shooter

Should I conclude that you would have been against murdering Hitler in the summer of 1939 even if you knew that by murdering Hitler it would save 50 million lives?

I believe your memory is faulty concerning the 9/16/2001 interview. Cheney does not mention any meeting in Prague on Meet the Press that day. Here is the most relevant part of the interview: MR. RUSSERT: Saddam Hussein, your old friend, his government had this to say: "The American cowboy is rearing the fruits of crime against humanity." If we determine that Saddam Hussein is also harboring terrorists, and there's a track record there, would we have any reluctance of going after Saddam Hussein? VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he's harboring terrorists? VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is - in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned. MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation? VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. You can find the whole interview here: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/meetthepress091601.html It's ironic that in the interview it was Tim Russert and not Dick Cheney who was the first to say that Saddam had a track record of harboring terrorists. I do believe the there was a point in time where Cheney did say that there was evidence that Atta had met with Iraqis in Prague but that was later, and not immediately after 9/11. It was also based upon intelligence reports that have since be called into question.

With all the attention given to the killing of the Wichita abortion doctor, I thought that by comparison this act of domestic terrorism was hardly getting noticed. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/01/arkansas.recruiter.shooting/

Sure, but I probably could find an instance where somebody killed a Nazi to keep a Jew in hiding if I looked hard enough.

I am not so certain that reactions shouldn't be varied. I believe there is an obvious moral dilemma. Should you allow someone who you believe is a mass murderer to continue to murder innocents, or do you try to save the lives of some innocents by murdering the mass murderer? It seems to me that there are times where some people believe that what is legal is also greviously immoral and feel that it is more important to do what is moral rather than do what is legal. Remember, in the days prior to the civil war, those who hid slaves in the underground railroad were breaking the law. Also, in Germany hiding a Jew from the Nazi's was also illegal. Were those people right to do what they did? It also seems to me that a government can not allow any citizen to take the law into their own hands particularly when it results in the death of someone who has not broken any law. So I believe that the proper action for the government is to put him on trial, and if convicted, he should go to jail for a very long time if not for the rest of his life. It seems to me that what side an individual will chose to come down on depends upon how much weight one puts on doing what is legal versus how immoral one views the current legal conditions. It seems to me that throughout history people have came down on both sides so it seems only reasonable that people would continue to come down on both sides on issues where people feel very strongly. For the record, I don't think the doctor should have been murdered-- mostly because I don't believe Jesus would have murdered the doctor. That said, if I had the choice between being the doctor or the guy who shot the doctor when I had to explain my actions to God on Judgement day, I would not choose to be the doctor.

Exhibit A in the case that 'La Raza' has a specific racial/ethnic significance which the words 'people' and 'community' do not.

rockmom, Do the words 'community' and 'people' in English have a specific racial or ethnic connotation? I say the answer to that question is a definite NO and anybody or any source who says otherwise is wrong. I also don't need any knowledge of any other culture to answer that question. As far as ignoring cultural subtexts, isn't that exactly what La Raza is doing when they chose the name they chose?

I translate this into NCLR knows that emphasizing the word 'race' in English could have some negative connotations so they simply re-define how to translate 'la raza' to suit their purposes. (Paging a Mr. Orwell, a Mr George Orwell.....) Literally 'la raza' translates to 'the race'. That is simply a fact. If La Raza wanted to emphasize that they chose that name as a shorthand for 'The ethnically Hispanic Community' I think I would let that pass. However, saying that 'La Raza' just means 'the people' or 'the community' in English is clearly wrong. The words 'people' and 'community' in English do not in anyway carry with it the specific ethnic connotation that 'la raza' does in Spanish. I do agree that 'race' in English and 'la raza' have slightly different connotations. 'la raza' in Spanish emphasizes ethnicity to a greater degree than race does in English. But to say that those who translate 'la raza' to mean 'race' are wrong leads me to believe that the lady doth protest too much.

wikipedia says it literally translates to 'the race'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Raza

According to freetranslation.com, worldlingo.com, and my son who spent a semester abroad in Spain and just graduated two weeks ago from UK with a minor in Spanish 'la raza' translates to 'the race'.

I was hoping for Elena Kagan to get nominated. I believe she would have been about as good as a conservative could expect from the ultra-liberal Obama. She's got and undergrad degree from Princeton and a law degree from Harvard. She's been Dean of Harvard Law School.

I don't know if you can tell if an individual is the single best choice, but I think you can determine if a person is qualified and worthy of the position. I also believe you can see some gradations in how qualified and how worthy and individual is. For example, John Roberts had impeccable credentials and was extraordinarily impressive in his confirmation hearings. I believe it would have been extremely difficult to find a more qualified, better legal mind than his. I also believe it says a lot about Obama that as qualified and impressive as Roberts was, Obama found it in himself to vote against Robert's confirmation. The obvious conclusion is that Obama was more than willing to vote against a candidate because of ideology regardless of the qualifications or capabilities of that individual.

Many Native Americans served on both sides of the Civil War so I'm wondering if there is a Civil War Memorial for Native Americans and if so, was a wreath sent there? P.S. I dislike identity politics.

And that's not a bad thing!!!!!!!! I think it's great that people can go in whatever direction they wish. The problem with "being united" is that rarely are (nearly) everybody's interests the same. In normal times "being united" is often a euphemism for being forced to support what those in power wish.

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Ricci%2C_et_al._v._DeStefano%2C_et_al.

First, the African-Americal Civil War Memorial is only 10 years old so most Presidents never had the opportunity. Secondly, there were some African-Americans who were pressuring Obama not to send a wreath to the Confederal Civil War Memorial. Rather than create a controversy by breaking a long established tradition, Obama decided to create a new tradition by sending a wreath to the African-American Memorial.

The conservative matra and the truth are not mutually exclusive.

Therein lies that fallacy of Powell's argument. According to Powell, the Republican Party needs to do exactly what they did when they were soundly defeated. IMHO, Democrats would like nothing better than for the Republicans Party to reflect Powell's views because then your choice in every election would be between two Democrats, one from the liberal wing of the party (aka the Democratic Party candidate) and the other from the moderate wing of the Democratic Party (aka the Republican Party candidate).

Clyde, I can't wait for Obama to go to Africa and have a local witch doctor or shaman or whatever you want to call a local African tribal religious leader do something similar. I can almost read your "Palin did it too" post already.:lol:

I don't read a daily newspaper......I don't think that you have to in today's world....too much infomation is available online.

It's nothing that a good speech writer and a teleprompter couldn't fix.

I absolutely concede that the Nixon administration resorted to more dirty tricks than the Democrats of that era. As far as Valerie Plame affair, the facts in that case (as near as I can tell) say that the idea that it was a poltical dirty trick is a myth.

For the record, the CIA does not work for Congress, the CIA reports to the President. However, since the Congress does hold the purse strings, they have over sight responsibility and therefore they can poke their nose into the CIA's business to a certain degree. As far as should the CIA lie to Congress, that's a very good question. There should be some executive priviledge with the CIA, so the CIA should not be required to tell Congress everything. Otherwise, Congress would run the CIA and you have a separation of powers issue. So theoretically, there may be questions where the proper answer would be to politely decline to answer. However, practically speaking, it may be easier to lie than politely decline since some in Congress wouldn't be satisfied with a non-answer. That said, as near as I can tell, the CIA isn't lying and Pelosi is.

Do you have anything more than an accusation from Pelosi to substantiate that charge?

In the Pelosi vs the CIA war, I'll take the CIA. The CIA probably has the documentation to prove their side of the story. Also, even if the documentation is inconsistent, the CIA can selectively release only the documents that support their side of the story. IMHO, Pelosi made a big mistake in doubling down against the CIA. She needs to have another story take the limelight away from her.