<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Untraining Pavlov&#8217;s dog *UPDATED*</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/26/untraining-pavlovs-dog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/26/untraining-pavlovs-dog/</link>
	<description>Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:19:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: dg</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/26/untraining-pavlovs-dog/comment-page-2/#comment-27825</link>
		<dc:creator>dg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:18:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3502#comment-27825</guid>
		<description>Suek, it was seriously not an insult.  I&#039;d like to know where I can find the post in which we can have a civil discussion on energy.  I&#039;ve already had a good one with Earl on abortion and another with Danny Lemieux on a variety of topics, including Goldberg&#039;s book, Whitewater among others.  I look forward to discussing energy policy (e.g., how offshore drilling closes a 15m barrel per day gap), economic policy (e.g.., whether the American dream is really in danger), foreign policy (e.g., how to resurrect the Bush failed diplomacy with Russia).  There are lots of important discussions to have, but I don&#039;t know where to initiate them.  I am hoping Bookworm can do it.  

Just because you can&#039;t past guilt-by-association and ad hominem arguments to deal with more substantive issues does not mean other conservatives on this site cannot.  I am hoping that Bookworm has, can or will open up those discussions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Suek, it was seriously not an insult.  I&#8217;d like to know where I can find the post in which we can have a civil discussion on energy.  I&#8217;ve already had a good one with Earl on abortion and another with Danny Lemieux on a variety of topics, including Goldberg&#8217;s book, Whitewater among others.  I look forward to discussing energy policy (e.g., how offshore drilling closes a 15m barrel per day gap), economic policy (e.g.., whether the American dream is really in danger), foreign policy (e.g., how to resurrect the Bush failed diplomacy with Russia).  There are lots of important discussions to have, but I don&#8217;t know where to initiate them.  I am hoping Bookworm can do it.  </p>
<p>Just because you can&#8217;t past guilt-by-association and ad hominem arguments to deal with more substantive issues does not mean other conservatives on this site cannot.  I am hoping that Bookworm has, can or will open up those discussions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dg</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/26/untraining-pavlovs-dog/comment-page-2/#comment-27824</link>
		<dc:creator>dg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:12:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3502#comment-27824</guid>
		<description>Suek, who paid the legal bills and goaded the plaintiff into that lawsuit years after it occurred?  Mellon Scaife, a well-to-do Pittsburgh family that notoriously attacked Clinton as soon as he was elected President.  This is the wild goose chase I talked about.  If Scaife cared about the harrassment, he could have funded it shortly after it occurred and BEFORE Clinton became President.  And why did the plaintiff wait years to file it and, apparently, only after being paid (bribed?) by Scaife and other GOP operatives?  And why did all the investigations and lawsuits suddenly end when he left office?  Either you are naive or take me for a fool.  This was a political hit job from start to finish.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Suek, who paid the legal bills and goaded the plaintiff into that lawsuit years after it occurred?  Mellon Scaife, a well-to-do Pittsburgh family that notoriously attacked Clinton as soon as he was elected President.  This is the wild goose chase I talked about.  If Scaife cared about the harrassment, he could have funded it shortly after it occurred and BEFORE Clinton became President.  And why did the plaintiff wait years to file it and, apparently, only after being paid (bribed?) by Scaife and other GOP operatives?  And why did all the investigations and lawsuits suddenly end when he left office?  Either you are naive or take me for a fool.  This was a political hit job from start to finish.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: suek</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/26/untraining-pavlovs-dog/comment-page-2/#comment-27811</link>
		<dc:creator>suek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:13:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3502#comment-27811</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt;2. For the record, Clinton would not have been in front of that Grand Jury if the GOP had not started a wild goose chase over this sexual daliances,&gt;&gt;

Actually, Clinton was sued for sexual harrassment in civil court, and it was his perjurious testimony in that suit that started the whole impeachment thing.  If he had just settled with Paula Jones, the whole thing would have gone away.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt;2. For the record, Clinton would not have been in front of that Grand Jury if the GOP had not started a wild goose chase over this sexual daliances,&gt;&gt;</p>
<p>Actually, Clinton was sued for sexual harrassment in civil court, and it was his perjurious testimony in that suit that started the whole impeachment thing.  If he had just settled with Paula Jones, the whole thing would have gone away.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: suek</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/26/untraining-pavlovs-dog/comment-page-2/#comment-27810</link>
		<dc:creator>suek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:04:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3502#comment-27810</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt;Suek, I didn’t insult Bookworm. Only you. I really would like to have a substantive discussion on the issues wherever she has set it up.&gt;&gt;

You seriously did not intend the following as an insult?  

&gt;&gt;Bookworm, can you point me to your posts that have the most substantive take on the issues you think most important in this campaign? It’s hard to know where they are. Where do I find the critique of Obama and McCain’s energy policies, tax policies, immigration, trade policies, foreign policies, legal philosophies, etc.? Obama, as you point out, has a light-weight record to flesh these out–where do I find your fill-in-the-gaps kind of postings? McCain, as should be pointed out, has changed his views recently to accomodate his part–where do I find the which-is-the-real-McCain discussions?&gt;&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt;Suek, I didn’t insult Bookworm. Only you. I really would like to have a substantive discussion on the issues wherever she has set it up.&gt;&gt;</p>
<p>You seriously did not intend the following as an insult?  </p>
<p>&gt;&gt;Bookworm, can you point me to your posts that have the most substantive take on the issues you think most important in this campaign? It’s hard to know where they are. Where do I find the critique of Obama and McCain’s energy policies, tax policies, immigration, trade policies, foreign policies, legal philosophies, etc.? Obama, as you point out, has a light-weight record to flesh these out–where do I find your fill-in-the-gaps kind of postings? McCain, as should be pointed out, has changed his views recently to accomodate his part–where do I find the which-is-the-real-McCain discussions?&gt;&gt;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny Lemieux</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/26/untraining-pavlovs-dog/comment-page-2/#comment-27809</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny Lemieux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:02:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3502#comment-27809</guid>
		<description>Because, DG, the way it works (as we in Chicagoland /Illinois well recognize), you can&#039;t take a bribe while you are in office but there is nothing to stop someone paying you for favors rendered AFTER you leave office on the pretext of a speech or book advance that has no bearing on its worth in the marketplace.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Because, DG, the way it works (as we in Chicagoland /Illinois well recognize), you can&#8217;t take a bribe while you are in office but there is nothing to stop someone paying you for favors rendered AFTER you leave office on the pretext of a speech or book advance that has no bearing on its worth in the marketplace.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dg</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/26/untraining-pavlovs-dog/comment-page-2/#comment-27803</link>
		<dc:creator>dg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:23:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3502#comment-27803</guid>
		<description>on #3, I am not sure.  I think Presidents should be allowed to collect whatever the market bears, quite honestly, provided they aren&#039;t in a position to take real bribes--so Bush senior perhaps should not be collecting fees while his son is President, but after 2008 I think it&#039;s ok.  Everyone from soldiers to celebrities to former White House aids sell books, so why should the President be less entitled?

I have more of a problem with the Presidential libraries and the outrageous fundraising for them, since that fundraising occurs while they are still in office.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>on #3, I am not sure.  I think Presidents should be allowed to collect whatever the market bears, quite honestly, provided they aren&#8217;t in a position to take real bribes&#8211;so Bush senior perhaps should not be collecting fees while his son is President, but after 2008 I think it&#8217;s ok.  Everyone from soldiers to celebrities to former White House aids sell books, so why should the President be less entitled?</p>
<p>I have more of a problem with the Presidential libraries and the outrageous fundraising for them, since that fundraising occurs while they are still in office.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny Lemieux</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/26/untraining-pavlovs-dog/comment-page-2/#comment-27801</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny Lemieux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:10:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3502#comment-27801</guid>
		<description>I think that we are edging toward common ground, dg.

#2 - I blame Republican Senators&#039; cowardice and lack of principles, which sadly is still much in effect today (please don&#039;t interpret this as an endorsement of the Senate Democrats, which I consider much, much worse). Personally, I would have preferred that criminal investigations into other issues had gone on, such as into the nature of the relationship between Clinton and the Chinese, but that will have to be left to historians. The country was understandably tired of it all.

#3. - I think that we agree on this one as well.

Let me, for once, throw you some bipartisan meat to chew on... 

if you want to know what truly does outrage me about both Republicans AND Democrats is how past-Presidents (or ANY past Cabinet official or elected senator or representative) should be permitted to collect massive speaking &quot;fees&quot; (post hoc bribes is more like it) from foreign entities once they leave office. I hold both Bush I and Clinton in contempt for their speeches in Saudi Arabia and Dubai once they left office.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that we are edging toward common ground, dg.</p>
<p>#2 &#8211; I blame Republican Senators&#8217; cowardice and lack of principles, which sadly is still much in effect today (please don&#8217;t interpret this as an endorsement of the Senate Democrats, which I consider much, much worse). Personally, I would have preferred that criminal investigations into other issues had gone on, such as into the nature of the relationship between Clinton and the Chinese, but that will have to be left to historians. The country was understandably tired of it all.</p>
<p>#3. &#8211; I think that we agree on this one as well.</p>
<p>Let me, for once, throw you some bipartisan meat to chew on&#8230; </p>
<p>if you want to know what truly does outrage me about both Republicans AND Democrats is how past-Presidents (or ANY past Cabinet official or elected senator or representative) should be permitted to collect massive speaking &#8220;fees&#8221; (post hoc bribes is more like it) from foreign entities once they leave office. I hold both Bush I and Clinton in contempt for their speeches in Saudi Arabia and Dubai once they left office.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dg</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/26/untraining-pavlovs-dog/comment-page-2/#comment-27797</link>
		<dc:creator>dg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:50:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3502#comment-27797</guid>
		<description>Danny, 

1. I agree.  

2. I kind of agree.  And I think the Clintons are crooked.  Still, the fact remains that he was impeached for lying about something totally unrelated to Whitewater, and all of the criminal investigations stopped when the Clintons left office.  Now I ask you, what does that show?  That the GOP was out for justice or merely playing politics?

3. I kind of agree.  I think Charles de Gaul said it best, when he remarked that America is the daughter of Europe but that she stopped living in its house long ago.  I think America should not want to be like Europe; however, I also think that Europe should not want to be like the US, and there should be mutual respect of and a willingness to learn from one another.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Danny, </p>
<p>1. I agree.  </p>
<p>2. I kind of agree.  And I think the Clintons are crooked.  Still, the fact remains that he was impeached for lying about something totally unrelated to Whitewater, and all of the criminal investigations stopped when the Clintons left office.  Now I ask you, what does that show?  That the GOP was out for justice or merely playing politics?</p>
<p>3. I kind of agree.  I think Charles de Gaul said it best, when he remarked that America is the daughter of Europe but that she stopped living in its house long ago.  I think America should not want to be like Europe; however, I also think that Europe should not want to be like the US, and there should be mutual respect of and a willingness to learn from one another.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dg</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/26/untraining-pavlovs-dog/comment-page-2/#comment-27796</link>
		<dc:creator>dg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:45:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3502#comment-27796</guid>
		<description>Suek, I didn&#039;t insult Bookworm.  Only you.  I really would like to have a substantive discussion on the issues wherever she has set it up.  Your understanding of the English language rivals your logical reasoning skills--and that&#039;s not a good thing (in case you didn&#039;t follow either of mine).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Suek, I didn&#8217;t insult Bookworm.  Only you.  I really would like to have a substantive discussion on the issues wherever she has set it up.  Your understanding of the English language rivals your logical reasoning skills&#8211;and that&#8217;s not a good thing (in case you didn&#8217;t follow either of mine).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny Lemieux</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/26/untraining-pavlovs-dog/comment-page-2/#comment-27795</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny Lemieux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:45:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3502#comment-27795</guid>
		<description>Ooops! I didn&#039;t mean &quot;advocating&quot;. I meant &quot;warning&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ooops! I didn&#8217;t mean &#8220;advocating&#8221;. I meant &#8220;warning&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 2/14 queries in 0.031 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 403/404 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.bookwormroom.com @ 2012-02-10 04:43:40 -->
