Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (86822)	11/17/2004 7:53:40 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793757

Josh is trying to stir up trouble. Before John Bolton gets to try regime-change in Iran or North Korea, first he has to pull it off at Foggy Bottom. The latest intrigues from this evening's Nelson Report ... Since all Beltway Insiders really think people ARE policy, here’s the latest gossip from sources joyfully playing the game. In the foreign policy community, TOTAL focus is on whether Undersecretary of State John Bolton can force Secretary-designate Condi Rice to take him as the Deputy, replacing Rich Armitage. Bolton has been working Capitol Hill for support (not the kind of thing the Bush White House likes), and his former AEI colleagues are trying to create the image of a done deal. For example: rumors at State today have Bolton with his own list of new INR staffers, ready to clean house. Reality check: Rice has made it clear she is aware of, and does not want to endure, the leaks and separate agenda behavior which characterized Bolton’s service to Powell. Outsiders are portraying this as a “test” of whether VP Cheney is the “real” foreign policy boss, or does Condi truly have the mandate from President Bush that Powell never secured. Some “insiders” argue that to put it that way shows how little one understands the real play in the Bush Administration. For what it’s worth, Rice deputies are telling friends that she is not a neo-con, but a realist in the Scowcroft tradition, from whence she came originally. Probably not worth all that much. Remember, this is Condi we're talking about. But we'll see. -- Josh Marshall

To: LindyBill who wrote (86822)	11/17/2004 8:56:37 PM
From: Valley Girl	Respond to of 793757

I believe Catholicism teaches that the stories in Genesis are allegorical. Their truth isn't meant to be literal. This is true of most other "mainstream" Christian religions, too. Belief that the Earth is literally 5000-odd years young, that the Rapture is coming, that evolution did not give rise to mankind, etc., are aspects of so-called "fundamentalist" Christian religions. Public schools should teach generally accepted scientific fact, not religious beliefs. People who want their children to learn creation science should send them to a private school. To help as many of them as possible opt out of a system that teaches something they don't believe, they should get a voucher or tax refund for the money that the state would otherwise have had to pay to educate their children.

To: LindyBill who wrote (86822)	11/17/2004 10:38:31 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793757

Hard to believe that a Catholic would have any problem believing in both the Bible AND evolution. The Pope said they were not incompatible in 1996 ("Truth cannot contradict truth.") I realize that Althouse is talking about something which occurred in the 1960s, but Catholic paleontologist and theologian Teilhard de Chardin said they were not incompatible decades ago, in the 1920's and 1930's. I was brought up to look at evolution from the Teilhard perspective, and Althouse is about my age.