Porter Goss resigns as CIA chief Friday, May 5, 2006 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- CIA Director Porter Goss is resigning, President Bush announced Friday. "Porter's tenure at the CIA was one of transition, where he's helped this agency become integrated into the intelligence community, and that was a tough job," Bush said in a photo session with Goss at the Oval Office. "He's got a five-year plan to increase the number of analysts and operatives, which is going to help make this country a safer place and help us win the war on terror," the president said. Goss told Bush: "I believe the agency is on a very even keel, sailing well, I honestly believe that we have improved dramatically." No reason was given for Goss' resignation, but the White House has been in the midst of an administration shakeup since Josh Bolten took over as chief of staff. Read the rest of the story
I can't believe Bush said, "Porter's tenure at the CIA was one of transition, where he's helped his agency become integrated into the intelligence community," Helped the CIA to become integrated with the intelligence community? They are the friggin' intelligence community! No wonder the rank and file at CIA despise this administration and have been leaving in record numbers.
After I read your first post, this was the exact response that popped into my mind. I'm really starting to wonder just what the hell is going on up there??? I've always considered myself a right-leaning moderate, but I personally can't wait for 2008. The only problem is that I can't see anyone on the horizon worth voting for. That's pretty scary.
Red should get his own radio or tv show about this kind of stuff. The only problem is Bush's time in office is starting to run short. I do wonder what the hell is going up there now in the second term but unfortunately I would have to vote the same way again. There aint nothin to pick from anymore, wells run dry. I like the part where you said you can't wait and then you can't see anyone worth voting for. I am not a moderate like most know, I am a right winger.... I would like to say I'm independant at times but no way I can support candidates that are for abortion, property or gun control. That is my real problem.:dis: There are too many so called independants or moderates for that! The pickins been to thin since the Reagan Era ended and the country is starvin for the "right" leader to come along.
I think the first thing people need to realize is that "moderate" is NOT a dirty word. When I say that I am a moderate, what I mean is that I have viewpoints that tend to "cross the aisle". Some things, such as gun control, abortion, and property rights, I'm fiercely conservative. When it comes to gas prices, (some) environmental concerns and certain domestic policy issues, my views might be seen as center-left. The point is, I hate how everything has come down to party politics. This has been said many times before, but the fact is that nothing really seems to matter anymore other than watering down your true positions at election time in order to appeal to the broadest base, and then, once elected, simply kowtowing to your party's platform, no matter what it is. I personally don't see anything changing until we as voters get fed up enough to quit being lazy and stupid and really demand better. From what I have seen during my time on this forum, there are plenty of people out there who are educated and informed about the political direction of the country, but I fear that this is the exception, not the rule.
i hear lots of complaining about their being no choices, but rarely do i hear anyone have actual principles. most people who would have a rational approach to politics have that possibility ruined by their religion. the rest are closet socialists with little to no understanding of what works and what doesnt. there are currntly too many socialists and religious freaks in america for the government to be run correctly. and moderates are terrible too. "moderate" isnt a principle. they call themselves moderates because they are half socialist and half religious. thats bad.
Nonsence. Moderation is absolutely a principle. Do you ever actually consult a dictionary or an encyclopedia? mod·er·ate adj. 1. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme 2. Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate 3. Of medium or average quantity or extent. 4. Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion. n. One who holds or champions moderate views or opinions, especially in politics or religion. Where do you get this foolishness? Political moderates have nothing to do with socialism or religion. Quite the opposite. Moderates simply are opposed to extreme views on all issues. A moderate position is about equilibrium and balance and is much more complex than simple centrism. We do not live in a black and white world. Moderates can perceive the vital shades of gray.
again, if you define yourself in terms of the extremes, you have not really defined yourself, because extremes change. a moderate can mean anything, depending on what the extremes are. for example, methodism is a relatively moderate religion. it is not as exteme as radical islam or even catholicism. but it is still crazy as hell and believes all manner of nutty things because it is only moderate when compared to the extremes. if our country is half nazi and half fascist, and you are in between, you are moderate according to those extrmes, but you still suck ass. you are allowing yourself to be defined by the current political climate. what is extreme is totally subjective. and so is moderatism. if the only two people who existed in the world were red and rex, the jerkass who is the moderate force in between them is sitll socialist. the term moderate has no meaning except as it related to the extremes, which are completely variable according to the current political climate. and issues are often black and white. if we had abolishonists vs slave owners, would you favor slavery just a little bit? do you favor a "proper balance" in this issue? at some point, abolition was extreme, would you oppose it had you lived then? i would have, because i am not opposed to extremes. i actually have principles, like i favor the rights of people to not be manipulated by others. that is an actual principle. a moderate has no principles and depends on the current extremes to define where they stand. they fear taking a real opinion and oppose those who have principles, not based on the princples themselves, but rather on the fact that the principles have an opposing view on the other side that they fear as well. any jackass can claim they are a moderate, and their view of a "proper balance" may be different than yours. and they are no more right or wrong than you are. thats what you get when your philosophy is based on a meaningless clinging to what is percieved as the not extreme. claiming you favor "balance" is meaningless. the balance point is completely subjective! your balance point is another man's extreme.
Then you'll see by my post that my use of the term "moderate" is subjective. Politically I tend to fall between Republican and Democrat, because I have views that align with some ideals of both parties. As red pointed out, the term "moderate" can encompass many things, but politically it has become a term of derision. It is perceived to mean someone with no principles, who will bend to whatever the prevailing opinion is, but I don't see it that way at all. Red said it best-the world is not black and white.
I respectfully disagree! I don't see anything changing in this country until we have term limits, period. Whether you are in congress or a judge you shouldn't be able to do both for life. If you are put into position to win year after year, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts or whether you are a Republican you have no incentive to accomplish anything kinda like Presidents in their second term. I'm starting to think its foolish to ever elect a president for more than one term. Maybe we should have 1 term presidents for 6 years or something like that. Who is really being lazy here In other words IMHO, Congress is the answer here. Do you know how many Congressman actually vote or have someone vote whatever they think the Congressman would vote. I also don't like how Congress blames everyone but themselves for the Nations problems when they are definitely part of the problem. You must live in a dream world if you think you can demand better, What good would that actually do? Even if you could get someone better, chances are that there are people that are informed enough to make the "wiser" choice. I'm not necessarily talking about anyone at this forum, talking about school dropouts and the lower part of society that do vote. I would argue also that Washington DC and politics change people so you could vote a "good guy" in but it might not do any good by the second term. You want change, Government reform is the only answer, the media and big business has changed our system.
