LawTalkers - Politics: J'accuse!

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Politics: J'accuse! (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=561)

Song for the day (after)

Let me tell you how it will be,
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all,
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat,
If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
Taxman.
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Don’t ask me what I want it for
(Taxman Mister Wilson)
If you don’t want to pay some more
(Taxman Mister Heath),
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Now my advice for those who die,
Declare the pennies on your eyes,
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
And you’re working for no-one but me,
Taxman.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Whiff. Argue procedure if you're a loser on the merits.

However, I can follow a rule as well as the next guy, so here:

http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/000820.html

Its not a flip flop if circumstances dictate the change- see Nation building. Most of the others you list are the same.

The main Kerry flip flops are not similarly explained:
Do you think we should be in Iraq? Yes, I voted to go.
Do you think we should be in Iraq? No, I said only if.....

Confidential to Sidd: You called me a racist because I made one dumb towel remark. Actually, I think Atticus had decided to hit me more because of a generalization I made about the education of Islamic girls, based upon what I knew of the education of girls under the Taliban. I am not anti-Islam.

You then made what I could fairly charecterize as an over generalization about Korean kids. I was trying to show that the fact that you meant it as a compliment didn't make it any less a race-based generaliztion as my statement about girl's education. I wasn't really seriously calling you a racist. I don't know you. If you feel being called a racist is a bad thing, though, you should be careful about whom you call a racist- Golden rule.

As to Italian basing, I always have and will continue to call out any slur against Ities. My point is to show how ridiculous the PC attacks on any other arguable slurs are, given that people ignore Itie slur. Example, Sebastian routinely talks about guido's and no one yells at him- but if someone were to make a similar anti-black or anti-gay statement I think they'd get yelled at. I don't think Seb should be yelled at, I think people here should not be bugged by any such statements. I'm also quite sure Seb would happily have a drink with either of us, even though we're both guidos. That is, I don't think Seb anti-Itie based upon his rants.

You seem very bugged by being called a racist though and you should perhaps chill out about it, and be more prudent about using the term yourself.

PS i hope your friend recovers.

Song for the day (after)

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Let me tell you how it will be,
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
r Heath),

All in all, a far less annoying theme song that Don't Stop Thinkin' About Tomorrow.

Woodward on Tenet: Finding WMDs were "a slam dunk"

Blurbs about Woodwards book are starting to get played in the WaPo.

Holy shit. Good thing Tenet's already come to the 9/11 commission, or his questioning would've been rather more pointed.

Quote:

He then turned to Tenet, McLaughlin's boss and said, "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?"

"It's a slam dunk case," Tenet replied, throwing his arms in the air. Bush pressed him again. "George, how confident are you."

"Don't worry, it's a slam dunk case," Tenet repeated.

Tenet later told associates he realized he should have said the evidence on weapons was not ironclad, according to Woodward. After the CIA director made a rare public speech in February defending the CIA's handling of intelligence about Iraq, Bush called him to say he had done "a great job."

Woodward on Tenet: Finding WMDs were "a slam dunk"

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Holy shit. Good thing Tenet's already come to the 9/11 commission, or his questioning would've been rather more pointed.

???? i thought 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Its not a flip flop if circumstances dictate the change- see Nation building. Most of the others you list are the same.

The main Kerry flip flops are not similarly explained:
Do you think we should be in Iraq? Yes, I voted to go.
Do you think we should be in Iraq? No, I said only if.....

Confidential to Sidd: You called me a racist because I made one dumb towel remark. Actually, I think Atticus had decided to hit me more because of a generalization I made about the education of Islamic girls, based upon what I knew of the education of girls under the Taliban. I am not anti-Islam.

You then made what I could fairly charecterize as an over generalization about Korean kids. I was trying to show that the fact that you meant it as a compliment didn't make it any less a race-based generaliztion as my statement about girl's education. I wasn't really seriously calling you a racist. I don't know you. If you feel being called a racist is a bad thing, though, you should be careful about whom you call a racist- Golden rule.

As to Italian basing, I always have and will continue to call out any slur against Ities. My point is to show how ridiculous the PC attacks on any other arguable slurs are, given that people ignore Itie slur. Example, Sebastian routinely talks about guido's and no one yells at him- but if someone were to make a similar anti-black or anti-gay statement I think they'd get yelled at. I don't think Seb should be yelled at, I think people here should not be bugged by any such statements. I'm also quite sure Seb would happily have a drink with either of us, even though we're both guidos. That is, I don't think Seb anti-Itie based upon his rants.

You seem very bugged by being called a racist though and you should perhaps chill out about it, and be more prudent about using the term yourself.

PS i hope your friend recovers.

How is this one scored?

Woodward on Tenet: Finding WMDs were "a slam dunk"

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
???? i thought 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.

Fair point.

But had this appeared a few days earlier, I doubt that the commissioners would've had the restraint to avoid asking anything about it, ya know?

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
How is this one scored?

Double Bogey.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
How is this one scored?

It was educational in nature. Think clinic, not contest.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Its not a flip flop if circumstances dictate the change- see Nation building. Most of the others you list are the same.

Change of circumstances. Of course - change of circumstances!! How did I miss that!! Here, let me dust myself off and climb back onto that turnip truck I just fell off...

How do "change of circumstances" apply to the following Bush flip-flops:
imposing steel tariffs/lifting steel tariffs;
opposing cabinet level HSD/creating cabinet level HSD;
Bush's support for abortion/opposition to abortion;
veto McCain-Feingold/sign McCain-Feingold;
state's rights for gay marriage/federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

I agree with a great deal of E.J. Dionne's column today.

Quote:

No, Mr. President, what sends the wrong message is when our country doesn't put enough troops on the ground in the first place to do the job right. It doesn't help that you were unwilling to make clear in advance that bringing democracy to Iraq would involve a long struggle and a great expenditure of American treasure. It doesn't make our troops more secure for a president to divide the country by trashing his critics as unpatriotic. And it doesn't build support for a great experiment in democratization when the president fails to explain how he is going to win the thing.

I actually agree with the president that it's good Hussein is gone, that it would be a great thing to bring democracy to Iraq, that it would be a disaster if this venture fails. But if we fail, the fault will not lie with Bush's opponents. It will lie with an administration that thought it could pursue a series of radical theories all at once and not worry about the impact of reality on its plans. If Bush wants his war to succeed, he owes the country more than he offered this week.

Quote:

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I agree with a great deal of E.J. Dionne's column today.

Hmmm. Bush said, from the beginning, that it would be a long, hard struggle. He said it repeatedly. Had he put more troops on the ground, the Loyal Opposition would have been sqawking even louder. So, great call for them now. He never called anyone unpatriotic - this is another one of the canards that always end with "well, he implied it, or at least I interpreted it that way." And, he explained fairly carefully how he was going to do this, through taking the land, fixing the place, and turning it over to them to run. He didn't say, last year, which building would be re-painted this coming Thursday? ooooo . . . .

Aside from that, yeah, it was good.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Change of circumstances. Of course - change of circumstances!! How did I miss that!! Here, let me dust myself off and climb back onto that turnip truck I just fell off...

How do "change of circumstances" apply to the following Bush flip-flops:

So you at least concede that the rest were a result of worldwide events. I'm proud of you.

Quote:

imposing steel tariffs/lifting steel tariffs;

The ratrionale is that it was a temporary move which allowed the US companies to restructure. By most accounts, it worked.

I fihd it sort of odd, though, that the left ever brings this up, seeing that they were the ones in favor of the tarriffs

Quote:

opposing cabinet level HSD/creating cabinet level HSD;

As evident by the circus in town, the last thing we need is yet another federal security agency.

Quote:

Bush's support for abortion/opposition to abortion;

Someone is confusing 41 with 43.

Quote:

veto McCain-Feingold/sign McCain-Feingold;

As I recall, they had the necessary votes for an override. Why bother vetoing. Have you ever heard him actually support it?

Quote:

state's rights for gay marriage/federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

This one, I will grant you, is disappointing. Kerry's refusal to pick a position is just as bad.

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So you at least concede that the rest were a result of worldwide events. I'm proud of you.

The issue really is, while everyone in the world has changed their minds over something, Kerry does it for everything.

Gaza, settlements, and the overwritten "road map".

Two perspectives I've stumbled across that I think make sense.

Thomas Friedman makes the argument that Isreal's pullout of Gaza is a good thing in large part because it forces Hamas and Arafat to start acting responsibly for a change. Accountability and responsibility are excellent cleansers of political movements.

Despite that -- and despite the fact that Sharon needs political cover of some sort for a unilateral pullout of Gaza -- I find that I agree with much of what David Ignatius says in today's WaPo about why it's a mistake for Bush to piss away the policies of the prior six administrations, and enthusiastically back one side in the mideast peace process.

Quote:

Bush supporters would argue that he has done no more than state the obvious: Some Israeli settlements will remain in the West Bank after any "final status" agreement, and Israel will never absorb within its own borders the Palestinian refugees who fled after 1948.

But Bush ignores the fact that there can be powerful reasons not to say the obvious -- and that studied ambiguity is an important part of successful diplomacy. That's why six previous administrations had resisted taking the step Bush did Wednesday and endorsing one side's positions in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. They wanted to preserve America's ability to act as a mediator, in part because they believed that role best served the interests of America's ally, Israel.

Bush is not a man for diplomatic ambiguity. He famously prefers to see things in simpler, black-or-white terms. In particular, he tends to view the world through the narrow and sometimes distorting prism of the war on terrorism. Asked Wednesday whether Israeli settlements are an impediment to the peace process (which is the position taken by his predecessors for the past 20 years) Bush answered: "The problem is, is that there's terrorists who will kill people in order to stop the process."

This distaste for subtleties is probably part of what many Americans like about Bush -- he's not some fancy-pants diplomat talking all the time about "nuances." But the public should understand that however satisfying Bush's plain talk may be, it can be harmful to the nation's security.

...

Great powers need flexibility. They should avoid taking public steps that unnecessarily limit their ability to maneuver in private. They should be cautious about marching up hills without being sure how they will get back down. They should never (or almost never) say "never." They should be especially wary of using military force, because once the battle is joined, it can't be abandoned. To the Bush administration, these may seem like sissies' rules, but they've served successful U.S. presidents well for more than two centuries.

What makes Bush's abandonment of long-standing U.S. positions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so unfortunate is that it was unnecessary. The Israelis have powerful security reasons for withdrawing unilaterally from Gaza and dismantling their settlements there. It's not a concession that the United States should have to buy by sacrificing its own negotiating leverage; it's something most Israelis want because it's in their country's interest. Sharon's problem is the settlers, and the faction within his own party that supports them. They're likely to oppose his withdrawal plan despite whatever goodies he brings home from Washington.