LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Meet your new thread, same as the old thread. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=781)

Tyrone Slothrop 09-25-2007 11:04 AM

Batshit Crazy Dictator In NY, Today's Version
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
It has nothing to do with morals, and I understand the argument of letting him hang himself. But unfortunately the Arab world does not live by the same belief system that we do, and I fear that the appearance will be used to prop him up and legitimize him in the Arab world in the same way that allowing him to visit the towers would have.
He's not Arab. And it's odd to think that centuries of enmity between Arabs and Persian could be overcome by letting the guy speak at Columbia. It's a fine university, but it's not that good.

Not Bob 09-25-2007 11:32 AM

Bring your kiddies, bring your wife.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you know what i meant. the problem with you making posts like this is that your side has some dull-normal people posting here and you owe them to not mislead them intellectually this way. they trust you to be intellectually honest.
My side? Pony is the only other Mets fan I know around here, and I wouldn't call him dull. Or normal.

Atticus Grinch 09-25-2007 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
my point was that we probably shouldn't take Vonnegut's word. do you believe Billy Pilgrim and Montana wildwhatever are still screwing in some extraterrestrial zoo somewhere?
Would it kill you to post a spoiler alert?

Atticus Grinch 09-25-2007 12:03 PM

Warren Pease . . . is Warren Pease present?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
So, Napolean never invaded Russia? My bad.
Would it kill you to post a spoiler alert?

Secret_Agent_Man 09-25-2007 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I went to a Catholic Law School (although I am not Catholic myself). Before I attended a Catholic school, I did realize how devout one could be as a Catholic and completely ignore the rules. Didn't work that way in the Protestant church I grew up in.
Pssst! It doesn't work that way in the Catholic Church either, but many American Catholics just refuse to admit it.

I sometimes have interesting discussions with my boss where she insists she is still a Catholic even though . . . (etc.) As a Jesuit-trained former Catholic myself, I'm not buying it.

S_A_M

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 09-25-2007 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

I sometimes have interesting discussions with my boss where she insists she is still a Catholic even though . . . (etc.) As a Jesuit-trained former Catholic myself, I'm not buying it.

S_A_M
This is my problem with religion. Too many people half-ass it. What does it mean to be religious? Seems to me you should either be in or be out.

Hank Chinaski 09-25-2007 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Pssst! It doesn't work that way in the Catholic Church either, but many American Catholics just refuse to admit it.

I sometimes have interesting discussions with my boss where she insists she is still a Catholic even though . . . (etc.) As a Jesuit-trained former Catholic myself, I'm not buying it.

S_A_M
Dissent. As long as we don't explicitedly renounce anything we still have confession inour backpocket to clean up all those lapsed years.

Secret_Agent_Man 09-25-2007 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Dissent. As long as we don't explicitedly renounce anything we still have confession inour backpocket to clean up all those lapsed years.
;)

Yes, but not if you don't believe in it, or if you believe in stuff the Church says is absolutely verboten.

But anyway, as I have explicitly renounced it and gone elsewhere, I have to hope the Roman Church is wrong about that one true path to God thing.

S_A_M

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 09-25-2007 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Pssst! It doesn't work that way in the Catholic Church either, but many American Catholics just refuse to admit it.
S_A_M
Oh yeh - sez who?

LessinSF 09-25-2007 05:21 PM

Interesting
 
Murder rates for states with the death penalty vs. states without the death penalty:

States with the Death Penalty
Nevada - 9.0
Alabama - 8.3
Arizona - 7.5
Arkansas - 7.3
California - 6.8
Colorado - 3.3
Connecticut - 3.1
Delaware - 4.9
Florida - 6.2
Georgia - 6.4
Idaho - 6.1
Indiana - 5.8
Illinois - 6.1
Kansas - 4.6
Kentucky - 4.0
Louisiana - 12.4
Maryland - 9.7
Mississippi - 7.7
Missouri - 6.3
Montana - 1.8
Nebraska - 2.8
New Hampshire - 1.0
New Jersey - 4.9
New Mexico - 6.8
North Carolina - 6.1
Ohio - 4.7
Oregon - 2.3
Oklahoma - 5.8
Pennsylvania - 5.9
South Carolina - 8.3
South Dakota - 1.2
Tennessee - 6.8
Texas - 5.9
Utah - 1.8
Virgina - 5.2
Washington - 3.0
Wyoming 1.7

States Without the Death Penalty:
Alaska - 5.4
Hawaii - 1.6
Iowa - 1.8
Maine - 1.7
Massachusetts - 2.9
Michigan - 7.1
Minnesota - 2.4
North Dakota - 1.3
Rhode Island - 2.6
Vermont - 1.9
West Virginia - 4.1
Wisconsin - 3.0

New York (law declared unconstitutional in 2004) - 4.8

SlaveNoMore 09-25-2007 06:50 PM

Interesting
 
Quote:

LessinSF
Murder rates for states with the death penalty vs. states without the death penalty:

States with the Death Penalty
Nevada - 9.0
Alabama - 8.3
Arizona - 7.5
Arkansas - 7.3
California - 6.8
Colorado - 3.3
Connecticut - 3.1
Delaware - 4.9
Florida - 6.2
Georgia - 6.4
Idaho - 6.1
Indiana - 5.8
Illinois - 6.1
Kansas - 4.6
Kentucky - 4.0
Louisiana - 12.4
Maryland - 9.7
Mississippi - 7.7
Missouri - 6.3
Montana - 1.8
Nebraska - 2.8
New Hampshire - 1.0
New Jersey - 4.9
New Mexico - 6.8
North Carolina - 6.1
Ohio - 4.7
Oregon - 2.3
Oklahoma - 5.8
Pennsylvania - 5.9
South Carolina - 8.3
South Dakota - 1.2
Tennessee - 6.8
Texas - 5.9
Utah - 1.8
Virgina - 5.2
Washington - 3.0
Wyoming 1.7

States Without the Death Penalty:
Alaska - 5.4
Hawaii - 1.6
Iowa - 1.8
Maine - 1.7
Massachusetts - 2.9
Michigan - 7.1
Minnesota - 2.4
North Dakota - 1.3
Rhode Island - 2.6
Vermont - 1.9
West Virginia - 4.1
Wisconsin - 3.0

New York (law declared unconstitutional in 2004) - 4.8
A different inference (from the one I assume you are trying to make) is that the states without the death penalty merely have fewer incidents of crime, and thus they have yet to feel the need to write it into law.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 09-25-2007 07:08 PM

Interesting
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A different inference (from the one I assume you are trying to make) is that the states without the death penalty merely have fewer incidents of crime, and thus they have yet to feel the need to write it into law.
Is it even worth making an inference?
Half the states listed as having the death penalty haven't executed anyone in years.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-25-2007 08:45 PM

Interesting
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is it even worth making an inference?
Half the states listed as having the death penalty haven't executed anyone in years.
Clearly it's quite a deterrent.

Hank Chinaski 09-25-2007 08:52 PM

Interesting
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A different inference (from the one I assume you are trying to make) is that the states without the death penalty merely have fewer incidents of crime, and thus they have yet to feel the need to write it into law.
fuck. check us compared to the others w/o. we need to kill some folks.

sebastian_dangerfield 09-25-2007 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
self-interest is a good one though. I was watching the Ken Burns thing tonight. It was pretty interesting. we killed lots of French and Italian citizens to "liberate" them. We supposedly did bombings to German cities that were much worse than the blitz. In a sense wasn't that war just about self interest?
That's not an acceptable rationale. That's self interest, and yes, they are two different things.

sebastian_dangerfield 09-25-2007 09:18 PM

Batshit Crazy Dictator In NY, Today's Version
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
It has nothing to do with morals, and I understand the argument of letting him hang himself. But unfortunately the Arab world does not live by the same belief system that we do, and I fear that the appearance will be used to prop him up and legitimize him in the Arab world in the same way that allowing him to visit the towers would have.

Were you in favor of allowing him to visit the towers?
Our stamp of indirect "acceptance" is not going to alter his stature.

Yes, he should have visited the towers's footprint.

Hank Chinaski 09-25-2007 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That's not an acceptable rationale. That's self interest, and yes, they are two different things.
we were allowed to kill Europeans Germany was not. Was there an "acceptable rationale" for us to fight the Nazis? If yes, please explain how it is different. Do you mean we have to wait until the first million Jews are dead?

Tyrone Slothrop 09-26-2007 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
we were allowed to kill Europeans Germany was not. Was there an "acceptable rationale" for us to fight the Nazis? If yes, please explain how it is different. Do you mean we have to wait until the first million Jews are dead?
Germany declared war on us, not vice versa. Why do you hate America?

Tyrone Slothrop 09-26-2007 11:27 AM

Birdsongs of the Mesozoic
 
Troops have opened fire on protesting monks in Burma. Good pictures of the protests here. Not a good sign, but not unexpected.

This article on the causes of the unrest was better than anything else I've seen:
  • Burma’s generals do not seem to learn from history. In September 1987, Burma’s abrupt announcement that large banknotes were no longer valid currency wiped out the population’s savings, igniting a nationwide revolt against the regime and its economic bungling.

    Last month, the withdrawal without warning of fuel subsidies kicked off another flurry of small protests that have snowballed into the largest demonstrations since that uprising.

    The price of natural gas went up five-times. Prices of petrol and diesel doubled. The regime claimed ending fuel subsidies was necessary to eliminate an unsustainable fiscal burden but the subsequent doubling of bus fares meant many Burmese – who already spend nearly all their daily income on food – had to choose between eating and travelling to work.

    Yet the ruling generals made no attempt to cushion ordinary people from their brute version of economic reality, despite warnings that the fuel price rise could push many struggling families over the edge. “The generals make economic decisions as if they were commanding military operations,” said Zaw Oo, a Burmese economic analyst.

    Burma is one of the richest countries in Asia in terms of natural resources. In the 1950s, high society Thais flew to Rangoon, Burma’s capital at the time, for luxury shopping. Today, Burma’s population is deeply impoverished after decades under the thumb of soldiers with greater faith in astrologers than in economists and market forces. Western economic sanctions have bitten, too.

    About a third of Burma’s people live below the poverty line and 10 per cent of the population is unable to secure sufficient daily food, the United Nations says.

futbol fan 09-26-2007 11:34 AM

Batshit Crazy Dictator In NY, Today's Version
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Our stamp of indirect "acceptance" is not going to alter his stature.

Yes, he should have visited the towers's footprint.
He should have just been ignored by the city. No fanfare, no police escorts, no explicit permission to do anything and no bans either. Let him stand in Times Square with a megaphone. Let him take the subway down to Century 21 and stand by the fence like everyone else. Don't return his calls at Columbia. He's an empty suit and all the loathing just builds him up.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-26-2007 12:53 PM

John Derbyshire doesn't want to call Burma "Myanmar." And another thing:
  • Damn whatever committee of the U.N. is foisting this gibberish on us! To hell with them and all their works! GYPSIES! PEKING! LAPPS! BOMBAY! HOTTENTOTS! Come and get me, you bastards!

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 09-26-2007 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
John Derbyshire doesn't want to call Burma "Myanmar." And another thing:
  • Damn whatever committee of the U.N. is foisting this gibberish on us! To hell with them and all their works! GYPSIES! PEKING! LAPPS! BOMBAY! HOTTENTOTS! Come and get me, you bastards!

Who does he think he is? J. Peterman?

Not Bob 09-26-2007 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
John Derbyshire doesn't want to call Burma "Myanmar." And another thing:
  • Damn whatever committee of the U.N. is foisting this gibberish on us! To hell with them and all their works! GYPSIES! PEKING! LAPPS! BOMBAY! HOTTENTOTS! Come and get me, you bastards!

This may be the only thing I agree with that dude about. Add The Sudan and The Ukraine, the Northwest Territories, and Danzig to the list, among others that I have probably forgotten.

I will concede Istanbul to the Turks, although they really should have changed the name in 1453, not some 450 years later.

Oliver_Wendell_Ramone 09-26-2007 03:14 PM

I want your skull
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Danzig
What the world needs about now is a real Misfits reunion. I'd pay to see that.

Spanky 09-26-2007 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
You do realize that Dresden is a real city and that it was actually firebombed in WWII, right? Thousands of innocent men, women, and children died there.

I'm not making any moral judgments here,
I will. It was immoral for the allies to firebomb Dresden.

Hank Chinaski 09-26-2007 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I will. It was immoral for the allies to firebomb Dresden.
2. closer to home, i believe it was immoral for Taxwonk's professors to pass him through law school given his reading comprehension problems.

Spank, do you think teacher's unions are to blame?

Tyrone Slothrop 09-27-2007 12:14 PM

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/200..._protest_1.jpg

Nine dead in Burma.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-27-2007 05:59 PM

The difference between Republicans and Chicken Little? Chicken Little really thought the sky was falling.

sebastian_dangerfield 09-28-2007 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I will. It was immoral for the allies to firebomb Dresden.
We got a good Vonnegut book out of it.

sebastian_dangerfield 09-28-2007 12:42 AM

I want your skull
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
What the world needs about now is a real Misfits reunion. I'd pay to see that.
I wouldn't pay to see him fight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA84_Gb8EWk

sebastian_dangerfield 09-28-2007 12:45 AM

Batshit Crazy Dictator In NY, Today's Version
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ironweed
He should have just been ignored by the city. No fanfare, no police escorts, no explicit permission to do anything and no bans either. Let him stand in Times Square with a megaphone. Let him take the subway down to Century 21 and stand by the fence like everyone else. Don't return his calls at Columbia. He's an empty suit and all the loathing just builds him up.
I agree, but then how would all the Americans who make their living taking umbrage over things profit from his appearance?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 09-28-2007 11:13 AM

Thanks, Spanks
 
Spanky,

I just wanted to thank you and your whole party for making it crystal clear to everyone that you guys don't give a shit about people of color. Usually, Democrats have to resort to all sorts of bombastic rhetoric and wonky policy analysis to make this point. By skipping the debate, your guys gave us a nice, clear symbol of Republican indifference. And narry a complaint from the Republican establishment or party - not even a half-assed attempt to smooth it over, like a quick fly-by by some administration half-wit or a five second sound bit from Condi to remind us black republicans exist!

Please, pass on my thanks to the whole gang. Good job!

GGG

Tyrone Slothrop 09-28-2007 11:23 AM

Thanks, Spanks
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Spanky,

I just wanted to thank you and your whole party for making it crystal clear to everyone that you guys don't give a shit about people of color. Usually, Democrats have to resort to all sorts of bombastic rhetoric and wonky policy analysis to make this point. By skipping the debate, your guys gave us a nice, clear symbol of Republican indifference. And narry a complaint from the Republican establishment or party - not even a half-assed attempt to smooth it over, like a quick fly-by by some administration half-wit or a five second sound bit from Condi to remind us black republicans exist!

Please, pass on my thanks to the whole gang. Good job!

GGG
Why a debate? Why not just play tennis with the GOP primary voters who would have watched?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 09-28-2007 11:29 AM

Thanks, Spanks
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Please, pass on my thanks to the whole gang. Good job!

GGG
You're welcome. What a fucking embarassment.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 09-28-2007 11:37 AM

Thanks, Spanks
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You're welcome. What a fucking embarassment.
You see, if the RNC chair would just speak up and say something like that, it wouldn't be so bad.

Who is the RNC chair, anyway, and has he ever said anything of importance?

Hank Chinaski 09-28-2007 11:44 AM

Thanks, Spanks
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Spanky,

I just wanted to thank you and your whole party for making it crystal clear to everyone that you guys don't give a shit about people of color. Usually, Democrats have to resort to all sorts of bombastic rhetoric and wonky policy analysis to make this point. By skipping the debate, your guys gave us a nice, clear symbol of Republican indifference. And narry a complaint from the Republican establishment or party - not even a half-assed attempt to smooth it over, like a quick fly-by by some administration half-wit or a five second sound bit from Condi to remind us black republicans exist!

Please, pass on my thanks to the whole gang. Good job!

GGG
Two questions:

who is the highest ranked black person in any democrat administration, EVER?

what are you talking about?

Replaced_Texan 09-28-2007 11:44 AM

Thanks, Spanks
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You see, if the RNC chair would just speak up and say something like that, it wouldn't be so bad.

Who is the RNC chair, anyway, and has he ever said anything of importance?
I dunno if he's important or not, but NPR played Mike Huckabee's screed at his opponents for skipping the debate this morning. I think it may very well be the only thing that Mike Huckabee and I have ever agreed upon.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 09-28-2007 11:45 AM

Thanks, Spanks
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You see, if the RNC chair would just speak up and say something like that, it wouldn't be so bad.

Who is the RNC chair, anyway, and has he ever said anything of importance?
Ken Mehlman (former RNC chair), Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, and others have said so much. (mel martinez is current chair).

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 09-28-2007 12:39 PM

Thanks, Spanks
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Ken Mehlman (former RNC chair), Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, and others have said so much. (mel martinez is current chair).
And Alan Keyes - don't forget Alan Keyes!

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 09-28-2007 12:44 PM

Thanks, Spanks
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
And Alan Keyes - don't forget Alan Keyes!
No, because he said it was okay. Michael Steele complained. What, they all look alike?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:27 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com