the lack of knowledge in this case couldn't potentially harm us all.

Even if the Dems find themselves in a position that they have to punt every down it could NEVER get as DEADLY or UGLY as Bush and his cronies have made it.

 

"Fool me once, shame on me....fool me twice....huba dee huba dee....can't get fooled again"