LawTalkers - Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

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

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

- - Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=630)

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
. . . Bilmore's hyperbole . . . But you still sound like a jackass if you are seriously arguing that Kerry's election would mean . . . our eventual overthrow by Islamic radicals.

In a longer-term way than I think you are considering, this is exactly what I'm seriously arguing.

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Funny stuff. I was at a wedding this weekend with a huge number of democrats with Chicago ties. A Union guy would say, do me a favor and vote for Kerry, I need my job. I'd retort, do me a favor and vote for Bush, we are in a war and I need to make sure we are actually fighting instead of trying to get out with pretty pictures after 6 months.

A business manager would say, we need a coalition of bigger countries. I'd retort, okay, so we are at war and this has happened before. Suddenly Kerry is going to get the French, Germans and Russians to jump in? These countries only helped when they were being directly threatened, and France didn't even help in Vietnam after it dragged us in. Blah blah blah. Then the business guy would say, but Australia was with us in Korea. Oh. My. God. (I'd say) They. Are. Still. With. Us! What nations are your people gonna bring in again?

A lawyer and a Union leader would say, we shouldn't be at war. I'd say, how many barracks should the Islamists in Lebanon be allowed to blow up? How many more airliners over Scotland should the Libyans be allowed to blow up? How many more skyscrapers should the Afghan-protected Saudi and Pakistani-expatriates be allowed to blow up? We aren't at war? Isn't it pretty to think so. The lawyer would retort with "b-b-but Bush is stupid!" And I'd say, which part of we-are-at-war don't you understand? misses smarty-pants.

To the last one, the Democrats who started each and every one of these conversations, found reasons to retreat from the conversation. I love these people, but Chicago has got to be the dummest city in America. Is there even a political opposition to Daley to ask questions about the last week? The guy looks like he's on the verge of being indicted (along with Degnan, Joyce and others) if any of their recently indicted mob, union, HDO (Hispanic Democratic Organization) friends start talking. Yet, politically brain-dead Chicagoans will complain about their job insecurity (despite high state and local taxes, horrible services, and extraordinary political-related theft of taxpayer funds), will complain about Bush endangering America (despite living in the least safe big-city in America under Democratic powerbrokers), and will complain about the ongoing war (as long as they don't work in a high-rise and their kids don't fly on overseas flights very often or join the military).

I'm not saying this is all Democrats, or even most. But you take these guys out of your equation (i.e., the Michael Moore fans such as the tort lawyers, the union goofs, and assorted other grand theft larceny democrats) out of the equation, and this election goes 80-20 for Bush.

Kerry's base is at least 50% who think he's too far to the right! People who, as a group, can't name one honorable Illinois Democratic leader. No offense or nothing, but Chicago is going farther under the bootheel for the next 4 years. I think y'all decent Democrats should consider moving out of there, because living there is gonna start to hurt.

Too bad you don't do as well on an internet message board for lawyers. Seriously, do you also do birthday parties and bar mitzvahs? If the latter, I'd cut down on the "Kerrystein" and "Jewboy" cracks.

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Well, look at a bar chart of the deaths if you need a pretty picture of how dangerious the world just became for us. I understand that math is hard, but just bear me out and use your crayons to draw a bar chart here. Label the Y axis "dead Americans at the hands of Islamicists". Label the X axis "Time". Then, plot 250 American deaths in Lebanon in 1983. 250 deaths over Scotland in 1989??. Plot smaller events for WTC I, Mogadishu, Aden, Tanzania, Kenya numerous shootings and bombings against civilians in Israel where Americans were killed.

Hello

Too much bar and not enough graph, I'd say. Must've been a good wedding.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Too bad you don't do as well on an internet message board for lawyers. Seriously, do you also do birthday parties and bar mitzvahs? If the latter, I'd cut down on the "Kerrystein" and "Jewboy" cracks.

Yeah, its too bad that I can expose people as hypocrites, vapid name-callers, selfish (NIMBY) externalizers, lawbreakers and myriad other unkind things. Should I be getting standing ovations for this?

And what's wrong with O'Kerrystein? I'm sorry if Texas bullies turned you into a whimpering pussy, but where I'm from, its a flipping riot when an Irish Catholic Senator discovers he's recently descended from Jews just before a Presidential election.

Of course, I'm spending too much time here responding to this nonsense. You have not added word one to this conversation except for a shriek.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Too much bar and not enough graph, I'd say. Must've been a good wedding.

Math is hard.

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Yeah, its too bad that I can expose people as hypocrites, vapid name-callers, selfish (NIMBY) externalizers, lawbreakers and myriad other unkind things. Should I be getting standing ovations for this?

And what's wrong with O'Kerrystein? I'm sorry if Texas bullies turned you into a whimpering pussy, but where I'm from, its a flipping riot when an Irish Catholic Senator discovers he's recently descended from Jews just before a Presidential election.

Of course, I'm spending too much time here responding to this nonsense. You have not added word one to this conversation except for a shriek.

We have contributed equal amounts of substance. I just did so in fewer words.

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me Math is hard.

Indeed. Sometimes less is more. See above.

Quote:

Say_hello_for_me
And what's wrong with O'Kerrystein? I'm sorry if Texas bullies turned you into a whimpering pussy, but where I'm from, its a flipping riot when an Irish Catholic Senator discovers he's recently descended from Jews just before a Presidential election.

It makes his "pro-choice", "I-tried-to-annul-my-18-year-marriage" all the more palatible to Vatican 3*

* The Vatican that all US Catholics - per Atticus - chooses to follow

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Uhm, wrong-yourself. Public schools? Its not that the substance of your description of Philadelphia Catholics is wrong. Its because there is no other positions of the Catholic Church that are as widely-known in today's political word as the pro-Life and anti-Gay-Marriage stances. Which is to say, you describe yourself in any political term as a pro-Life Catholic, you are a pink Elephant. At least, because the Vatican dictionary does not recognize these two terms as a valid expression.

And, FWIW, Chicago Catholic Democrats are just as stupid as any Philadelphia Democrat, but Chicago Catholics see widespread illegitimate births among young women in their teens and twenties. Call them whatever names you want, but this is probably the one thing they tend not to be hypocritical about. Here, I'll get you started on the names, ye of little faith. How 'bout "stoopid"? Personally, I can justify the choice to have a baby once you are pregnant. Unfortunately, all too many young women in those neighborhoods put themselves in positions where they will when they are 17-23. Not representative, but a relative of mine checked her old (early 80's) Catholic high school yearbook, and estimated that a bit less than half her class had illegitimate babies by 22.

You are mixing up socioeconomic status with religious affiliation. The reason these "Catholics" are having illegitimate kids is because they obviously don't know any better because they are being raised in poor households which tend to still follow the Church's criminal teachings on birth control and abortion (the Church should be sued for both teachings to the extent they impact our tax bills). Catholics of better socioeconomic status do not breed like farm animals. Its worth noting that a lot of us were raised differently than the "Irish need not apply" stereotype you cite. We're not all beer drunk shlubs who work in mills and worship saints. Most of us, in fact, long ago gave up on the Church and only define ourselves as Catholic in the same way most non-practicing reform Jews call themselves Jewish. We're only hanging on to the title for tradition's sake and because, unfortunately, in our world, religion remains an important identifying factor.

I know exactly what John Kerry is saying when he says he personally doesn't like abortion, but recognizes that is should, and must be kept legal (I'm actually a little more left than he is). He is trying to shore up the quiet Catholic moderate vote.

I grew up in an area which had a massive Catholic population (not Philadelphia) of all ethnic backgrounds. From my experience, Atticus is correct - only a tiny percentage of Catholics adhere to Rome's edicts. But the remaining 90 or so percent who ignore Rome privately do not admit doing so. Its true that these Pink Eleohants might be closeted, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

In the end, none of this matters anyway. Abortion is a non-issue. Its only important to the crazy Southern Baptists (if there are two worse forces in our country than the Southern Baptists and Catholic Church, I'd be interested to hear their names...). Nobody wins or loses a state based on abortion politics. Its all about taxes, jobs and Iraq.

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
. . . .the Church should be sued for both teachings to the extent they impact our tax bills . . .

Damn. Are these gonna be "occurrences" too?

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It makes his "pro-choice", "I-tried-to-annul-my-18-year-marriage" all the more palatible to Vatican 3*

* The Vatican that all US Catholics - per Atticus - chooses to follow

Its actually impossible to be rigidly Catholic anymore. Do a few Google searches on the Church's positions and you'll find that one could not exist in modern society if he tried to follow the Church to the letter of its laws.

I know about 200 Catholics, and I'm all but certain 99.9% of them could not recite Church teaching on any given social issue other than the highly publicized stances on abortion and the death penalty. Catholicism is a fucking joke - its like being a Mason or a fraternity member.

Quote:

Just curious, but what do your Catholic Italian-American relatives think about the Church's position on the death penalty? Should the Pope excommunicate Catholic governors who have signed a death warrant?

Slavery and Abortion

When did the fucking Church get the right to equate abortion with slavery? I was reading the Times this morning and in an OpEd, some priest from Notre Dame said abortion rights will be recalled historically in the same way we regard slavery as a bleak period. Bullshit. I hope somebody from the NAACP will stick their foot in that waterhead's ass.

This is exactly what turned me off to the Church as a small kid. These fucking moral harrumphers are so goddamned self-centered that they think their pet issues are on par with some of the biggest crimes in history. Its bad enough these fucking loons have the balls to equate abortion with the Holocaust (and I still don't know why the Jews aren't complaining about that), but now they're co-opting slavery? Does the Church have no shame at all?

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
As you yourself recently stated here (maybe I'm paraphrasing) with regard to an Israeli assassination in Syria "terrorists should be killed wherever they are". Why is that again? Its because we are at war. Has Kerry even mouthed those words once in this race?

You've been talking a lot of shit for the last few weeks -- some of it on things you know about, and some obviously not. I'll call you on this one. Kerry said precisely those words (essentially a quote) during both of the Presidential debates. I also think they are more or less in one of his stump speeches.

You're just not listening.

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
His base at the wedding would probably sit out the election if he did.

Now, that's just plain stupid. His "base at the wedding" f-cking hates George Bush, and saw in 2000 what protest votes based on principle do in a close election. They'll turn out.

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Or maybe he really is willing to go after Iran and Syria, and keep the pressure on 20 other nations. Mmm hmm, cuz that's just what we've been hearing from him. Right.
Hello

Actually, we have heard all of those things from him -- but you're not listening. Or, like Bilmore, you assume he's a liar.

I find it fascinating that you all on the Right not only find it so easy to believe that Kerry is lying or pandering to get elected, but also _assume_ the direction in which he is doing so. (i.e. That he will become some sort of pacifist or weakling after the election, rather than doing what is necessary to defend out country even if some of "his base" doesn't like it.)

It is remarkable to me that you find it so easy to believe this of a man who: volunteered for the military, saw combat, was decorated for courage under fire, served as a prosecutor, immersed himself in public service and (before that) engaged in public discourse and activism on the most important issues of that time. Kerry has proven beyond a doubt, over the course of his life, that he thinks seriously and cares deeply about the critical issues of the day. No one could have said that about Bush before he became President.

Of course you need to look at a man's record, but it is also a mistake NOT to think that the Presidency is a unique office and the demands and responsibilities of the job can change their occupants to produce results one would not expect from their records. The job of a President (i.e. represent and protect the nation) is different than the job of any Senator or representative and requires one to view problems differently and take broader positions.

In other words, whatever Kerry has done as 1 of 100 Senators from 1984-2004 (and we disagree on that record) is not an indication that he will not take appropriate action as President in a world tranformed by the 9/11 attacks and the ensuing wars.

Consider, for example, that Harry Truman was a relatively undistinguished Senator with little record before Roosevelt picked him as VP.

If you think that Bush has done well, then your man is also a prime example. Ignore everything pre-1980, and you still have this record: started three businesses with money borrowed from family connections and ran them into the ground; leveraged the cash from the last into an ownership stake in the Texas Rangers (his partners always wanted the Bush name); became personally wealthy based on insider dealings, despite conflicts of interest, with the stadium land deal; served six years in, essentially, a part-time job as Governor of Texas where he laughed about the executions he oversaw. What in the world would make anyone think that this "record" is suitable to be President of the U.S. during and after 9/11?

S_A_M
etft and efs and to add "NOT"

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Little too much wine at your service this weekend, eh Jewb*, er Atty?

Hello

*My apologies to all whose hair-trigger PC sensibilities were set off by this religiously-insensitive joke. You fucking liberals still deserve to be shot.

No problem, nigger.

S_A_M

[eta: That statement was meant, of course, in the non-derogatory vernacular in which a man speaks to one of his dawgs.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If you think that Bush has done well, then your man is also a prime example. Ignore everything pre-1980, and you still have this record: started three businesses with money borrowed from family connections and ran them into the ground; leveraged the cash from the last into an ownership stake in the Texas Rangers (his partners always wanted the Bush name); became personally wealthy based on insider dealings, despite conflicts of interest, with the stadium land deal; served six years in, essentially, a part-time job as Governor of Texas where he laughed about the executions he oversaw. What in the world would make anyone think that this "record" is suitable to be President of the U.S. during and after 9/11?

S_A_M
etft

when your firm looks to hire a lateral partner, does it ask to see law school transcripts?