Even the value of "everything"???

Most likely explains why carter wont debate him. Carter couldnt beat him.

Figures. Has the inside track on personal lives.




Everything, anything, nothing. Unless you're omniscient you really don't know the true value of anything.


http://www.time.com/time/community/transcr...dershowitz.html

Total_Package27 asks: How can someone be found innocent in a criminal trial and then be found guilty in a civil trial?
Alan Dershowitz: Simpson was neither found innocent in the criminal trial nor was he found guilty in the civil trial. He was found "not guilty" in the criminal trial, which is very different from innocent. Several jurors -- both white and black -- believed that he probably did it but that the police planted evidence against him and lied. And they were unwilling to convict on the basis of perjurious and tampered evidence.
In the civil case, he was found "liable," which is a very different standard from guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So the two verdicts are perfectly reconcilable. We may find a similar result in the Louima case. The defendants who were acquitted in the criminal case may well be found liable in a civil case.

The issue is not about "winning debates".

That's Carter's message.

Maybe Carter is prepping Kerry to take over the "unofficial ambassador to nowhere" role.

Geez space go back and read the article again. Carter is calling for a debate ABOUT ISRAEL. Then when asked to debate dershowitz the elitist declined because dershowitz doesnt know anything about the subject.

As long as he goes to nowhere and stays there.

If you don't know their values, then to what would those things be relative??

Free time during the day while hubbie's out earning a paycheck.



Carter is calling for "debate" meaning a discussion about Palestine.

He want's others to debate.

Yup.

And he'd then hang around the debators like some kind of weird political version of Don King??

If you knew for sure their value they might be static. Otherwise I figure they must be relative. By deduction. Granted, you could argue either way, but my general position is everything is relative, and only God knows how much so.

I think Carter still has enough hair for a nice Don King doo.

A couple screwdrivers and a wall socket we could find out.

Relative requires the static. It's one of them "paradox" thingys.

I'd never try to argue that everything is relative. Or worse, that nothing is absolute.

OTOH, what is nothing, if not an absolute?

Ah yes. The one person who they thought they could trust. A user, a religious manipulator.

Hope he got his ass kicked.






And I haven't liked Dershowitz since.

As do my taxes.


They largely go to fund highly efficient gubmint programs like medicare, as well as the infrastructure you use everyday and the defense you depend upon to protect your capital.

As far as feelings are concerned, you appear to be arguing from yours as logic isn't readily apparent in your rant.


As I am neither a non-giver, nor a believer in jack-booted thugs that confiscate anything but a fair share of everyone's wealth, you are just wrong. How many times must I point that out?

How much have you contributed this Christmas to charity again? Oh, that's right, you are going to rather ridiculous lengths to avoid adderssing any of my questions or points. Is that "fair?" I've addressed yours, even as I point out that they ARE dodges.



Oh, but I do. Don't you assert, quite often, that I am the queen bee of "the collective?" You yourself gave me that right.

There is no "tyranny of the majority" in this country. If that was so, useless drones such as yourself couldn't sit idle and rely on unearned wealth. You'd have to work like the majority.

Your idea of "fairness" is akin to Ebaneezer Scrooge's BEFORE he got the Christmas spirit.



Now, now, letting your feelings get the better of you once again? This is hardly about your fantasy of being John Galt and realists like me laughing hysterically at that notion. It's about the fact that you claim to be something you aren't and so far your ludicrous and hysterical replies have simply proven my point.

As far as delusional, quoting the source of your supposed beliefs hardly qualifies as delusion. Ignoring the source of your own beleifs is delusional.

The rest of your rant concrning my beliefs is pure fantasy.

Nice job buntsy.



Well as he gets his political philosophy from fiction, (Atlas Shrugged) and his understanding of Global science from fiction (State of Fear) is it any wonder that he engages in it?

I'd say he's gone from fiction to fantasy, however.

But he was right. If you start convicting people on planted evidence and lies you get the same thing you complain about in Iraq. He was just making the correct point as to why OJ was acquitted.

I have seen him on many shows to know I don't like him. Having said that, if you were in trouble I would assume if he can get OJ Slashson off the hook he could help anyone. He must be good. But I still don't like him.


How does that relate to Iraq?

Dude, that would have been a good point, had ANY evidence, actual evidence, been produced that any such planting had been effected.

I understand that in a criminal trial, the job of the defense is to create reasonable doubt by any legal means necessary.

Still, how does that qualify Dershowitz to 'debate' Carter on Palestine and Israel?

Former Congressman Bob Barr Accepts Leadership Position within the Libertarian Party


Barr to officially serve on Libertarian National Committee as regional representative of southeastern states


(Washington, D.C.) On Tuesday evening, former Congressman Bob Barr, a Life Member of the Libertarian Party, was offered the position of Regional 4 Representative of the Libertarian National Committee.



The state chairs of Region 4, which is made up of Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama met via teleconference to discuss the matter after the recent resignation of Mark Bodenhausen for medical reasons.



The state leaders enthusiastically endorsed Barr as their representative to lead them into the 2008 presidential election season.



In addition to having served eight years in the House of Representatives, Barr serves as a Board Member of the National Rifle Association and is Chairman of Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances. He also is a member of The Constitution Project’s Initiative on Liberty and Security at Georgetown University. He advises a variety of public policy organizations, including the American Conservative Union and the American Civil Liberties Union. Barr is President and CEO of Liberty Strategies, an Atlanta-based consulting firm with offices in the Washington, DC area. He practices both civil and criminal law.



LNC Chair William Redpath stated, "Bob Barr's willingness to serve as a leader of the Libertarian Party represents a significant and positive development for our organization. The Libertarian Party played a pivotal role in key races in 2006 and has emerged as a strong and principled political force."



Redpath continued, "The antiquated two-party system was dealt a blow today as we have welcomed a patriotic statesman into our ranks with the intent of using his vast experience and widespread respect to help recruit and elect Libertarian candidates of his caliber."



Barr's first official action as LNC representative will be to organize a meeting with state party leaders to address party building and political goals for 2007.



After accepting the position, former Congressman Barr stated, "I'm pleased to assist the Party of Principle in this capacity and hope to further our political success as we move closer to the 2008 election cycle. Being a member of this body is a serious and long-term commitment that I gladly accept. As importantly, I'm happy to announce that I am now a proud, card-carrying Libertarian who is committed to helping elect leaders who will strive for smaller government, lower taxes and abundant individual freedom. I encourage other Americans from across the political spectrum to join me."



For more information on the newest representative of the Libertarian National Committee, see www.BobBarr.org.

http://www.lp.org/media/article_447.shtml

What is a Libertarian???

http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml

I don't care for him either, and how does him relating to Iraq relate to Malaise Carter?




Nope, but I blame the judge and prosecution, not the defense for OJ getting off.



It doesn't, or mean Carter ought to have to debate anyone he doesn't want to.

Ok, then, we're in agreement.

I do partly blame the jury in the criminal trial, though. Just a bit.

Thanks for posting this Sherry. When I'm not so exhausted (as I am now) I want to check out the references provided. I would not be surprised if this country wasn't about ready for a huge shake up of political parties. I think I heard this afternoon that Evan Bayh decided not to try 2008.

You have to remember the judge kept a lot from them that the rest of us heard. Star power was the extra push.

Your taxes go primarily to overpaid under worked incompetent gubment bureaucrats... Once the Ds in Congress get rolling on them refundable tax credits... an increasing amount of your taxes are going to go to me... you will rest better I am sure knowing that finally someone is actually making good use of them... Just read over Senator Wydens Universal Healthcare plan. I get refundable tax credits for my health care insurance premiums under his proposal... that's gonna be sweet... and only the start...

Your protests are but a whisper to you usual screaming rants of how you been wronged and you gubment gonna fix it all for you... sadly it was your gubments policies that led to your various issues.... you gonna stick with it though.. just some more gubment and everything gonna be alright.... Here's a tip for you I know you would never take... waiting for someone else to fix your life just ain't gonna get it done...

That charitable giving survey nailed you perfectly... not your responsibility...gubment gonna tax somebody else to fix it... You are already paying your fair share no matter how much additional gubment you demand.... did it take long for you to pose for the cover of that survey as the prototypical progressive?

I get my political philosophy from living my life and using my engineer training to learn what really works and what really doesn't work.... No question your gubment bureaucrat run utopia only is a better option for those who like you cannot do for themselves... your life is just so unfair for you... As for global warming... I am actually an engineer... I look for climate facts... not politically driven data from unvalidated models made by folks looking for their next gubment grant... which you gladly pay... just another waste of your money... and as it is probably not anymore of a waste than what you would have done with it... it is still a principle of mine that as poorly as you would manage it ... it should still be yours to manage...

So lets review... my life is great and getting better every day... don't matter which party is in office... don't matter how incompetent the gubment bureaucracy becomes... it's all good... You on the other hand... you just got a long list of problems and everyday you wake up hoping some gubment official somewhere might take the time to make your problem a little less of a problem... that's gotta really suck for you...

Pure claptrap.

Your rant still doesn't contradict my assertion that you aren't a libertarian.

You are having a rather public temper tantrum. You sure don't sound too happy buntsy.

...quite the comeback for daBee... less is definitely, well not more, but not quite so much less for you...

...poking at you is just one of many amusements I have experienced today...

... your assertions require no response... let me know when you find them good gubment libertarians thought... they just got to be out there... surely they are...

... not as much fun poking the Pengi when your were in hiding prior to the last election... you are going to be sooo disappointed in them... I really look forward to that...

Oddly enough, I heard some reports this PM that compared the US economy today - the CPI specifically - to the CPI's under Carter.

This quarters being the worst since then.....

I have a hunch that it's just the beginning for this administration too.

You guys are gonna get shrub down to the bottom with all your support for him yet.

First liberal on this thread to admit that it was bad under malaise carter.

they love jimmy but hate booosh.

Looks like michael moore and the lefties overlooked carters ties to saudi arabia............

Jimmy Carter and the Arab Lobby
By Jacob Laksin
December 18, 2006
FrontPageMagazine.com

<More Here>

Nothing demonstrates more clearly the defects of Jimmy Carter’s latest brief against Israel, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, than the ex-president’s reluctance to defend the book on its merits. Rather than take up that unenviable task, Carter has sought to shift the focus away from the criticism -- especially as it concerns the book’s serial distortions and outright falsehoods -- and onto the critics.

In particular, Carter claims that critics are compromised by their support for Israel, their ties to pro-Israel lobbying organizations, and -- a more pernicious charge -- their Jewish background. In interviews about his book, Carter has seldom missed an opportunity to invoke what he calls the “powerful influence of AIPAC,” with the subtext that it is the lobbying group, and not his slanderous charges about Israel, that is mainly responsible for mobilizing popular outrage over Palestine. In a related line of defense, Carter has singled out “representatives of Jewish organizations” in the media as the prime culprits behind his poor reviews and “university campuses with high Jewish enrollment” as the main obstacle to forthright debate about his book on American universities. (Ironically, when challenged last week by Alan Dershowitz to a debate about his book at Brandeis University, which has a large Jewish student body, Carter rejected the invitation.)

Bluster aside, Carter’s chief complaint seems to be that anyone who identifies with Israel, whether in the form of individual support or in a more organized capacity, is incapable of grappling honestly with the issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. But Carter is poorly placed to make this claim. If such connections alone are sufficient to discredit his critics, then by his own logic Carter is undeserving of a hearing. After all, the Carter Center, the combination research and activist project he founded at Emory University in 1982, has for years prospered from the largesse of assorted Arab financiers.

Especially lucrative have been Carter’s ties to Saudi Arabia. Before his death in 2005, King Fahd was a longtime contributor to the Carter Center and on more than one occasion contributed million-dollar donations. In 1993 alone, the king presented Carter with a gift of $7.6 million. And the king was not the only Saudi royal to commit funds to Carter’s cause. As of 2005, the king’s high-living nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, has donated at least $5 million to the Carter Center.

Meanwhile the Saudi Fund for Development, the kingdom’s leading loan organization, turns up repeatedly on the center’s list of supporters. Carter has also found moneyed allies in the Bin Laden family, and in 2000 he secured a promise from ten of Osama bin Laden's brothers for a $1 million contribution to his center. To be sure, there is no evidence that the Bin Ladens maintain any contact with their terrorist relation. But applying Carter’s own standard, his extensive contacts with the Saudi elite must make his views on the Middle East suspect.

High praise for Carter’s work -- and not inconsiderable financial support -- also comes from the United Arab Emirates. In 2001, Carter even traveled to the country to accept the Zayed International Prize for the Environment, named for Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, the late UAE potentate and former president-for-life. Having claimed his $500,000 purse, Carter enthused that the “award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan al-Nahyan.” Carter also hailed the UAE as an “almost completely open and free society” -- a surreal depiction of a rigidly authoritarian country where the government handpicks a select group of citizens to vote and strictly controls the editorial content of the newspapers and where Islamic Shari’a courts judge “sodomy” punishable by death. (To appreciate the depth of Carter’s cynicism, one need only compare his gushing encomia to the emirates with his likening of Israel, the most modern and democratic country in the entire Middle East, with the racist “apartheid” of South Africa.)

On top of these official honors, Carter was offered a forum at the Abu Dhabi-based Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow Up, the country’s official “think-tank.” For his part, Carter declared his intention to forge a “partnership” with the center; in a 2002 letter, Carter praised its efforts to “promote peace, health, and human rights around the world.” Inconveniently for Carter, the center has since become famous for a different reason: It has repeatedly played host to anti-Semitic speakers who have denied the Holocaust, supported terrorism, and alleged an international conspiracy of Jews and Zionists to dominate the world. (Harvard University, in contrast to Carter’s enthusiasm for Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, rejected a $2.5 million from the ruler in 2004 due to his ties to the Zayed Center.)

If you pick around enough there is almost always a bad stat to point to. It's impossible to have everything moving in a positive direction at once as there are contradictions in economics.

Too bad for Carter prices were the least of his problems.




How many Dems have ties to Arab firms like the Dubai ports?

No one in American political life is closer to the Saudis than the Bush clan.

Just go look at the wall at the Bush Library and who chipped in.

You'll have to go there, they aren't all on the website these days....

" First liberal on this thread to admit that it was bad under malaise carter."

Bull !

Yeah, I was comparing the winter in Auschwitz to the winter in South Dakota...Folks in Auschwitz had it pretty good.

And they sit on the biggest oil deposits in the mid east. Should we make them enemies?

You failed to distribute the middle term of your syllogism again - a constant error of the false, invalid, and ignorant argument.

You do this all the time.

I'm not complaining, really, but I thought it would only be fair to point it out, since you waste bandwidth looking like a fool every time you do this.

Which is a LOT of the time.

We could just take it away from them.

more like bellyachin........

Perhaps you could supply a link to these reports, as you are so wont for others to do.

I believe he meant the House of Saud.

We can make enemies of whoever the fark we want in that part of the world. Who's going to stop us?

We can depose the House of Saud tomorrow if we chose to.

No, you're just not bright enough to realize how good an example it was.

You implied that finding a quarter cpi better under Carter than Bush suggests the superiority of the Carter years. Finding a milder winter in Auschwitz than in the Dakotas suggesting a better lifestyle for the prisoners highlights the excluded conclusion ...the inanity of initiating such obtuse comparisons.


You probably won't understand this either but wasting bandwidth should not be on your list of concerns.

Hardly Bub.

Pointing out the CPI between two American Presidents is a valid comparison.

Pointing out the weather between Free South Dakota and Imprisioned Jews in Europe, isn't. It is utter BS that confirms your lack of logical or coherent thought.

You do this insane poopy all the time, and you are a waste--let alone the bandwitdth your idiocy takes up.

yes'm

Yes, yes. Everyone knows how happy you are buntsy. You insist on it in every post. I was hardly in "hiding," I was actively involved in getting out the vote, and my efforts were adequately rewarded, thank you.

You're a one sour note kinda guy. You still haven't demonstrated that you are anything beyond a neo-conservative, IOW a me-firster that uses the somewhat weak libertarian economic models to justify their own selfishness.

Unless that is tempered by social libertarianism, you just can't consider yourself a libertarian, because you aren't.

Now have another temper tantrum over that. It won't change a thing.

How many times do you need to be shown up before you tone down your self-congratulatory and patronizing attitude?

Somehow, someone convinced you that you're a good analytical thinker, and that you understand logic. I hope it wasn't someone that you paid. If so, you should request a full refund.

Perhaps you might indicate where my logic failed. Be as verbose or as brief as you desire and if you can do it successfully I will pay you by the word... If not, you can pay me.

Weak Analogy
Alias:

* False Analogy
* Faulty Analogy
* Questionable Analogy


Type: Informal Fallacy
Form:

A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.
(Where the analogy between A and B is weak.)
Example:

Efforts to ban chlordane assailed

WASHINGTON (AP)--The only exterminator in Congress told his colleagues Wednesday that it would be a short-sighted move to ban use of chlordane and related termiticides that cause cancer in laboratory animals.

Supporters of the bill, however, claimed that the Environmental Protection Agency was "dragging its feet" on a chemical that could cause 300,000 cancers in the American population in 70 years.

"This bill reminds me of legislation that ought to be introduced to outlaw automobiles" on the grounds that cars kill people, said Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who owns an exterminating business.

EPA banned use of the chemicals on crops in 1974, but permitted use against termites because the agency did not believe humans were exposed. Chlordane does not kill termites but rather drives them away.

Source: Associated Press, June 25th, 1987

Analysis
Exposition:

This is a very common fallacy, but "False Analogy", its common name, is very misleading. Analogies are neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees from near identity to extreme dissimilarity. Here are two important points about analogy:

1. No analogy is perfect, that is, there is always some difference between analogs. Otherwise, they would not be two analogous objects, but only one, and the relation would be one of identity, not analogy.
2. There is always some similarity between any two objects, no matter how different. For example, Lewis Carroll once posed the following nonsense riddle:

How is a raven like a writing desk?

The point of the riddle was that they're not; alike, that is. However, to Carroll's surprise, some of his readers came up with clever solutions to the supposedly unsolvable riddle, for instance:

Because Poe wrote on both.

Some arguments from analogy are based on analogies that are so weak that the argument is too weak for the purpose to which it is put. How strong an argument needs to be depends upon the context in which it occurs, and the use that it is intended to serve. Thus, in the absence of other evidence, and as a guide to further research, even a very weak analogical argument may be strong enough. Therefore, while the strength of an argument from analogy depends upon the strength of the analogy in its premisses, it is not solely determined by that strength.
Subfallacies:

* Question-Begging Analogy
* Unrepresentative Sample

Resources:

* Julian Baggini, "False Analogies", Bad Moves
* David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (Harper & Row, 1970), Chapter IX: "Fallacies of False Analogy".

Analysis of the Example:

Representative DeLay attempts to argue against a bill banning chlordane by comparing it to a bill banning automobiles, but this analogy is very weak. Here are some of the relevant differences:

* Banning automobiles would be economically and socially disruptive in a way that banning a single pesticide would not.
* There are many alternative pesticides available to replace a banned one, but there are few modes of transportation available which could replace cars.
* Automobiles play a significant role in our society, whereas chlordane was used only to prevent termite damage to houses, which is of comparatively minor importance.