I'm Pleased
 

Bullshit. Clinton's deficit reduction package of his first days in office -- with a Dem majority in both houses -- barely passed, and did so without any Republican support. In fact, the Republicans were pounding him on how his plan would destroy the economy.

Re-read Bob Woodward's "The Agenda."

I'm Pleased
 

It sounds like you've been drinking Cheney's kool-ade again, Bilmore. You can't seriously believe that the US will be taken over by radical islamisicsts, do you? If not (and I think this is the case) then you are laying down the same line of demagogeury that you argued was so absurd it couldn't possibly be what Cheny meant a few weeks back when he said something along the lines of vote for Bush or we're all gonna die.

The Constitution provided that Negroes were less than human; that sentiment is what supported the fact that they could be chattel. Taney's opinion was based essentially on the Fifth Amendment right of a person not to be deprived of his property.

So, yeah. Pretty much.

The Last Temptation of a Golddigger
 

Back in the day, before your judgment got clouded, you too understood nuance. I miss those days.

.... Meanwhile, the books burn.
 

Um, whiff.

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that my posts like these are the ones that lead you to drop me in the "liberal Democratic whiner just like that dumbass Pete on the street corner in St. Paul" poster category, and it colors your responses accordingly. Ah, well. Live and learn.

More on the Aphgan Elections
 

I'm Pleased
 

NotBob has already said this better, but note that the first deficit-reducing budget was passed in his first year, with almost no Republican support, and with GOP leadership predicting that by today we'd be in fucking breadlines because all American industry would've fled to Barbados.

Michael Barone on the Duelfer Report
 

I'm Pleased
 

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.

I'm Pleased
 

Funny stuff, indeed. Hey, can I borrow that Crayola red brick you've been using? I'd like to use it to color portions of the GOP voter base for a while.

sharpen your pencils!!!
 

help me figure out how this isn't a flip flop, I'm sure it's not, but only a Ty-like intellect can help us through:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

October 13,2003: Hardball
MATTHEWS: Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

then today

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...mpaign_iraq_dc

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday disputed a White House assertion that it was right to topple Saddam Hussein even if he had no illegal weapons because he posed a future threat.

The North Carolina senator, appearing on several television news programs, said Saddam's intention to eventually gather weapons of mass destruction was one of dozens of such threats.

"There are lots of threats waiting to happen all over the world," Edwards said. "That doesn't mean that that justifies invading a country."

Edwards was responding to U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. who told "Fox News Sunday" that President Bush was "absolutely" correct to have launched the invasion of Iraq even if they had known, as they do now, that the former Iraqi president had no stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

The two continued a debate that has dominated the U.S. presidential campaign in recent weeks and intensified with the final report of chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who concluded Iraq had no unconventional weapons -- a main rationale for going to war.

"You know, the Bush administration's explanation is: 'We invaded a country because at some point in the future they might get weapons of mass destruction?' ... I mean, the bottom line is, this is a convoluted logic to try to justify in hindsight what we now know wasn't true," Edwards said on CNN's "Late Edition."

float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!

I'm Pleased
 

Sure, would you like to start with the "pro-Choice Catholics"? Oops, my bad. Those pink elephants are Democrats. In fact, one of them was just on TV the other night trying to get elected. If you see him, can you let him know that We. Are. At. War? I know he's allergic to War, and even got a few purple hearts for it, but he probably should have figured put where we are before volunteering to run as a president during a war.

Please be careful to color between the lines. The GOP doesn't need no bad-drawers drawing Democrats and liberals into their picture. Someone here might not think it unintentional if you draw the GOP base badly. And the GOPers here tend to spank bad kids.

I'm Pleased
 

Wrong. Having been raissed Catholic and knowing hundreds of Catholics, I can assure you not more than 15-25% of them support Rome's edicts on matters such as abortion. Those who give a shit about keeping up appearances say they follow the church, but they don't. When their daughters get knocked up, almost all Catholics get pro-choice real quick.

I'm Pleased
 

Um, yeah? What does Bush's base think of Bush? For extra credit, state your answer as a bullshit made-up percentage.

I'm Pleased
 

2

The only Catholics who give the smallest shit about what Rome says on X, Y or Z are either first generation immigrants from the Phillipines or converts who drew straws for radical reactionary Catholicism on the one hand and Jehovah's Witnesses on the other.

Gatti, I'll let you have the crayon when I'm done with it, but this is too much fun.

I'm Pleased
 

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.

I'm Pleased
 

Uhm, yeah. But are they still Catholics? Come on Atty, you think the Pope is gonna recommend Senator O'Kerrystein for a slot? Don't answer. I checked with a Democratic priest for you. Kerry's out.

I'm Pleased
 

The conservatives say that boy ain't Right. But he's a lot closer than Senator Kerry on Odd-numbered days and weekends.

I'm Pleased
 

The entire history of the Catholic church shows quite clearly that Rome will talk a good game about kicking out people who say X or Y, but will only do it if it can seal the deal and burn them at the stake --- literally. Mother Church has learned all too painfully that if you can't silence the critic entirely, eventually he will start sounding sensible and bingo you've lost X% of your membership and 100% of your credibility.

Mark my words --- if Rome moves to excommunicate President Kerry, 40% of the Catholics in churches throughout America will vacate their pews. Good for the Lutherans and Episcopalians, I suppose, but bad for dioceses that still need to pay child abuse settlements. American bishops are begging Rome not to push the excommunication issue, and priests are begging their bishops to communicate that message, too --- they might want to end abortion, but they don't want to end Catholicism in America to accomplish it.

I'm Pleased
 

In other words, a giant "no comment". Hey, y'all are saying its merely a matter of people characterizing themselves. That part about the American church begging the Pope to look-over-there for a few minutes is a perfect explanation of how wrong those self-proclaimed Catholics are. Their names aren't in the Book, whether they cheer for Notre Dame or not. And I doubt that attendance at Mass goes down. These are a good portion of the people who only show up for midnight Mass at Christmas.

On a less hyperbolic note, just like your reasoning about how to get really-the-same-as-gay-marriage (i.e., don't use the term "gay marriage"), my vast experience with an almost entirely Catholic (or self-proclaimed "Catholic) background in Chicago is that 70 or 80% there can be talked into a state's-right view of the issue... just as long as they have the impression that it will be available somewhere. In other words, nobody really has an objection if its banned in Utah and Indiana.

Of course, if that happened, I'm probably moving to Indiana, but that's a topic for another day and another board.

I'm Pleased
 

I guess old Muhammad was pretty happy that contingency-fee plaintiff's attorneys weren't invented back in the day he was fucking 9 year olds.

Michael Barone on the Duelfer Report
 

This is brilliant. It was right to invade Iraq rather than continue sanctions and inspections because we would have found out that the inspections and sanctions had worked, thus leaving us with no excuse to invade.

Yes. That would indeed have been tragic. Think of the soldiers who wouldn't have died and people we wouldn't have killed.

I'm Pleased
 

So you're saying if you say most Catholics aren't Catholic your guy has a shot at the Catholic vote?

I tell you what, let me exclude from the ranks of Conservatives everyone who isn't bullshit about the Bush administration's spending. Then my guy has a shot at the conservative vote - assuming they vote on principal.

G^3 (mass attendee today)

Michael Barone on the Duelfer Report
 

2

I think if we're just cool they'll be cool too. War is not healthy for children and other living things! You should post more often!

I'm Pleased
 

I say a lot of people call themselves Catholic by default, because its as close as they can come to describing their belief system and upbringing in terms of a recognizable religion. I'm a Catholic (and as y'all know, I'm hard-core law-and-order and in favor of fairly imposing burdens on all and demanding recompense from the recipients of all gov't aid), and there are things about the Catholic church that I absolutely disagree with (banning priests from marriage and women from the priesthood). But I live with it, I like/love the current Pope, and I think most people generally and most self-proclaimed American Catholics are hypocrites. They know the Pope has spoken entirely and unequivocally against abortion. Yet, they (as Sebby pointed out) have and sometimes-support abortions in absolutely indefensible situations with healthy mothers etc. inconvenient pregnancies. The Pope has already promised that his and their God considers this murder for which they had better beg, beg, beg for forgiveness. Instead of praying, they go on to excuse Kerry for his defense of partial-birth. Twist it as some here might try, but that in particular is a corner that one couldn't one's way out of if they had two years to do it. The great majority of Americans will simply not support it once given the facts.

Which is to say, I think a lot of self-proclaimed Catholics only consider themselves Catholics because they don't have access to all the feel-good California new-age cults. Hey, y'all want to tell yourselves (not you GGG) that what you do here on Earth does not have an eternal effect on your soul (or some such concept), have at it.

Finally, I'll note that Atticus and I and someone else here all came up as Jews (Reformed) I think on that online test last year. Our fundamental belief systems appear to be similar. Strangely, several of the other conservative Catholics at my firm also came up as Jews as some sort or another. Except for that Christ thing, I guess I'm really a Jew.

Hello

Michael Barone on the Duelfer Report
 

Did you read the post? He is arguing that we would have been under tremendous pressure from the Frogs and Russians to END THE SANCTIONS.

Current reading:
 

And on that note, I got a book they are spreading around in law-enforcement and military circles for awhile now. "On Killing" by a guy named Grossman from the University of Arkansas.

Basically, he starts with the proposition that historical evidence uniformly points to the unwillingness of soldiers (volunteers and concripts) to fire their weapons direcly at their enemies during battle. Some would just keep loading their weapons, time after time, without firing. Others would fire over their enemies heads. Just as an example, after the Battle of Gettysburg, 85% of the weapons that were collected from the battlefield were loaded (muzzle loading rifles), despite the fact that 95% of a soldier's time in battle should have been spent in the process of loading, and a gun should only have been loaded 5% of the time. Other military historians appear to accept the premise, particularly because there is a vast historical record of evidence to support him. The exception is artillery and other crew-served weapons.

Anyway, he goes on to explain how the military appears to have picked up on this after WWII, and started completely desensitizing our soldiers during training. By Vietnam, the evidence suggests that the vast majority of our soldiers were willing to fire their weapons at an enemy. Anyway, he suggests that this was also adopted by the media, popular culture etc. etc.... He's a psychology type, so he then is using the premise, in part, to propose that the desensitization to this sort of violence (a lowering of a defense barrier in our middle brain that supposedly inhibits our ability to pull the trigger on another human) has spread here and almost everywhere else in the west. One of his conclusions is that murder and other types of violence have uniformly increased by about 400% in all western nations since WWII, though its obviously higher here than elsewhere.

He's been hired now as an expert by a lot of police departments and is being widely read in the officers corp of the military. Specifically, for the police departments they are trying to make sure that their officers are willing to fire back or fire in the first place when called upon to do so.

I can't say I totally agree that he's supported his conclusions, but his coverage of the evidence that supports his premise (that people are inherently unwilling to shoot each other, and have to be trained to do so) is pretty compelling reading.

Anyway, I'd imagine you can buy it through the Amazon link here.

Hello

I'm Pleased
 

Um, wrong. Exhibit A: All of Slave's aunts and uncles on the Italian side

Don Pardo, what do we have for Atticus for playing?

Michael Barone on the Duelfer Report
 

Mean people suck!!!!

I'm Pleased
 

That's a lovely little diatribe. But it still doesn't address Bilmore's hyperbole in a credible way. I appreciate how delightful it is to offer up your one-sided version of your brilliance in dealing with the masses. But you still sound like a jackass if you are seriously arguing that Kerry's election would mean massive death and destruction in the US and our eventual overthrow by Islamic radicals.

I'm Pleased
 

It's cool. So was he. And he was alright with it.

I'm Pleased
 

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.

OK, now add in 3000 on 9/11 and plot that out for 20 years. Then jump it up by another factor of 12 (the same as the jump from 250 to 3000). Maybe it happens sooner, maybe later. Either way, if you don't accept that we are at war and the trajectory is not friendly for American civilians, then you deserve Chicago. I won't argue that it means our eventual overthrow by Islamic radicals. It does mean we are at a war we didn't start, and that we have to win. 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? His base at the wedding would probably sit out the election if he did.

Its really as simple as that. Plot that massive death, which already started, out over another 20 or 50 years. How the hell is that not massive death?

Now picture your boy Kerry, knowing his base was at that wedding (trust me, I understand that most of y'all aren't "his base", you are more just choosing him over Bush), and tell me one thing that he's said that indicates he understands that we are in a wide war could last generations and that will require the continued committment of U.S. political leadership.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the prosecution in Iraq and I've stated numerous times the basis of my disagreement, but you put Kerry in, and we are going to need another Bush in 4 or 8 years to actually start fighting again. Meantime, it should be just about time for 3000 more American civilians to die on their own soil while he's taken us on a breather. Fuck that. 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.

On a personal note, can you or another Democrat in the Chicago area please hold a press conference tomorrow announcing that you or another Democrat is running for mayor etc.... Or have you and the rest of the city not had enough yet? Its amazing. Not one word outside of the media. No credible contender. Nada. Its like the city Is. Dead.

Hello

I'm Pleased
 

No, dumbshit, He was just alright with the Doobie Brothers. As for you, He thinks you suck.

I'm Pleased
 

Sorry, unless you can tell me what a randomly selected Spaniard has to say, I'm calling this one.

47-6.

I'm Pleased
 

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.

I'm Pleased
 

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

I'm Pleased
 

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.

I'm Pleased
 

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

I'm Pleased
 

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.

I'm Pleased
 

Math is hard.