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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paret who wrote (730025)	3/7/2006 11:37:50 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 769670

very good.

To: paret who wrote (730025)	3/8/2006 1:57:14 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Well, if you want to get technical: Heat does not exist. Heat is merely a sensation we feel as a result of the energy of molecules vibrating at a higher frequency. In fact, we don't feel 'heat', but actually a out-of-normal-range amount of molecule vibration (in fact, our perception of 'cold' is exactly the same as 'heat', but on the other end of the scale). Light does not exist. What we sense as light is a perception of a very limited wavelength range of radiation in the form of streams of packetized photons. Many wavelengths are completely undetectable by our senses. So, heat and light don't exist, but are merely words that represent our need to reduce a complex concept into a singular but overly simplified answer. Might it not be the same with God?

To: paret who wrote (730025)	3/8/2006 2:13:51 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

Re: ""Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God." Quite a few implications in that, don't 'cha know....

To: paret who wrote (730025)	3/8/2006 10:43:32 AM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

God is another word for "the ultimate mystery of life". Or, some say, it's no accident "God" is almost the word "good", so maybe the "ultimate goodness in life". In other words, people who say God is this or God did that are totally full of it. God is just a concept we can't rationally define. Being the ultimate mystery, we mere humans can't even begin to theorize about what "God is", if he/she/it is even anything we can conceive of. Maybe God is just mystery. The big question mark, or a feeling in our hearts. Whatever. In any case, religious zealots have to take a big leap of faith, but once there, they all disagree about my God vs. your God and that's how wars start. Look around the world. Peoples' zealotry about "God" is one of the roots of evil in the world. What is evil? Evil is lies, dishonesty, arrogant pride, malicious acts, caring only about yourself, profiting on other peoples' pain, destroying nature, putting yourself above the law. Kind of like a lot of Bushie politicians, huh?

To: paret who wrote (730025)	3/8/2006 10:55:49 AM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 769670

Religious Right Implicated In Abramoff Corruption Scandal Abramoff Splits the Christian Right (54 comments ) READ MORE: Jack Abramoff, James Dobson, George W. Bush "He [Reed] got to Dobson who is going to mail Louisiana and get on the radio!" --email from Jack Abramoff to Michael Scanlon, 2/6/02 As the Jack Abramoff scandal unfolds, it is becoming increasingly clear how extensively he collaborated with the Christian right to advance his casino schemes. Ralph Reed was paid no less than $4 million by Abramoff and his Indian casino clients to serve as a liasion to the Christian right. Reed managed to lasso Focus on the Family President James Dobson into a series of campaigns to stamp out competition to Abramoff's clients. Though Senate subpeonaed emails seem to confirm that Dobson was manipulated by Reed and Abramoff, he and his employees have repeatedly claimed that his activism against rivals to Abramoff's clients was a complete coincidence. While I wrote about this for the Nation and Media Matters, there has been very little mainstream press interest on Dobson's role in Abramoff's schemes. So far, some of the best -- and most adversarial -- reporting on the Abramoff/Reed/Dobson saga is coming from the Christian media, namely from Marvin Olasky's World Magazine. As the former welfare guru to Gov. George W. Bush, Olasky coined the phrase, "compassionate conservatism." When Bush moved into the White House, he became the intellectual author of the Faith Based Initiative. Olasky's World Magazine is one of the largest evangelical publications in the country. On February 4, World published a critical expose of Dobson's role in a 2002 Abramoff campaign to stop expansion of competition to his client, the Coushattas. A World reporter grilled Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery about Dobson's involvement. Minnery responded incredulously that Abramoff was "trying to take credit for" what Focus was supposedly already doing in Louisiana. He refused to criticize Reed, even though Reed clearly manipulated Dobson. Two weeks later, Minnery and Dobson took to the airwaves in an attempt to defuse the conflict. Minnery claimed once again that "as it happens, we, Focus on the Family, we're fighting this new Indian casino in Louisiana at the very same time. Not because Ralph Reed asked us. Not because Jack Abramoff asked us." And he once again refused to criticize Reed. In fact, Minnery defended Reed, calling him "A wounded brother," who "regretted what he did, that he wouldn't do it again, and realizes that it was wrong." Minnery went on to attack Olasky's World: "They [World] have a reporter who wanted me to dump on ralph reed because of Jack Abramoff. I wouldn't do it. So in the story they wrote, the made it seem like I was covering up for Ralph. they terribly misused the interview I gave them, and in the letter I wrote them, I tried to set the record straight. They refused to print it. So maybe I'm overreacting. But it is tough when your friends criticize you for something that shouldn't be." Maybe Minnery was overreacting. Or maybe he was covering up for his old buddy Reed. In a follow-up piece for World, Olasky presented several Senate-subpeonaed emails between Abramoff and Reed showing Focus on the Family's involvement in their schemes. Olasky then suggested in as subtle a fashion as possible that Dobson and co. should come forward with the full story: "We hope that Focus on the Family will join us in insisting that Mr. Reed stop dodging and start explaining why his emails to Jack Abramoff stated that he was negotiating with Focus. Our sense is that Dr. Dobson is telling the truth, and our logical conclusion is that someone else was not." Writing on his blog, Olasky had harsher words for Reed: "If Reed had been transparent, he would have faced disagreement but would not now be facing disgrace. He has shamed the evangelical community by providing evidence for the generally-untrue stereotype that evangelicals are easily-manipulated and that evangelical leaders are using moral issues to line their own pockets." My sense is that this rift will deepen in the coming weeks as the mainstream press wakes up to its importance. Meanwhile, Focus on the Family will undoubtedly continue its face-saving effort, even if it means misleading both its supporters and the press. Dobson has been doing that for decades. Why should he stop now?