home

Defending Karl Rove

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Off Topic
Posted on Sat May 05, 2007 at 08:32:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I find the critiques of Karl Rove from Jon Chait and Matt Yglesias regarding his envy of persons of faith strange. I guess I find it so because, as an agnostic, I agree with Rove when he says, according to Hitchens:

“I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.”

Chait and Yglesisas object to Rove viewing persons of faith as "fortunate." I ask why? Yglesias says:

I think it's not at all condenscending to say something like "I wish it were the case that my destiny were in the ends of a benevolent higher power." I could use the help! But what Rove [says] is different, and condescending, Rove is saying he wishes he thought the world were like that, but, sadly, he knows better.

How is Rove saying that? I know when I say it, I envy the serenity and yes, strength of purpose, persons of faith can have in their life path. I don't have that and I wish I did. How is that condescending? I can assure you that for me my envy is genuine. Remember, you can't choose to have faith, you have it or you don't.

< Did AP Stretch Traditional Notions Of Objectivity When It Repeated Giuliani Talking Points? | On Iraq: Anti-War Groups Bring Too Little, Too Late >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Defending Karl Rove | 91 comments (91 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Feeling all contemplative tonight? (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:09:44 PM EST
    You may truthfully be able to make the same statement as Karl and you are certainly right that we don't know Karl's state of mind when he made the statement. But I don't see how revealing your own reasons for making such a statement are at all helpful in interpreting why Karl would make the statement.  So I don't think it's much of a defense.  You aren't Karl and don't seem to be much like Karl. Fortunately for you.

    Rove is (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:27:48 PM EST
    a talented and cynical manipulator and user of people. Any that aren't useful in terms of helping him get what he wants he has no compunction about destroying. He enjoys it.

    IMO Rove saying: "I'm not fortunate enough to be a person of faith." means that he thinks religion is something that is... useful.

    Why Are These Men Laughing?

    "Sure, I know Karl," says one man who has worked on several campaigns with him. "At the end of long days, we'd always meet at one bar or another, everybody but Karl. Where's Karl? we'd wonder. The line was always `Oh, he's out ruining careers.' "
    Hitchen's stating that Rove is a non-believer (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by oculus on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:34:38 PM EST
    in Christianity makes me ever more convinced the Bush administration's wooing of the religious right is a fraud.

    Parent
    Is is a fraud. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:36:20 PM EST
    Have you read Suskind's article that I liked to above?

    Parent
    O.K., now I read most of it. Interesting. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by oculus on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:59:22 PM EST
    But does your comment mean that in addition to reading each and every word BTD has ever posted I now must also open the links in your posts?  Exhausting work.  

    Parent
    Tough life. ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:01:18 PM EST


    Parent
    I'll have trouble shaking the image (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by oculus on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:05:12 PM EST
    of Rove taking over the Christmas tree decorating.  What a bossy guy.

    Parent
    Suskind's article "Without a Doubt" (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:56:35 PM EST
    said just about everything that I think needs to be said about the Bush administration. They and their followers live in an alternate reality.

    Parent
    Yes. It was very good too. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:00:47 PM EST
    Here's another  quote from Why Are These Men Laughing? that shines a light on the kind of person Rove is:
    Rove was talking to an aide about some political stratagem in some state that had gone awry and a political operative who had displeased him. I paid it no mind and reviewed a jotted list of questions I hoped to ask. But after a moment, it was like ignoring a tornado flinging parked cars. "We will f*ck him. Do you hear me? We will f*ck him. We will ruin him. Like no one has ever fu*cked him!" As a reporter, you get around--curse words, anger, passionate intensity are not notable events--but the ferocity, the bellicosity, the violent imputations were, well, shocking. This went on without a break for a minute or two. Then the aide slipped out looking a bit ashen, and Rove, his face ruddy from the exertions of the past few moments, looked at me and smiled a gentle, Clarence-the-Angel smile. "Come on in." And I did. And we had the most amiable chat for a half hour.


    Parent
    Straight out of the Sopranos. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:09:07 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree with this. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:36:00 PM EST


    Parent
    maybe it is just my cynical nature, rising. . . (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by the rainnn on Sun May 06, 2007 at 05:01:14 PM EST
    . . .but i am completely mystified
    that anyone would take anything
    karl rove says about his spirit-
    uality, or lack thereof, seriously.

    every public word the man utters
    is premeditated to serve one or
    another of his agenda-items. . .

    so -- while i appreciate how
    earnest most of these 67-some
    comments are -- it is kinda'
    like talking about when the
    cubs will win the world series -- no,
    not just that -- more like "win
    the world series, for the tenth
    time in ten years    . . ."

    there is no path to
    there, from here. . .

    "here", being the
    supposition that karl rove
    earnestly believes in anything,
    save, of course, himself.


    Parent

    Makers of Reality (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:29:36 PM EST
    Karl is pointing out that the Machiavellian lifestyle is harder to bear than one of faith. People of faith luxuriate in their acceptance of destiny. That is enviable.

    It goes without saying that faithless Rove depends on the faithful. They are key in his Machiavellian scheme. This is where it gets bitingly ironic and somewhat condescending. They become the little people.

    Gosh (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:54:54 PM EST
    Why would anyone take anything Rove says as an honest statement of what he believes?

    Nice politic answer of his though to keep from off-putting the fundies.

    I've never understood where the virtue was in having faith in something your reason tells you is untrue, or at least unlikely. If God exists and created humankind, he created us with reason. To create us a certain way and then demand we go against our nature to believe would be an act of great perversity, even evil. The approach of Thomas always seemed to me to be the only one with any validity or virtue. "Prove it, then I'll believe." And proof can never be conclusive, just likelihood.

    Faith envy? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Al on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:47:03 AM EST
    I don't get the feeling that believers are generally serene, and have strength of purpose. Far from it, many are extremely sensitive to any perceived threat to their faith, and complain that disbelievers seem arrogant, or patronizing, just for stating their position. Not serene at all. Some true believers I know are filled with self-doubt.

    In my case, the realization that there is no God controlling anything has, surprisingly, brought me great serenity.

    Ditto (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:17:09 AM EST
    "Serene" may describe Catholics and mainline Protestants, but it is about 180 degrees from the snake-handlers and the tongue-speakers whom Rove caters to and is presumably speaking about. The American Taliban, the ones who bomb abortion clinics and firmly believe that they will physically float into the sky (sans dental fillings) any day now.

    I know what you're talking about, though. Back when I was a kid, my (apparently deeply flawed) understanding of Christianity was that if you did good things you went to Heaven. And if that was how most people of faith lived and thought, then the world would indeed be a much better place.

    However, they don't. Their "faith" is based on fear, on saving your skin from eternal torment and nothing else. You accept Jesus as your savior and you're free to lie, cheat, steal, and kill. And if you disagree with that characterization of Fundamentalist doctrine, then please explain to me why they continue to literally worship  George Bush as if he really were the second coming of Christ.

    Parent

    scar (1.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:50:09 AM EST
    Leaving aside your concern over those that represent a minuscule's minuscule of what the Left likes to think of as  the "Relglious Right".....

    What you refer to is salvation through work. The belief that doing good will save you. Doing good is expected, but as a result of faith and belief.

    Evil done by evil men who claim to be good is hardly new. I again refer to the history of the Reformation of the Catholic Church.

    I also find it notable that you appear to, as the anti-war Left generally appears to, be unable to understand and criticize strongly, the radical Moslems and their attempts to spread their version of the Islamic faith. Yet, at the same time, BDS seems to drive you to attack almost continuously Bush, who was elected and who will be gone in under 21 months.

    After Bush is gone, can we expect to see scar become a "Give OBL hell!" kind of person??

    Parent

    Spelling Muslim as "Moslem" (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    is archaic and deliberately provocative.

    Parent
    Also a slur (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:58:47 AM EST
    By now it must be intentional.

    Parent
    It is considered and received as a slur (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 03:51:00 PM EST
    Asian American Journalists Association
    AAJA Handbook Addendum
    All-American: How to Cover Asian America
    MUSLIM, MISUSES OF: Caution. The word "Muslim" refers to those who follow the Islamic religious faith, found in many countries and, increasingly, the United States. Most of the world's Muslims are found outside of the Middle East. Indonesia, for example, has the world's largest Muslim population. Nearly 90 percent of its 228 million people (July 2001 est.) are followers of Islam. The preferred spelling to use is "Muslim" rather than "Moslem." In the same way as the word "Hindoo" was used by the British to refer to Hindus, the word "Moslem" was used by them for Muslims. It was often used as a slur and therefore many Muslims consider "Moslem" to be a derogatory term. Under deadline pressure, American journalists sometimes use "Muslim" too broadly, as if it were a more specific official term, like Republican or GOP. Just as it would be a mistake to quote one Catholic group to represent all Catholic groups in Northern Ireland, it would be a mistake to say there is an overall Muslim position on any issue.
    I imagine white supremacists like to use it as much as they like using the "n" word. Intentionally.

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 04:21:53 PM EST
    white supremacists occupy the extreme bottom of the social and moral acceptance scale in the view of reasonable people, and probably harbor enormous irrational fears and insecurities because of it, or maybe they occupy it because of their enormous irrational fears and insecurities. Either way they are naturally revolting and offensive. Probably intentionally.

    One really has to wonder why they would intentionally denigrate themselves so much. Maybe they are revolted by their own offensiveness?

    Parent

    They are nearly (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 04:26:12 PM EST
    as offensive as Karl Rove.

    Parent
    They can get over it (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:30:19 PM EST
    I am not a journalist. Moslem is moslem as far as I am concerned.

    I try to refer to "radical" moslems so as to not tar others.

    Sorry, but if that isn't good enough...

    Get over it.

    Perhaps they will get more sympathy from me when I see a steady dose of corrections on the output from CAIR, and regular condemnations of things like this:

    16 year old girl hung

    Parent

    intentional slurs ... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Sailor on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:39:59 AM EST
    ... against religons and groups and individuals are all ppj has.

    That is, when he's not calling for assassinations and bomb strikes against civilians.

    Parent

    Get over it. (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:19:38 AM EST


    Parent
    Get over it. (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:20:22 AM EST


    Parent
    Nothing to Get Over (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:33:46 AM EST
    But it is duly noted that you are intentionally using a religious slur.

    Typical.  

    Parent

    squeaky (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:53:02 AM EST
    As my hero Col. Potter often said when faced with such nonsense:

    Horse Hockey.

    Read below.

    BTW - I notice that you don't even try to refute my central point. Instead you wander off on some tangent..

    Which means you can't refute it.

    Okay. I understand.

    Parent

    Given the Choice (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by squeaky on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:39:47 PM EST
    Between an offensive term and a non-offensive term, when it comes to Muslims, ppj will pick the offensive term.

    Parent
    squeaky (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:08:20 PM EST
    Perhaps Moslems should start to worry  that if everything is offensive, then other people start to get offended. See the "Boy Who Cried Wolf," etc.

    The Taliban found offense in the ancient statues of Buddha in Bamiyan, Afghanistan, and blew them to bits. These Moslems also found offense in several smaller and much easier to destroy ancient clay and wood-carved statues at the same location. All of these irreplaceable pieces of history were destroyed because some Moslems found them "offensive." Should the great pyramids of Egypt be destroyed if someone  finds them offensive?....

    In fairness, what Islam doesn't find offensive should be examined. Many Moslems did not find the murder of 3000 people on 9/11 offensive. Saddam Hussein, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of fellow Moslems, was not offensive. Forbidding the practice of other religions in an Islamic country is not offensive, while daring to question what might be going on inside a mosque in America is terribly offensive.

    Like this week's explosion of Islamic outrage over some ill-considered Danish cartoons, the reaction was nothing short of bizarre when seen in relation to the "crime." As a Jew, I get offended by anti-Semitic cartoons, crosses painted on synagogues, hateful rhetoric from the president of Iran, etc. Do I riot and attack Moslems? Do I allow myself to indulge in a self-immolating orgy of hatred and violence? (In case you haven't figured it out, the answer is "No.")

    Link

    And finally

    I think that Muslims are being over sensitive in this regard. The Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, USA has been publishing a journal `The Moslem World' since the beginning of this century and none of the Muslims of yester years ever objected to the title. In my opinion, they thought that this was a difference of accent merely and had nothing to do with the word Zulm.

    So let me know when we can talk about "offense" in a clear, rational manner.


    Parent

    Here (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:36:52 AM EST
    Muslim
    Arabic muslim, literally, one who surrenders (to God)
    1 : an adherent of Islam

    . Moslem - a believer or follower of Islam

    Link

    The ordinary word in English is "Muslim", also spelled "Moslem", pronounced 'mʊs.lɪm, also 'mʌz.ləm. The word is pronounced 'mʊslɪm in Arabic.

    Link

    Parent

    Moslem (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by squeaky on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:52:33 AM EST
    is equavlent to calling someone who is jewish, a dirty jew. That is why the common term today is Muslim. Unless your intent is to be insulting, Muslim is the accepted word for a practitioner of Islam.

    Parent
    squeaky (1.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:00:39 PM EST
    Not true in my circles.

    Get over it.

    I'll use the dictionary.

    In my opinion far too many Moslems (Muslims if it reduces your blood pressure) are sensitive about too many things.

    i.e. Checkers in grocery stories who won't check out  bacon... cab drivers who won't carry passengers who have alcohol.... cartoons that they feel "insulted" by....

    Then we have public schools that build "foot washers" with tax money... wanna talk about Church State separation?????

    What is happeneing here is a slow process of forcing Sharia law on the public, and thus allowing radical Moslems to force their beliefs on the public.

    So Moslem it was, and Moslem it will be, although I do try and always put "radical" in front when the comment is negative.

    Parent

    You make the same arguement (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by andgarden on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:11:55 PM EST
    as people who used to complain about kosher slaughter of cattle. You are quite obviously a bigot.

    Parent
    andgarden (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 04:08:36 PM EST
    The kosher slaughter of cattle has nothing to do with the subject. Where in Left Field did you get such an argument?

    That would be an act related to religious requirements done by people for consumation by people who feel a need for such food.

    The general public was/is not affected by it, and no one has the right to complain, although I guess someone must have based on your snarky unintelligent comment.

    We're speaking here of public actions by employees. No one is asking them to touch bacon in their private lives, drive drunks, play with dogs, etc..

    I trust you will not see the difference.

    As for you calling me a bigot, I think that merely shows that you are young, inexperienced and dumb.

    Grow up and see if you can debate.

    Parent

    Not true in my circles. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:40:26 PM EST
    That says it all.

    Parent
    Squesky - Indeed. (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 04:10:16 PM EST
    Yes. In my circles truth is a requirement.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun May 06, 2007 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    Leaving aside your concern over those that represent a minuscule's minuscule of what the Left likes to think of as  the "Relglious Right".....

    The Religious Right is all "rapture OUT, evolution IN" now? Well, thank God. I was under the impression that they were still bugf*ck insane.

    But, yes. I'm referring to salvation through work. I think it's an excellent social model; here I'm referring to the "noble lie" view of religion espoused by Lenin and Bill Kristol, that religion is A-OK and even preferable if it gives hope and public harmony.

    Instead, though, Bush's supporters believe in salvation through... belief in their own salvation. And that's it. That's where it ends. I did not hear one single discussion of Jesus's teachings in Jesus Camp. There was not one single mention of peacemaking; there were about 100 instances where the woman in charge spoke approvingly of war. Nobody criticized Ted Haggard's $50 million megachurch. And I've been told repeatedly by evangelical Christians that "Jesus's death was more important than his life." Translation: screw living the way Jesus said to live, my pastor has told me I'm saved, now it's time to put the screws to the poor and support wars of choice.

    You keep speaking approvingly about the Reformation. Well, I'm a Catholic. I think it's time the Fundies had one of their own. All agree that evangelical Protestants number over 100 million in this country, so I don't understand your attempts to sweep them under the rug. There's an awful lot of them (in fact, I believe they've even crept into the Oval Office) and their beliefs quite simply suck, and are harming this country.

    Here's an example from some apparent evangelicals explaining how they differ from those "weak" Christians.

    http://cyber-church.com/kcemc/emc-umc.htm

    People who consider themselves true Methodists and who find the gospel message central to life and eternity, who are tired of the Bible being relegated to second place in church life, who weary of a steady diet of social action issues, who believe in Jesus, His sinless birth and life, atoning death, literal resurrection and sure return will find a welcome haven in their local Evangelical Methodist Church.

    Evidently Jesus didn't say a word about social justice.

    Why do you bother defending these people? What good can they possibly bring?

    Parent

    scar (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:43:55 PM EST
    I was under the impression that they were still bugf*ck insane.

    And they are still under the impression that the Left is anti-America, anti-free speech, anti-Christ...

    At the margins both groups are correct.


    You keep speaking approvingly about the Reformation. Well, I'm a Catholic. I think it's time the Fundies had one of their own

    The "fundies" were created by the Reformatiom. And the modern ones are much nicer that the original...read some history..

    Parent

    Uhhh Dude (none / 0) (#30)
    by Sailor on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:05:33 AM EST
    After Bush is gone, can we expect to see scar become a "Give OBL hell!" kind of person??
    It's deadenders like you and mr 28% who don't care about OBL.

    And it's not

    a minuscule's minuscule
    when they are the ones in charge and pandering to the hateful, hypocritical, warmongering religious right.

    Parent
    sailor (1.00 / 2) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:06:04 PM EST
    "deadenders?"  

    That's funny. Let's see what I can come back with..

    "Its flatliners like you..." who can't figure out that Bush is passing on into history, while the radical Moslems don't have elections and are still dedicated to zapping "flatliners" like you..

    Yawn. Now that we have had the insult du jour, do you refute my point? Will the removal of the "Bush excuse" turn the Left into people who will be ready to defend the west.... culture...military...laws... etc????

    Parent

    Nonsense. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by dkmich on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:16:42 AM EST
    You have tons of faith.  Faith in yourself, which is the only kind of faith that counts. What you don't have is blind acceptance of or need for a security blanket.  Want to talk about condescending? The holier than thou words of Bill Ford on Bill Maher last Friday will do.  He stated he believes in evolution and then just had to add his support for the hand of "god" and how "stupid" it would be to deny that.  Please BTD, snap out of it!  Next thing I know you'll be sad you don't believe in UFOs.

    Big Tent? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    How about a post on "Defunding Karl Rove"?

    ;-)

    I second the motion (none / 0) (#51)
    by Freewill on Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    Madam Speaker, I second the honorable Edger's position on Defunding Carl Rove.

    I severely object to my tax paying money going to someone who blatantly wants me tagged as a terrorists, who wants to destroy my reputation, livelihood, and lifestyle, and who wants me placed behind bars and tortured into his version of the truth!

    Mine and millions other's tax paying dollars deserve more. That's why I support honorable Edger's motion to have Congress defund all activities Rove is associated with.

    Parent

    Take your statement to conclusion (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 03:17:04 PM EST
    Mine and millions other's tax paying dollars deserve more...

    I send my children to a private school.

    Can I have my school tax money back?

    I assume you are for vouchers.

    Parent

    Hi Jim (none / 0) (#67)
    by Freewill on Sun May 06, 2007 at 04:47:20 PM EST
    Don't get yer panties in an uproar! You have reminded me time and time again that I don't have any influence so my comments shouldn't strike so violently as they do. Why do you let my comments get to you? Wow, you are so easily influenced!

    To answer your questions: NO I'M NOT FOR VOUCHERS - Happy Jim?

    No, you may not have your tax money back from sending your children to a private school. You understood what you were doing when you sent them there and hopefully, based on the fact that you spout how intelligent you are, one could only surmise that you paid the tuition bills as they came in. Also, you had a choice. The beauty of this Country, you had every opportunity to send your children to a public school however, you CHOSE NOT TO. I'm sorry that the Private School you sent your children to didn't live up to your standards. Sorry that you are still that upset about something that happened 40 years ago that you, today, still whine about it. Please pass your experience lessons onto your Grandchildren so that they do not make the same mistakes that you did. As for sending your children to a private school in the first place, you knew the price before hand and as the old motto goes: "Buyer Beware"!

    Now Jim, reading some of your posts today I've noticed that you are a little more upset than usual. Might I suggest a nice tall glass of Prune Juice. This should help the constipation that you are experiencing and help solve your irritability problems.

    I hope you feel better soon Jim and I hope everything comes out alright! Your attitude today really could reflect negatively on your chances to become President Bush's War Czar. Yes, I agree, the Right's base does love a good hysteria breakdown out of their leaders every now and then however, if you continue at this pace I think your base's opinion of you might become disillusioned with you.

    As of right now I still honor my promise to you that I would allow you to use me as a reference for the War Czar position. Based on your very steady, unwavering loyalty to this Administration I truly believe you would make a great War Czar

    Yadda, Yadda, Yadda

    And as always:

    Save the Cheerleader - Save the World

    Parent

    Freewill (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:51:55 PM EST
    Uh... it's "panties in a wad..." Please get the slur correct.

    Hey, first Edger and et al wants to defund the war and you want to get your tax money back. I'm just trying to get in line...

    As for vouchers, you work in a prison... take a look around at the results of "public education."

    And where did I complain about the quality of the private school?? I didn't. I would like to see vouchers come out so everyone can have an equal opportunity for a quality education.

    As for "choice," are you saying choosing between two  "bads" is a choice??

    Excuse me, I must go. I just split my panties laughing so hard...

    Parent

    I have to agree with Edger, I also would like this (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Freewill on Mon May 07, 2007 at 07:30:30 PM EST
    war defunded. I also admired his humorous wit on the De funding of Carl Rove. How you switched the topic again from a topic on Carl Rove to a topic about School Vouchers is a talent served well by those who don't want to actually speak about the topic at hand. Not only do you constantly sound like this current Administration but you have mimicked their very style of debate avoidance. Switching the topic of conversation right in the middle in order to avoid the actual debate is a tactic employed by the dishonest, IMO.

    Why is it that on a topic about Carl Rove you insist on bring up your beliefs and prejudces against those on the Left who freely by way of the Constitution, state their stance on the War? Are you, by means of a Freudian slip, agreeing that this War and Carl Rove are one and the same?

    Somehow Jim, no matter what the topic you can always find a way to interject your hatred towards those who disagree with this war of deception. The topic can be Carl Rove and somehow you seem to find ways to bring up as many Right-wing talking points as you can and completely avoid the actual topic of the thread. Go figure, Independents who talk tough on national defense (just think J.F.K. Truman or who ever you boast about being like) sound amazingly like this Administration and its Media amplifiers.  

    And where did I complain about the quality of the private school?? I didn't. I would like to see vouchers come out so everyone can have an equal opportunity for a quality education. - Jimakappj 5/6/7

    Jim you were complaining about having to pay school tax even though you sent your children, 40 some years ago to a private school. I simply was stating, "Grow up, and stop living in the past"! You knew very well that you were going to have to pay a school tax and a private school tuition. You chose to go that route and now you want to whine about it? I'm sick and tired of hearing Republicans and some so-called, closeted Republican siding Independents whine about every damn issue possible. I, for once, want to see those who proclaim to be tough and brave stop whining like little sissies! Enough is enough. I thought you all were tough? Suck it up and do something constructive instead of whining all the damn time.  

    As for vouchers, you work in a prison... take a look around at the results of "public education." jimakappj 5/6/7

    Jim, yes I do work in a prison. However, stereotyping and classifying everyone who is incarcerated as coming from a "Broken School System" is a huge fallacy meant to distract the masses and to support one's own agenda by demonstrating fallacies to prove that they are correct! So, I guess you believe that the only reason people are in jail is because the school system failed them, correct? Oh, and all those C.E.O.'s who have found themselves behind bars were also graduates of the public school system? Hate to break this to you Jim, even are own current President and his numerous S.E.C. violations could have found himself on the wrong side of the law. However it was very fortunate that Daddy and Daddy's Bin Laden friends saved Jr's arse, time after time after time.

    I strongly oppose Vouchers! I strongly oppose private companies taking over functions that should be controlled and regulated by the government! I have no problems with private schools as long as my tax paying money does not go to fund them. I do not have children, nor do I want any. Do I gripe about living in a free country that believes it is every one's responsibility to help shape their communities and environments they live in? Nope!

    Let me ask you this Jim:

    Most Private Schools are run, sponsored or somehow affiliated with religions. Correct?

    Since you advocate vouchers for sending our societies children to private schools I then take it you don't mind your tax paying money going to Privately run Islamic Madrases here in the United States of America where we are all Free to practice our religion of choice? Is that your views on quality education?

    I personally believe they would be fine however, I would really like your input on tax paying vouchers for children to attend Islamic Madrases here in America.

    How about tax payer vouchers to send children to a Progressive Democratic School? Now, that's what I call a Quality Education!

    Parent

    It worked for me (none / 0) (#78)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:53:30 PM EST
    take a look around at the results of "public education."

    My public education seems to have worked as did my siblings', and my daughter's seems to be working.

    George W. Bush went to private schools.  'Nuf sed.

    Parent

    thread hijacking by ppj (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by ltgesq on Mon May 07, 2007 at 09:54:23 AM EST
    I've read the whole mess and nothing has anything to do with the post regarding Rove saying "he wished he was a person of faith" coming from the most reliable athiest reporter in the world, Christopher Hitchens.

    Alas, I do not believe there is an afterlife where mr. Rove can burn in hell.  Perhaps someday he'll get to go to a federal prison instead.

    I think it has something to do (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:47:44 PM EST
    with the fact that religious people can justify all sorts of quirky and unprovable ideas based on their faith. I assume that Chait and Yglesisas believe that Rove cynically wishes he could do the same. Knowing a little bit about Rove, I find it fairly easy to agree with that interpretation.

    Well (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:51:34 PM EST
    If you want to make up stuff not based ont he actual words of the one sentence Rove offered then by all means interpet away.

    The one sentence Rove stated says nothing like that.

    Parent

    It's not just the quote, I think (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:55:23 PM EST
    It's everything we know about him applied to this particular issue. A bit of crystal ballism, though, I agree.

    Parent
    Faith (none / 0) (#15)
    by RaveON on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:27:12 PM EST
    BTD,
    I don't want to go off into the weeds about faith or anything but my experience has been different from yours apparently. I think you can choose faith and it is not a matter of having it or not. Some may find it earlier than later (much later for me), but it can be found. "Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you.." became true for me. All you need is a little desire and a conscious choice to seek. No need to be envious, just open your heart in humility and ask. An answer will come. Forgive me if I sound like I'm preaching, I don't mean to.

    By the way thanks for all of your posts, I don't think I have disagreed with you about politics. Also, just for the record, the religious right gives people of faith a bad name IMHO. I simply don't see the conflict between Christianity (New Testament), and a compassionate progressive agenda, however, I definitely think organized religion needs to stay out of the political arena. I was very happy with our Constitution (pre-Bush) thank you very much. I long for the day when we no longer have to deal with Rove or his twisted world view.

    INteresting. But why exclude the Old (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:30:52 PM EST
    Testament?

    Parent
    oculus (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:29:09 AM EST
    It is generally believed that the Old Testament is fulfilled with the birth of Christ. So the Old Testament is very important as  "history" and "guidance," but the New Testament contains the basis of modern Christanity.

    That's a two sentence snap shot of a very large subject, so yes, there is much more to say.

    The Catholic church became corrupt, and finally was Reformed, starting with Martin Luther. Read some history and you will have a better understading of why Moslems happily kill each other.

    BTW - The Moslem faith has not been reformed, so in it we have a religion that has gone for a very long time without major change, and almost no modern influences.

    Like many groups the Religious Left picks out certain things they like, and ignore the rest. That doesn't make them evil, just paints them with the same brush that has painted the Religious Right.

    Parent

    Now you're an expert on Islam too? n/t (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:50:40 AM EST


    Parent
    andgarden (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:17:33 AM EST
    What is your point? I mean besides being disagreeable

    The Islamic faith has not gone through a reformation such as the Christain faith has.

    Parent

    no such animal ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:07:21 AM EST
    ... as the religious left. Just all the people of faith who don't use it as an excuse to start illegal wars and other form of terrorism.

    Parent
    Sailor (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:18:50 AM EST
    Of course there is such a thing as the Religious Left, just as there is a Religious Right, although both groups are greatly magnified in the eyes of the other group.

    Parent
    Hummm. Unitarianism? Not particularly (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:41:45 AM EST
    Christian, although it is a truly "big tent."

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#75)
    by Sailor on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:15:42 PM EST
    Of course there is such a thing as the Religious Left
    No, and you can't name one becauses it doesn't exist. There are many people of many religions and many people with no religion who think that torture is wrong, lying is wrong, killing is wrong.

    there is a Religious Right
    yep, and bush, pat robertson, ppj, et al are proud members of it.

    They think torture is OK, lying is OK, killing is OK.

    Jesus wept.

    Parent

    Sailor - You are funny (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:03:01 AM EST
    There is no religious left?

    Good heavens man, do you think the world can't go to  Google and type "religious left?"

    You're a case, Sailor. You try to ignore troll comments by your buddies and then claim something aint true that shows 29,100,000 hits on Google.

    Heck. Some of them aren't even all that peaceful.

    Five nuns were released from jail Sept. 15 after felony charges were dropped for a protest attack on a fighter jet and satellite communications system during an air show at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado.

    Now they are about to abandon the simple life in a convent for the austere life in a prison. Sister Dorothy Marie Hennessey, who is 88, and Sister Gwen L. Hennessey, who is 68, have been sentenced to six months each in a federal prison -- the maximum penalty -- for trespassing at a United States military school that trains Latin American soldiers.

    Parent

    onec again for the mentally challenged (none / 0) (#87)
    by Sailor on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:38:21 AM EST
    there are religious people who believe that torture, murder and illegal wars are wrong. The religion can be any religion. There are also many agnostics and atheists who share those beliefs.

    They are not lockstepped, torturing, murdering warmongers WHO ARE THE BASE OF THE RETHUGLICAN PARTY. Those folks self-identify as religious right, and they are all wackjob 'christians.' The other folks are just religious.

    As the unofficial title of a loose association of believers, it does provide a clear distinction from the more commonly known "Christian Right" or "Religious Right" and its key leaders and political views.


    Parent
    I detect a condescending tone here. (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:45:11 AM EST
    True scholars of Christianity require both the old and the new testaments.  

    Parent
    oculus (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:54:29 PM EST
    True. I said it required a lot more discussion.

    i.e. The 10 Commandments, as the word of God, go beyond "history."

    Parent

    Check this out: (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:53:05 AM EST
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/world/europe/05briefs-chimp.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    Faith is a matter of choice (none / 0) (#22)
    by LimaBN on Sun May 06, 2007 at 06:47:57 AM EST
    I believe faith is a matter of choice.  

    One could well conclude that the belief "one either has it, or one does not," is a conclusion based temporarily surrendering to the difficulties involved in making the decision.

    If one does not have faith, why bother to fight Rove?

     

    Faith as fortune (none / 0) (#26)
    by RSA on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:38:23 AM EST
    "I'm not fortunate enough to be a person of faith."

    I think a reasonable implication of this view is that people with faith are more fortunate than people without, and that, if magically offered a choice, a person who holds this view would trade atheism or agnosticism for faith.  (Does anyone turn down something described as "fortunate"?  Only if they think it's not really fortunate.)  I mean, sure, I might say I envy a child's belief in Santa Claus, but I don't really mean that children are more fortunate than me because of their belief.

    Children are more fortunate for that belief (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:54:20 AM EST
    And the addition of choosing is what makes your point an empty one imo.

    See my last sentence in my post.

    Parent

    "Magical choices". . . (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by RSA on Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:48:36 PM EST
    are thought experiments rather than reality.  Of course we don't have a choice in faith (at least in my opinion--I agree with that last sentence).  My point was to ask why anyone would turn down a benefit, in principle, if they considered it to be "more fortunate" than the position they're in.  Maybe it's just a disagreement about the nature of fortune; I wouldn't say, "Convicts are fortunate enough not to have to deal with the pressures of normal society in the world outside," or "Terminal cancer patients are fortunate enough not to have to worry about the future," but I suppose some people might.  These just don't seem to be reasonable observations, and I think they fall into the same category as not being fortunate enough to be a person of faith.

    Parent
    Sarcasm intended (none / 0) (#49)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:40:53 PM EST
    In my opinion far too many Moslems (Muslims if it reduces your blood pressure) are sensitive about too many things.

    i.e. Checkers in grocery stories who won't check out  bacon... cab drivers who won't carry passengers who have alcohol.... cartoons that they feel "insulted" by...

    Well those are certainly excellent reasons to hate them.

    Far too many? By what measure?

    Che (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 03:14:00 PM EST
    Why do you assume that disagreeing with someone equals hating them?

    Is your skin so thin that when I say I disagree with you, you believe I hate you??

    Really Che, you aren't that important in my world.

    My point regarding the proclivity of some to:

    a. Worry about the sensitivities of Moslems

    b. And some Moslems to try and be "offended"

    remains. This is a secular country. If you want to live here, assimilate into the culture and check out the bacon, drive the drunks to their destinations, don't worry about dogs and if you want to wash your feet, don't ask your fellow citizens to pay for it.

    It's called "go along to get along." Really not complicated at all.

    And BTW - Millions of Moslems, Mexicans, Chinese, etc, do it with no problem.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Sun May 06, 2007 at 03:24:53 PM EST
    so you'll have no problem with removing the religious language from our currency, right?

    Parent
    andgarden (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 03:35:40 PM EST
    And the answer is....

    Wait!!!!!

    I just finished writting three comments or so saying that if you move here to accept what is here and quit trying to force your culture/laws on us and you ask that???

    Good grief. Surely you can't misunderstand that.

    Plainer.

    If I moved to Iran I would be happy to accept what ever was written on their currency......

    I expect the same of each and every person who moves here.

    Does that answer your question??

    Parent

    I'm asking about (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Sun May 06, 2007 at 03:44:58 PM EST
    This is a secular country
    Surely you must understand my question.

    Parent
    andgarden (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 03:57:04 PM EST
    And you think that having:

    "In God We Trust" on our money trumps our Constutution??

    Do you think that means we aren't a secular country?

    You are as sensitive as the Moslems I was referring to.

    Again, good grief. That's a middle school question/claim.

    Parent

    establishment clause problems (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by andgarden on Sun May 06, 2007 at 04:01:40 PM EST
    Your continued use of an offensive form of a word suggests to me--again-- that further discussion with you is pointless.

    Parent
    andgarden (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 04:20:08 PM EST
    Then please feel free to remain as uninformed and biased as you desire.

    BTW - I would offer you a challenge.

    Prove to me that my use of Muslim instead of Moslem will result in any radical Moslem changing their stated desire to kill me and mine and rule the world.

    You did read Peter Arnett's 3/97 interview with OBL, didn't you? I have provided it several times.

    Please pay attention OBL's answer to Arnett's question:

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ..

    OBL: ..... So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.



    Parent
    Re: their stated desire to kill me (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 04:33:24 PM EST
    Can you blame them?

    ::aggressive intervention:: is what he was talking about there.

    "I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy." "The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams."
    ...
    "And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."
    Why do you do this to yourself?


    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:57:37 PM EST
    Then Israel should be at war with Germany??

    Quit defending a radical killer, edger.

    You'll look a lot better.

    Parent

    Defend you? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:44:13 PM EST
    I honestly don't recall ever trying to defend you, Jim.

    Parent
    Or Rove. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:46:25 PM EST


    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:51:03 PM EST
    edger, we know you.

    BTW - Why are you never concerned with the killing of Jews and Americans??

    Parent

    I've been very concerned about and opposed to (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Edger on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:57:24 AM EST
    the Iraq debacle since before it started Jim, precisely because of all the Jews and Americans, and Iraqis too, whose deaths you and other radical killers have caused with your non thinking support of it. Is that the royal "we" you refer to above?

    You do know that you radical killers have killed more Americans by invading Iraq than died on 9/11, don't you Jim, and that Bush could not have invaded with your support? And that the cause of 9/11 and the deaths of Americans that day is traced directly to the hegemonic murderous US Foreign Policy in the Mid-East that you love so much?

    Are you telling me that you are finally becoming concerned with the deaths you radical killers cause? You're sorry and you want forgiveness now, Jim?  

    You think this is sunday school or something, Jim?  Why do you do this to yourself?


    Parent

    Jesus, Jim (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:04:57 AM EST
    Even your hero Karl Rove is expressing some angst over these things, and wishing he had religion, or morals, or something.

    Parent
    All we are is (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edger on Mon May 07, 2007 at 09:51:08 AM EST
    Dust In The Wind

    Parent
    Jim please refresh my memory (none / 0) (#90)
    by Freewill on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:05:35 PM EST
    When did the U.S. start placing references to God on its currency?

    "In God We Trust" on our money trumps our Constutution??

    Just wondering which came first? Money, The Constitution, or the Motto?

    Parent

    Freewill (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:25:14 AM EST
    And what does that have to do with anything?

    Do you believe that makes us a theocracy dominated by people of Faith such as Bush and Rove??

    ;-)

    Who will you folks complain about if you get lucky and win in '08??

    Parent

    edger (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 07, 2007 at 08:14:45 AM EST
    If you are friend of Israel......

    Disagreement = Hatred etc (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Mon May 07, 2007 at 10:31:51 AM EST
    From the guy who's done nothing but caterwaul about "Bush haters" and about how many people here "just hate Bush", ad nauseum.

    Jackdaw of disengenuity, heal thyself.

    Defending Karl Rove | 91 comments (91 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment