tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post113600765746326722..comments2024-02-24T11:50:55.413-08:00Comments on Lydia Cornell: HAPPY NEW YEARFans and Friends of Lydia Cornellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01512357844572930333noreply@blogger.comBlogger210125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1137022156641447082006-01-11T15:29:00.000-08:002006-01-11T15:29:00.000-08:00Another admission, for a Catholic, and a Tradition...Another admission, for a Catholic, and a Traditional Catholic at that, my Latin is horrible. I think you said this argument is foolish. If that is what you said, then quit the fight. I thought you did yesterday, I figured that was the end of it. We appear to have no audience anymore as everyone has gone to another discussion and I chose not to enter into it. But if you think ignoring questions posed gives you victory, I am disinclined to agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1137019256871243932006-01-11T14:40:00.000-08:002006-01-11T14:40:00.000-08:00I do not see how any of my comments can be conside...I do not see how any of my comments can be considered a defense of torture and execution. There are those that make this case, but I do not see how you can attribute my comments to that. You can repost them all you want, unless you explain how you see that I did, I will not understand. I will only say again that my comments do not defend the atrocities committed, and if you took them to mean that I condone such things, that was never my intent. <BR/><BR/>If you would like me to make the point I missed earlier, that some good came from the Inquisition, than I shall. I thought you were leaving off the fight, however, and I was trying to honor that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1137012963480663482006-01-11T12:56:00.000-08:002006-01-11T12:56:00.000-08:00Worfeus said,“I'm just posting facts, facts which ...Worfeus said,<BR/><BR/>“I'm just posting facts, facts which apparently do not sit will with your little Happy Valley view of the Catholicism.”<BR/><BR/>But you missed some. And the ones you missed I consider important. That is the “babblings of a child” in your mind. <BR/><BR/>And not just the facts, you reported, but also your own conjecture.<BR/><BR/>“Now I understand EVERYTHING you believe must be written by someone else in order to get your mind around it..”<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I want to see books. Unless you are really old you did not live during this time, and we must rely on the written history and archeological facts. <BR/><BR/>I can point out your contradictions, you have given me plenty of ammunition. I made the mistake at the beginning of thinking this was intellectual debate, not the fist fight as it apparently is. I left you alone thinking we were talking about the Inquisition, not my spelling (which I agree is horrible, this is why I use a spell checker for everything you see. It did miss the “seams” mishaps). <BR/><BR/>From the beginning, your first post here before I came in you said Jesus wrote “get a life” in the sand and you directed that at me. You have never attempted more elevated discourse that did not include a personal jab. This is why Anne Coulter says being nice to you guys is futile. I tried, look what happened. When I was pointing your argument out to Lydia, that was what I was saying. I was not telling my mommy, I was pointing out that Anne is right on this one, liberals are incapable of discussion with conservatives without insults.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1137008947933017042006-01-11T11:49:00.000-08:002006-01-11T11:49:00.000-08:00“….the just man will not be disturbed, whatsoever ...“….the just man will not be disturbed, whatsoever befalleth him from God. Even if an unjust charge be brought against him, he will not much care. Nor again will he vainly exult, if through others he be justly vindicated. For he considereth that I am He that searcheth the hearts and reins, Who judge not according to the outward face, and human appearance. For oftentimes that in My sight is found worthy of blame, which in the judgment of men is thought worthy of praise.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1137001723209361772006-01-11T09:48:00.000-08:002006-01-11T09:48:00.000-08:00Did you miss me or something?Worfeus said,“In fact...Did you miss me or something?<BR/><BR/>Worfeus said,<BR/><BR/>“In fact, it is estimated over 3 Million people suffered at the hands of the Inquisitors over a 500 year span, with more than 300,000 being burned alive at the stake.”<BR/><BR/>“What you are doing here, is trying to quantify these atrocities.”<BR/><BR/>Why bring it up in the first place if it is not that important?<BR/><BR/>“I have posted numerous valid references from numerous historical records and documents” but no books on the Inquisition. And I have asked for it, but never received. <BR/><BR/>My main point from the beginning was to show there is more to this history than has been put forth by many “historians”, and you are also leaving things out. That is all. <BR/><BR/>You have lost your faith in the church, that is between you and God. But with all your study you should understand, knowing the facts is not “making excuses.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136770901730319072006-01-08T17:41:00.000-08:002006-01-08T17:41:00.000-08:00Alright Worfeus. My spelling skills noted, do you ...Alright Worfeus. <BR/><BR/>My spelling skills noted, do you have anything to add to our discussion or no? For days you have been simply reposting my comments. There is nothing for me to say to that, as I already said stuff, and you are reposting it. Is that how my clock got cleaned? From now on I only must repost what others say and run around the room screaming “I win” like a 5 year old. Maybe the poems helped. I must admit, that was clever, but not very satisfying in terms of our discussion. Or I should say my discussion, since my words have been dominating these posts between us lately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136709271738804722006-01-08T00:34:00.000-08:002006-01-08T00:34:00.000-08:00Ah Worfeus, Marching proudly to another false conc...Ah Worfeus, <BR/><BR/>Marching proudly to another false conclusion I see. I had some family business to attend to this weekend. I came downstairs because I could not sleep. I figured your posts would help.<BR/><BR/>And, I like to have a life that does not include a light source inches from my face. You might want to try it sometime. A quick perusal of other blogs will quickly show that this is about all you seam to do. Post on Lydia’s site. Buddy, if you are not already on her party list, you will not be by posting more. Get some sun, it feels good. As much time as you spend in front of your computer your skin must be the color and consistency of bread dough. <BR/><BR/>Your spam and your cute poems are not scaring me away. And do not think avoiding my pointed questions gives you reason to call victory. It does certainly not. Freedom Fan can have some fun with you though. You should be easy fare for him, albeit a light meal. <BR/><BR/>PS. Reposting does not constitute new information and discussion. I asked you to refute my facts concerning the origins of the Inquisition days ago. We are all waiting with bated breath for it. Since my point was “old” and stupid, I figured this would be easy for you. Say something to that, or just drop the subject as you are apparently wont to do. But no clocks have been cleaned on my end.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136708658251173302006-01-08T00:24:00.000-08:002006-01-08T00:24:00.000-08:00Hey Worf, i'll be posting tomorrow evening for sur...Hey Worf, i'll be posting tomorrow evening for sure, i'd appreciate it if you could help me make a profile tomorrow, in fact, i had planned on asking you.<BR/><BR/>Funny, never thought i'd be posting on a political blog site, but I have been enjoying myself. How long have you been posting here, and how long has this site been up for?<BR/><BR/>MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136704078656364412006-01-07T23:07:00.000-08:002006-01-07T23:07:00.000-08:00Johnny Moo Moo -- sorry I haven't had time to post...Johnny Moo Moo -- sorry I haven't had time to post my Anne Frank response. I will get to it as soon as possible. God Bless you and your sweet daughter. Please pray for our soldiers everyone. xoxoFans and Friends of Lydia Cornellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512357844572930333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136698338146245612006-01-07T21:32:00.000-08:002006-01-07T21:32:00.000-08:00Why aren't you guys out drinking, smoking and slee...Why aren't you guys out drinking, smoking and sleeping around on a Saturday night? Aren't Republicans supposed to be hedonists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136698004632773522006-01-07T21:26:00.000-08:002006-01-07T21:26:00.000-08:00Take care Eric. Johnny moo mooTake care Eric. <BR/><BR/>Johnny moo mooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136697622583437182006-01-07T21:20:00.000-08:002006-01-07T21:20:00.000-08:00Well good luck with your reading Johnny. I gotta h...Well good luck with your reading Johnny. I gotta hit the hay.<BR/>Time for all good little conservatives to be tucked away in their beds.<BR/>LOL - yeah right!<BR/>As tigger would say "ttfn"<BR/>(ta ta for now)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136697277092033132006-01-07T21:14:00.000-08:002006-01-07T21:14:00.000-08:00Actually Eric , I have researched this rather well...Actually Eric , I have researched this rather well and I am convinced it is a factual account. Extremely detailed and vivid, how can a critic expect a young 16 year old "private" soldier in an ss division to remember exactly where he was on the broad front of the the Russian expanse. <BR/><BR/>This book is my bible. <BR/><BR/>Johnny moo mooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136696854832453672006-01-07T21:07:00.000-08:002006-01-07T21:07:00.000-08:00by the way Worf,Ain't it time to bump your post to...by the way Worf,<BR/><BR/>Ain't it time to bump your post to "big k" again? Hurry he may not see it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136696606835414622006-01-07T21:03:00.000-08:002006-01-07T21:03:00.000-08:00Also Worf,I happen to be a Star Trek fan as well. ...Also Worf,<BR/><BR/>I happen to be a Star Trek fan as well. Although I'm more fond of the old series. Kirk was a good Republican boy. (even if Shatner is not) Piccard seems to be more of a socialist.<BR/>In my opinion Rick Berman has really ruined the franchise ethically and morally if not financially.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136696489699745662006-01-07T21:01:00.000-08:002006-01-07T21:01:00.000-08:00Man, did I ever spell "lieutenant" wrong. I want t...Man, did I ever spell "lieutenant" wrong. I want to crawl under a rock and never show my face again.:| <BR/><BR/>Johnny moo mooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136696337710889112006-01-07T20:58:00.000-08:002006-01-07T20:58:00.000-08:00By the way Johnny,If the book was "Forgotten Soldi...By the way Johnny,<BR/><BR/>If the book was "Forgotten Soldier" it may not even be an actual account (seems to be some controversy over that) so you may not have plagiarized anyone at all....lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136695816012286032006-01-07T20:50:00.000-08:002006-01-07T20:50:00.000-08:00Thank you Johnny, I'm learning.Maybe if I can make...Thank you Johnny, I'm learning.<BR/>Maybe if I can make all the mistakes first an get 'em out of the way...lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136695419949669872006-01-07T20:43:00.000-08:002006-01-07T20:43:00.000-08:00Eric - I am no pillar of human perfection and, in ...Eric - I am no pillar of human perfection and, in my eyes you are forgiven whether this was a genuine mistake or not. <BR/><BR/>Actually, I may have plagiarized myself with "War is never a picnic". The author of the book I was reading was quoting from an unknown, half insane, german leuitanant? <BR/><BR/>Johnny moo mooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136693367101070712006-01-07T20:09:00.000-08:002006-01-07T20:09:00.000-08:00Im peeping for you Worfeus :} There is much substa...Im peeping for you Worfeus :} <BR/><BR/>There is much substance to what Freedom Fan is writing. I appreciate what he is saying about free enterprise and democracy,nevertheless, I applaud Lydia and Mike for an excellent job in presenting their very reasonable views/logic. <BR/><BR/>Johnny moo mooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136692845361881832006-01-07T20:00:00.000-08:002006-01-07T20:00:00.000-08:00Well Worf,I guess you'll have to forgive him,his b...Well Worf,<BR/><BR/>I guess you'll have to forgive him,<BR/>his being new to blogging and all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136684661169422142006-01-07T17:44:00.000-08:002006-01-07T17:44:00.000-08:00Sorry about that, i'm new to blogs, wont happen ag...Sorry about that, i'm new to blogs, wont happen again<BR/><BR/>MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136684498095186832006-01-07T17:41:00.000-08:002006-01-07T17:41:00.000-08:00Analysts: Bush spying rationale legally shakyMemo ...Analysts: Bush spying rationale legally shaky<BR/>Memo questions use of presidential power in wiretapping without approval<BR/> President Bush maintains he has constitutional and congressional authority to conduct domestic surveillance without court approval. <BR/>Ron Edmonds / AP file <BR/> <BR/><BR/> MORE• Analysts: Bush spying rationale legally shaky<BR/>• Most viewed on MSNBC.com <BR/>By Carol D. Leonnig<BR/><BR/>Updated: 12:17 a.m. ET Jan. 7, 2006<BR/>WASHINGTON - A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.<BR/><BR/>The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.<BR/><BR/>The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.<BR/><BR/>Story continues below ↓<BR/>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR/> advertisement <BR/><BR/>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR/><BR/>The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said.<BR/><BR/>The report also concluded that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force.<BR/><BR/> <BR/>• More U.S. news <BR/> <BR/>"It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here," the authors of the CRS report wrote. The administration's legal justification "does not seem to be . . . well-grounded," they said.<BR/><BR/>Lawmakers lash out at spy program<BR/>Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has pledged to hold hearings on the program, which was first revealed in news accounts last month, and the judges of the FISA court have demanded a classified briefing about the program, which is scheduled for Monday.<BR/><BR/>"This report contradicts the president's claim that his spying on Americans was legal," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the lawmakers who asked the CRS to research the issue. "It looks like the president's wiretapping was not only illegal, but also ensnared innocent Americans who did nothing more than place a phone call."<BR/><BR/>Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the president and the administration believe the program is on firm legal footing. "The national security activities described by the president were conducted in accord with the law and provide a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time," he said. A spokesman for the National Security Agency was not available for a comment yesterday.<BR/><BR/>Other administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the CRS reached some erroneous legal conclusions, erring on the side of a narrow interpretation of what constitutes military force and when the president can exercise his war powers.<BR/><BR/><BR/> Click for related stories <BR/>WP: Cheney cites justifications for eavesdropping<BR/>Homeland Security opening private mail | Vote<BR/> <BR/><BR/><BR/>A global, indefinite war?<BR/>Bush has said that he has broad powers in times of war and must exercise them to target not only "enemies across the world" but also "terrorists here at home." The administration has argued, starting in 2002 briefs to the FISA court, that the "war on terror" is global and indefinite, effectively removing the limits of wartime authority -- traditionally the times and places of imminent or actual battle.<BR/><BR/>Some law professors have been skeptical of the president's assertions, and several said yesterday that the report's conclusions were expected. "Ultimately, the administration's position is not persuasive," said Carl W. Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor and an expert on constitutional law. "Congress has made it pretty clear it has legislated pretty comprehensively on this issue with FISA," he said, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "And there begins to be a pattern of unilateral executive decision making. Time and again, there's the executive acting alone without consulting the courts or Congress."<BR/><BR/>Balance of power<BR/>Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the report makes it clear that Congress has exerted power over domestic surveillance. He urged Congress to address what he called the president's abuse of citizens' privacy rights and the larger issue of presidential power.<BR/><BR/>"These are absolutely central questions in American government: What exactly are the authorities vested in the president, and is he complying with the law?" Rotenberg said.<BR/><BR/>The report includes 1970s-era quotations from congressional committees that were then uncovering years of domestic spying abuses by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI against those suspected of communist sympathies, American Indians, Black Panthers and other activists. Lawmakers were very disturbed at how routinely FBI agents had listened in on U.S. citizens' phone calls without following any formal procedures. As they drafted FISA and created its court, the lawmakers warned then that only strong legislation, debated in public, could stop future administrations from eavesdropping.<BR/><BR/>"This evidence alone should demonstrate the inappropriateness of relying solely on executive branch discretion to safeguard civil liberties," they wrote. The lawmakers noted that Congress's intelligence committees could provide some checks and balances to protect privacy rights but that their power was limited in the face of an administration arguing that intelligence decisions must remain top secret.<BR/><BR/>Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.<BR/><BR/>© 2005 The Washington Post CompanyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136683655071032072006-01-07T17:27:00.000-08:002006-01-07T17:27:00.000-08:00What a great topic for the next Blog, I just read ...What a great topic for the next Blog, I just read an article on MSN about Bush Spying on americans this morning, in fact i'll paste it on here so people can read it.<BR/><BR/>MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1136683337865197032006-01-07T17:22:00.000-08:002006-01-07T17:22:00.000-08:00Freedom Fan, you do make some good points, and I t...Freedom Fan, you do make some good points, and I think you are a good guy basically, but there are alot of things you said that I dont agree with at all, that I would like to elaborate on and hopefully hear your response to my arguments. Only thing is my reply will probably have to wait till tomorrow evening, unless I get home early enough tonight.<BR/><BR/>I also agree with Worfeus, that although I dont know enough about these people to form a really educated opinion, I am not Teddy Kennedy or Hillary Clinton Fans either.<BR/><BR/>One thing try not to take offense to my posts and i'll do likewise to you, and try to listen to my arguments with an open mind and listen to what I am actually saying, not what you think believe or stand for.<BR/><BR/>MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com