VST - I know WMD is not constituted exclusively by nuclear weapons, please read
the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 to review what it entails (hint, it
incorporates many previous resolutions). My note on the IAEA is to provide you
with information rebutting your claim that the international community had bad
data. In fact, the opposite was true. Int'l organizations reported
accurate data but folks like Condoleezza responded with falsified
"intelligence" coming from the Bush Administration. We know
she lied because there have been comprehensive reports since the war started;
one notable study performed by the Center for Public Integrity found she, along
with other Bush officials, made nearly 1000 false statements in order to take
the US to war. Please review each instance for yourself. Further, she lied to
Congress when confronted on these issues in 2008. I suspect if you
had any interest in reviewing this scenario from a neutral standpoint, you could
have found this information on your own.
to Mike R.I specifically pointed out the House GOP as their typical
& all too frequent MO is whine like a petulant 5 yr old who doesn't get
a doughnut when going to the grocery store w/ mom.
LDS LiberalWhen you blog on liberal sites many times you get
swear/curse/slander back as a response. I'd rather engage with folks who
may oppose my POI, but at least try to make an argument rather than just try to
shut down debate. That is why I for one would rather stick to the DN site. It
is one of the few civilized places to engage discussion. More and more it seems
the left in America is becoming the side with the least tolerance for any
opposing viewpoints. Being called racist for not supporting Obama for instance.
Being a homophobe for not supporting same sex marriage. Being anti women for
not supporting Hillary or abortion. That kind of stuff is going around a lot
these days, along with the name calling slurs that DN tries to edit. I'm
glad they do.
gmlewis/VST - You are mistaken. The UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was
accepted by Iraq in November 2002. Then, after 218 inspections at 141 different
sites in Iraq, the UN begged the US not to invade on March 7, 2003 in an open
letter from the IAEA because they confirmed there was no WMD in Iraq: The
international community knew there were no WMD, your politicians fabricated a
different story. THen they invaded on March 20, 2003 and proved the
international community correct beyond any reasonable doubt.
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahThere are 17 enumerated duties
which we, the people, have authorized the Federal Government to tax us to
implement. ========== I'm a veteran, and work
for the DoD -- All duly authorized by the "Constitution",
Yet, You have bullied, shouted [all caps], berated me for
collecting a pay check from your taxes for years for it.And now have
the audacity - and I quote - "Close-minded people constantly reject anything
that opposes their viewpoint by "shouting down" those they oppose."
or "So many times they only want to hear from others
who support their point of view."blogging only in the safety shirts of
Deseret News, in Utah, under ownership of the LDS church....And you
claim to be the one who is most "Open-Minded"...I staand by
my earlier "Pot meet Kettle" reference...
re: Hank Pym,Should the House of Representatives abide by the
Constitution or should it pander to the populace? Isn't that what
you're really asking? Not one Republican in the House or the Senate voted
for ObamaCare. Why was that? Was it because they want people to suffer, or was
it because Republicans care more for law and order, as dictated by the Supreme
Law of the Land, than they care about pleasing a President who wanted to TAX us
to subsidize the cost of health insurance? There are 17 enumerated duties which
we, the people, have authorized the Federal Government to tax us to implement.
Health Insurance is not on that enumerated list. Forcing us to pay for personal
welfare items is not on that list. Using the IRS to force us to comply with
that tax is not on that list. With just a little research, it is apparent that
the Republicans would not be caught up in Obama's snare. Now, even the
Democrats are running as fast as they can away from Obama and ObamaCare.Evauluate ideas fully before throwing rejecting the Constitution.
in regards to J Thompson..."When people freely discuss ideas and
leave the kindergarten bullying out of the argument, the best idea will rise to
the top."Curious; is this your advice for all of Congress
especially House Republicans?
There's a very simple "litmus" test that can be applied to almost
every argument. That test askes only one question, "What would happen if
everyone had this attitude?" Apply that to the Consitution. What if
everyone insisted that the Federal Government do only what the Constitution
permits, as enumerated, not as desired? What would happen if everyone had
"subsidized" health insurance? What would happen if everyone paid
exactly the same income tax, not the same rate, but the same tax, just like
everyone pays the same amount for a gallon of milk? What would happen if the
"government" decided that the minimum wage should be $50 per hour? What
would happen if the "government" tried to force other nations to buy our
products when the minimum wage became $50 per hour?Using the
"what if" argument blows holes through almost every "liberal"
idea. Unless the "government" forces us to accept those ideas and
unless the government punishes us for not accepting those ideas, those ideas
would fail - every time.When people freely discuss ideas and leave
the kindergarten bullying out of the argument, the best idea will rise to the
to RedShirtCalTech yesterday afternoon...Lets put this silly,
ridiculous, partisan nonsense regarding Reid, Benghazi, or whatever else to
bed.What do you expect when you keep electing Ivy Leaguers &
that 5 global companies control a Lions share of all media outlets in the US?
To "LDS Liberal" but there are times when it is very clear what God has
said. So, saying "God said so - I'm right, and you're wrong, The
End" can be correct.For example, the scriptures are quite clear
that sex outside of marriage is wrong. If you started to say that you believe
that sex outside of marriage is ok and that you fully believe the scriptures,
then you would be wrong and it is an instance of "God said so."The closed minded person sees no hypocrisy in declaring a belief in something
while acting contrary to that belief. The open minded person can recognize the
hypocrisy and will either own it or will alter their behavior to eliminate it.
Think of somebody that says they believe in the LDS church, yet dismiss what the
Prophets have said and portions of official LDS doctrine.
re: J Thompson"...Mike Richards has fully proved his point when
he wrote that "Closed minded people constantly reject anything that opposes
their viewpoint by shouting down those they oppose". Just read the posts and
decide for yourself."For instance, all the political righties
& byu fans who believe they are on the side of the angels?
J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTTaking the position of "God said
so - I'm right, and you're wrong, The End"!in every comment
and on every single issue - including politics, ...is about the most
"Closed minded" position one can possible ever take.BTW -
another cliche just for you -Birds of a Feather, Flock together.
It appears to me that "liberal" posters are anything but liberal. It
appears that many of them openly attack anyone who advocates the need to explore
other opinions. I didn't read in the letter anything that justified the
personal attacks on the letter writer, but I did read that Mike Richards
considers all sides before forming an opinion. Maybe that concept is what has
brought on all the controversy. Maybe the fact that Mike Richards reads all
sides to an argument and then consistently rejects the "liberals"
argument is what infuriates those who attack the messenger without even
referring to the message.I believe that Mike Richards has fully
proved his point when he wrote that "Closed minded people constantly reject
anything that opposes their viewpoint by shouting down those they oppose".
Just read the posts and decide for yourself.
Irony GuyI believe that none of the people you mentioned were in the
Obama administration at the beginning 5 years ago. Back then it was true that
if you had spent one summer running a lemonade stand you had more business
experience than his entire cabinet. Obama may have finally taken some good
advise that business people are needed to run the country. Probably a little
too late though.
"To those who stood for freedom of speech and freedom of expression without
resorting to lies or misrepresentations, I am particularly grateful."I really hope you mean this Mike, because your past posts suggest
otherwise, and the internet doesn't forget.
Let's see now. Who gets away with all-caps shouting more than the author of
this letter? Can't really identify anyone. Of course, it's possible
there are two Mike Richardses in South Jordan. In that case, my apologies.
"Look at the posts commenting on letters in any newspaper with an electronic
edition. Close-minded people constantly reject anything that opposes their
viewpoint by "shouting down" those they oppose."This is
just too much. The irony here is side-splitting. Um, the most closed-minded
person I've seen commenting on the Des News website is, well, gee, I
can't really name him because the comment moderators will surely deny this
comment. But this letter has to be one of the best ever. I give it 5 stars.
FreedomFighter41, You it the nail on the head. Michael Moore was a voice against
so much that had gone wrong in that time. The Eagle Forum tried with all of
it's might to get him taken off the program. Sounds like it is the kettle
calling the kettle black!Also Mike Richards needs to check his facts
before telling us all there are no business people in the cabinet. Come on Mike
we expect better.
I emphatically denounce those who charge Condi Rice with lying about WMD. We
gave Iraq weeks to get their WMD moved into Syria or buried in the desert sand
before the invasion, well announced in advance.In this case,
President Clinton defended the Bush administration, saying that he knew Iraq had
WMD while HE was president. Of course, the liberals attacked Pres. Clinton and
quickly silenced him. However, Pres. Clinton never publicly denied that
statement.The liberals have slandered Pres. G. W. Bush and SoS Condi
Rice, and one day there will be an accounting at the judgement bar for this
It's been an interesting experience to read the comments. Just as
expected, some comments had nothing to do with the contents of the letter, but
we're only veiled (or not so veiled) personal attacks. Some were off
topic, which to me, is just another way that some people use to divert attention
from the topic under discussion. Some used false statements to give
"gravitas" to their point of view. Some addressed actually addressed the
topic.To those who stood for freedom of speech and freedom of
expression without resorting to lies or misrepresentations, I am particularly
@RedshirtcaltechWhat kind of "cover-up" corrects their mistakes
within 2 weeks?
Dear letter writer -- Thanks for all the great quotes!I have
saved them, and will using them to respond from now on.Sincerely, The man in the mirror.
To "airnaut" it is as good of a conspiracy as what your ilk were
presenting. The news only reports that Harry Reid bowed out of an LDS Fireside
due to threats. There was nothing about who was making the threats, your ilk
presented it as if it was a group of conservatives threatening Harry Reid. We
have no facts, and shouldn't jump to conclusions.Yes, just like
Benghazi. The Administration had no evidence to show that the attack had
anything to do with a YouTube video that nobody had watched, so they made things
up. Since the attack we have learned a lot, thanks to FOI requests and some
journalists looking into the ordeal and discovering what has gone on. But then
again, it was CBS, MSNBC, and ABC new that did a lot of reporting on the change
to the talking point memo. Or are they part of the conspiracy too?
RedShirtCalTechPasedena, CAOther than Harry Reid canceling due
to death threats, we know nothing about what was going on. We don't know
who the threats came from. For all we know it was a uber left wing Union boss
posing a security risk.========== Nice spin RedShirt --
When you have no facts or evidence to present -- make up a story, another
conspiracy.Like Benghazi...BTW -- Let's turn this
around on your terms -- For all we know [eyes shifting, whispering
quietly] Fox News and The Blaze could be making this up as well.
"The Cabinet contains no one with extensive business experience"? How
about Sec. of the Treasury Jack Lew who was head of operations for
Citigroup,...No wonder this admin is so messed up. Citigroup was a
major recipient of bailout money, Billions of dollars of it. So what
you are saying we have people experienced in driving businesses to bankruptcy in
the administration. And Irony guy is proud of this?Great, just
great. But it does explain so much!
To those of you using the Harry Reid canceling speaking at an LDS meeting or
Michael Moore at UVU, lets look at the facts.Other than Harry Reid
canceling due to death threats, we know nothing about what was going on. We
don't know who the threats came from. For all we know it was a uber left
wing Union boss posing a security risk.As for Michael Moore, the
controversy start with the huge fee that Moore was going to charge. The student
government didn't want to spend that much. Plus, as the DN article points
out, it was Moore that approached UVSC.To "FreedomFighter41"
actually we didn't see 13 Benghazi type incidents under Rice. The issue
with Benghazi isn't the attack, but the outright lies and coverup by the
Obama administration. Had they been honest from the beginning and called it a
terrorist attack and praised the valliant soldiers that died, this would have
been like the incidents under Rice. Instead the administration made excuses and
blamed a YouTube video.
"The Cabinet contains no one with extensive business experience"? How
about Sec. of the Treasury Jack Lew who was head of operations for Citigroup,
Sec. of Commerce Penny Pritzker who founded and ran three major companies, and
Chuck Hagel who made his fortune in the cell phone business, etc. etc. ????This letter is fact free . . .
When you have an open mind, people keep trying to throw garbage in it.
"Way more deaths when Clinton was SoS than when Rice was SoS.... and
I'm pretty sure she's going to make a TON of money speaking to the
exact same people who shut down Rice's speech..."And
conservatives wonder why no one takes them seriously anymore?Condi
was in the Bush administration from 2001-until Obama won.She was SOS
from 2005-08. Far more Americans died on her watch than Clinton's. In fact,
2007 we lost more Americans than from 2008-present day. In fact, over 900 died
in 07. That's 225 Benghazi's. Speaking of which, under
Rice's watch, we saw 13 Benghazis resulting in over 90 deaths. Where were conservatives then? Why didn't we question her about those
@2bits"Why would our Secretary of State be offensive to them?"Condi was considered partially responsible for lies getting us into a
war where a few thousand Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis died. Granted
I wouldn't be opposed to her speaking, but others are for that reason. "Way more deaths when Clinton was SoS than when Rice was SoS"That's completely false.
@2bits -- Please give us the instances you were thinking about... where
conservative students prevented Democrats from speaking at their
graduation...8:56 a.m. May 27, 2014---I’ll see your bet, and raise…How about fellow Mormon
Senator Harry Reid cancelling an LDS Youth Fireside due to Death Threats?BTW - What do you expect from a bunch of now College educated
graduates, who see a Political Party who is becoming more and more -- Anti-Science, Anti-Tolerant, Anti-Education, Anti-Choice, and Anti-Socialist?
College students have a right to speak out. This is an open and shut case.
College students absolutely have a right to speak out. No one is
advocating censorship. The colleges didn't cancel the speakers, the
government didn't force the speakers to withdraw, and the speakers could
have still given their speeches. In fact, the speakers cancelled. They used
their free speech to cancel. No harm no foul, right? It's right wing media
that is trying to make martyrs out of these people and make it sound like
colleges are somehow close-minded to conservative speakers. I guess
the right is trying to do anything to take the focus off their lack of ideas!Denying college students their first amendment rights seems to be a top
priority for conservatives these days. For some reason they're fearful of
what the young and informed think and feel. Is it because they're not stuck
in the same tired and failed traditions and policies conservatives are obsessed
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTCan you give us instances when
conservative Universities or conservative students prevented honorable
Democrat's from speaking at their graduation?========That's too, so I'll even top that -- How about
fellow Mormon Senator Harry Reid needing to cancel speaking at an LDS Stake
Youth Fireside because of Death Threats?
conservatives seem so intent on ignoring the difference between someone speaking
or taking part in a debate at a university and giving the commencement speech.
Typically, the commencement speech is not going to dive deeply into that
individual's personal opinions as the speech is most likely directed at
providing advice, etc... to the recent grads. Condi Rice was not
uninvited for her opinions or for what she was going to say (the students had no
idea what her commencement speech was going to be about) - rather she was
unwelcome due to her actions, her life. Essentially, the student body voiced
their opinion (free speech) to let the faculty know that they did not deem her
life as one worth honoring. 2bits - This SoS was offensive to them,
and many of us, because she lied to the American people and government officials
in order to facilitate a war that killed hundreds of thousands of human beings,
including thousands of American servicemen and women. Think of the throngs of
families that were visiting grave sites yesterday due to Condi Rice's
actions. There is nothing reputable or honorable about such a person.
FreedomFighter41,You need to read the book you referenced. Some students
did protest... but UVU did not give in. That's the difference. The
liberal schools gave in to the protesters and wouldn't allow Rice to speak.
Michael Moore did speak at UVU (despite the protests).===The students have the right to protest (that's obvious). But the issue
is the school giving in and not allowing people from one side of the spectrum so
speak (when some students wanted to hear what she had to say) because of some
loud intolerant protesters. And yes... the protesters at UVU were
also showing intolerance. But a difference... Michael Moore was making a
profession out of attacking our President, stretching and bending the truth to
make him look as bad as possible, and trying to affect the election. Condie
Rice didn't do that. All she did was serve this country and the President
at the time honorably.You have to admit that she's a pretty
accomplished woman. But just because she's the wrong party, and her
history as Sec of State for the wrong President... she gets black-balled at
There is a cycle of failure that appears in societies no matter how the start
up, they end up in turmoil. Societies, thus far, have always become
top heavy with the wealth more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer people.
When the oppression becomes so intense the people at the bottom, with nothing to
lose, revolt and start the whole process over again. We are at the
point where the oppression is becoming unbearable. Without a way of letting
off steam and relieving the pressure, we are heading for a restart. A more
democratic voting system would help. Without a way for people to control their
government they will seek others ways of relief.
@Open Minded Mormon,So... no defense of the intolerance? Just "they
did it so we can"?====Cliches are nice, but... How
is this "the pot calling the kettle black"?Can you give us
instances when conservative Universities or conservative students prevented
honorable Democrat's from speaking at their graduation?Even
ultra-conservative UVU and BYU have allowed controversial Democrats to speak at
their University. So it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison (to
throw in another cliche)...If you have instances where conservative
students prevented Democrats from speaking at their University... it WOULD be
the pot calling the kettle black. But if not... it would be an ironic use of
the cliche...Please give us the instances you were thinking about...
where conservative students prevented Democrats from speaking at their
liberal larry and company,Rejecting speakers who you disagree with
is okay, so book burning is okay too, as long as it is any book you disagree
with? That is indoctrination. You would decry this if it were, say, religious
indoctrination, but as long as it is secular, and socialist, you are okay with
it. In other words, you only want to hear what you think.You are the
ones Mike is talking about, with good reason.Mike does speak up for
conservatism, and always well supports his viewpoints. That must be hard on your
@larry,Why would our Secretary of State be offensive to them? Because
she served under Bush?Why would Rice being allowed to speak... be
"offensive"?She's a very intelligent, black, woman...
what's "offensive" about that???She's a very
talented and accomplished person. What's "Offensive" about
that??She stretched the same glass sealing Hillary Clinton keeps
talking about... both made it to the same level (Sec of State). But one is VERY
acceptable speaker... while the other is "Offensive"...?Seems like a shallow (partisan) reason to choose to be offended by her
presence at your graduation... These kids could learn to have a
thicker skin, and this time in college is a good time for them to learn and
develop that thicker skin, that would allow them to hear opinions they
don't agree with 100%... and let people speak who OTHER people at the
University want to hear (SOME students at the University wanted to hear what
Rice had to say... but these loud intolerant people who didn't want to let
her speak FORCED the other students to not be able to hear what she might have
said). Hint... That is the definition of "intolerance".
I remember back in 2004 when UVSC (now known as Utah Vally University) invited
"liberal" film director Michael Moore to come and speak. Long time
posters like Mike Richards spoke out in favor of censorship then. He talked
about how Moore didn't "represent" the morals of people in Utah.
And that public funded schools had a right to censorship. This
became a national issue. In fact, a fantastic book was written about it.
Everyone should read, "Free Speech 101: The Utah Valley Uproar over Michael
Moore." Now suddenly, he's against it, why?What
changed?Why would Mike Richards be for censorship in regards to Mike
Moore but be against it when it comes to Condi Rice?Anyone care to
I'm w/ omm and dave on this.
Open Minded Mormon, Bravo. Done in one.
Well, If that isn't the eptiome of the pot calling the kettle
Universities and their students are entirely within their rights to reject
speakers they find objectionable. America is hardly a place where
people seek out speakers of opposing view points and invite them to speak at
their functions.When's the last time a church invited Richard
Dawkins to give the sermon, and I'm still waiting for the Beef Council to
have the head of PETA as their annual banquet speaker.