LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=719)

Shape Shifter 01-19-2006 02:33 PM

OBL Blinks
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what did the hank win on?
Nepotism, probably.

Hank Chinaski 01-19-2006 02:45 PM

OBL Blinks
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Nepotism, probably.
it's starting to seem like Howard 100 and 101 onSirius except all about me. I'm pretty flattered, like whne spank Myasski first came along.

SlaveNoMore 01-19-2006 02:48 PM

OBL Blinks
 
Quote:

Shape Shifter
Basquist fuck.
Hardly. Basque food rocks!!!

Arzak is my homie.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-19-2006 07:07 PM

The bottom line on ANWAR
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That stutuory definition doesn't preclude a road.
Sebby, for the love of God, just acknowledge that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Yes, the statutory definition of "wilderness" precludes roads. People have spent huge sums of money fighting about, e.g., whether some vestigial trail through the backcountry in Utah was a road, because it then defeats wilderness protection, and so on. The point of the statutory definition of wilderness is that it precludes development such as roads.

Quote:

I'm unable to find any authority regarding whether paving falls into the govt definition of trammeling. Probably because I didn't look all that hard.
Probably because you didn't look at all. I used to litigate this stuff, so I'm not going to bother looking either. You can take my word for it.

Quote:

ETA: Here's a novel thought... Instead of furiously googling for statutory authority, or cribbing the Sierra Club's insane ramblings on the issue, why not try applying a common sense analysis to the question of whether driving one road ane one pipeline into ANWR removes its "wilderness" maidenhead for all times?
Why don't you stop pretending that developing ANWR involves "driving one road and one pipeline" into it? You sound like a shill for an oil company. It's ignorant.

Hank Chinaski 01-19-2006 08:41 PM

The bottom line on ANWAR
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why don't you stop pretending that developing ANWR involves "driving one road and one pipeline" into it? You sound like a shill for an oil company. It's ignorant.
Why do you ignore the fact that eventually it will be drilled? Are you hoping technology will be advanced so the damage will be lessened? Teleportation of the oil?

Tyrone Slothrop 01-19-2006 09:04 PM

The bottom line on ANWAR
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Why do you ignore the fact that eventually it will be drilled? Are you hoping technology will be advanced so the damage will be lessened? Teleportation of the oil?
Your predictions have not yet reached the status of "fact," Hank, and I say that without needed to resort to any semantic trickery about the meaning of that word.

Hank Chinaski 01-19-2006 09:21 PM

The bottom line on ANWAR
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your predictions have not yet reached the status of "fact," Hank, and I say that without needed to resort to any semantic trickery about the meaning of that word.
I bet I could find a blog saying it's so- would that convince you?

Tyrone Slothrop 01-19-2006 09:44 PM

The bottom line on ANWAR
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I bet I could find a blog saying it's so- would that convince you?
Depends on the blog.

Hank Chinaski 01-19-2006 09:58 PM

The bottom line on ANWAR
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Depends on the blog.
daily koz will write what you tell him if you pay- will this blog do that?

Tyrone Slothrop 01-19-2006 10:14 PM

The bottom line on ANWAR
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
daily koz will write what you tell him if you pay- will this blog do that?
How much you got?

LessinSF 01-20-2006 02:10 PM

Sexual Harassment Panda Outed!
 
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg....213422750.jpg?

Sexual Harassment Panda 01-20-2006 04:48 PM

Sexual Harassment Panda Outed!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by LessinSF
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg....213422750.jpg?
Oh Christ, if my wife sees this I'm dead.

ltl/fb 01-20-2006 08:44 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Venezuela is planning a "buying spree" for military equipment that goes beyond the country's legitimate needs, the State Department said Friday. In recent days, the United States has sought to block proposed sales of military planes and other equipment to Venezuela by Spain and Brazil. . . . The United States has the authority to block the sale because some of the planes' technology is American-made.

It's not clear to me whether the State Dept. position is that they have a problem with Venezuela getting their hands on the particular type(s) of aircraft, or whether they would be OK with them getting one or two, but think twelve is excessive.

The justifications given by the State Dept. spokesman sound to me like the actual reason is the latter, but it seems like the authority we have to block the sale(s) would be premised on the former -- that when the US gov't allows a type of technology to be exported and sold to a foreign government, one of the terms of sale is that they can't sell it (even after incorporation into another product) to a third party without our approval, because we don't want killing machine high technology to get into the wrong hands. But that's an on/off switch, not a rheostat.

Heh. I am such the electrician.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-20-2006 09:10 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Venezuela is planning a "buying spree" for military equipment that goes beyond the country's legitimate needs, the State Department said Friday. In recent days, the United States has sought to block proposed sales of military planes and other equipment to Venezuela by Spain and Brazil. . . . The United States has the authority to block the sale because some of the planes' technology is American-made.

It's not clear to me whether the State Dept. position is that they have a problem with Venezuela getting their hands on the particular type(s) of aircraft, or whether they would be OK with them getting one or two, but think twelve is excessive.

The justifications given by the State Dept. spokesman sound to me like the actual reason is the latter, but it seems like the authority we have to block the sale(s) would be premised on the former -- that when the US gov't allows a type of technology to be exported and sold to a foreign government, one of the terms of sale is that they can't sell it (even after incorporation into another product) to a third party without our approval, because we don't want killing machine high technology to get into the wrong hands. But that's an on/off switch, not a rheostat.

Heh. I am such the electrician.
If this is to be believed, the Administration is trying to deny Venezuela access to commuter aircraft.

ltl/fb 01-20-2006 10:34 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If this is to be believed, the Administration is trying to deny Venezuela access to commuter aircraft.
The engine of the C-295 is the PW127 turboprop. It is generic for the 70-seat civilian turboprop market . . . The C-295 is, as you'd expect, the militarized version of the 70-seat flying bus, configurable to haul seats, pallets, or stretchers. They go for about $25,000,000 each.

The engine of the CN-235 is the GE CT7-9C turboprop. It too is generic for the 45-seat civilian turboprop market, . . . The CN-235 is, as you'd expect, the militarized version of the 45-seat flying bus, configurable to haul seats, pallets. They go for about $17,000,000. The C-295 is a stretched derivative of the CN-235 transporter, with characteristic high wing, rear loader design.

$25 million and $17 million seem like quite high prices for used planes that are essentially harmless, but, looking at Boeing's website, it looks like the smallest version of the 737, which seats 110, went for between $45 million and $55 million in 2005.


I would not be surprised if the planes, after being outfitted for the Brazilian or Spanish military or whatever, hadn't had some fancy-pants electronics installed in them that make them not the everyday commuter plane.

ETA on rereading the thingy you linked to, it isn't clear to me that the planes themselves are essentially harmless -- just that the engines, which it says are the US portions that we can restrict the sale of, could be used for perfectly innocent purposes. Well, yeah, like an aircraft carrier could be used just as like a big floating city, and you could like put basketball and tennis courts on the flight deck.

EATA this is the first thing that pulled up when I searched "C-295" -- http://www.c295-tour.com/family.html

Actually I don't even buy that website's story at all -- it appears that Raytheon and EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) jointly manufacture it, and Raytheon seems most definitely to be an American company, so there'd be a lot more US tech in a plane they were making than just some engine.

I deem that website full of shit. But I know a lot more about planes now.

Hank Chinaski 01-20-2006 11:08 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The engine of the C-295 is the PW127 turboprop. It is generic for the 70-seat civilian turboprop market . . . The C-295 is, as you'd expect, the militarized version of the 70-seat flying bus, configurable to haul seats, pallets, or stretchers. They go for about $25,000,000 each.

The engine of the CN-235 is the GE CT7-9C turboprop. It too is generic for the 45-seat civilian turboprop market, . . . The CN-235 is, as you'd expect, the militarized version of the 45-seat flying bus, configurable to haul seats, pallets. They go for about $17,000,000. The C-295 is a stretched derivative of the CN-235 transporter, with characteristic high wing, rear loader design.

$25 million and $17 million seem like quite high prices for used planes that are essentially harmless, but, looking at Boeing's website, it looks like the smallest version of the 737, which seats 110, went for between $45 million and $55 million in 2005.


I would not be surprised if the planes, after being outfitted for the Brazilian or Spanish military or whatever, hadn't had some fancy-pants electronics installed in them that make them not the everyday commuter plane.

ETA on rereading the thingy you linked to, it isn't clear to me that the planes themselves are essentially harmless -- just that the engines, which it says are the US portions that we can restrict the sale of, could be used for perfectly innocent purposes. Well, yeah, like an aircraft carrier could be used just as like a big floating city, and you could like put basketball and tennis courts on the flight deck.

EATA this is the first thing that pulled up when I searched "C-295" -- http://www.c295-tour.com/family.html

Actually I don't even buy that website's story at all -- it appears that Raytheon and EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) jointly manufacture it, and Raytheon seems most definitely to be an American company, so there'd be a lot more US tech in a plane they were making than just some engine.

I deem that website full of shit. But I know a lot more about planes now.
dim. you work in Erisa for some donut-poor client. leave talk about military to the men. n'est ce-pas?

SlaveNoMore 01-21-2006 03:14 AM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
If this is to be believed, the Administration is trying to deny Venezuela access to commuter aircraft.
Chavez is a thug. A tyrant. And a rogue that is actively working to establish technological ties with Iran.

So, back to your statement. Why would we care?

Tyrone Slothrop 01-21-2006 08:51 AM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Chavez is a thug. A tyrant. And a rogue that is actively working to establish technological ties with Iran.
He's the democratically elected leader, though.

Quote:

So, back to your statement. Why would we care?
You'll have to ask fringey.

Hank Chinaski 01-21-2006 09:19 AM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He's the democratically elected leader, though.

so you think people should just let an elected leader do what he will? can we please quit hearing about bugging al queda phone calls then?

baltassoc 01-21-2006 11:59 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And a rogue that is actively working to establish technological ties with Iran.
He wants to make deals with Iran? You say that like it's a bad thing.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-22-2006 01:11 AM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so you think people should just let an elected leader do what he will?
You know, you're right -- if Venezuela gets modern commuter aircraft, it could send businesspeople to work in cities all over the region, from Bogota to Kingstown, and have them back in Caracas every night to get more instructions.

Quote:

can we please quit hearing about bugging al queda phone calls then?
I have no problem with bugging Al Qaeda calls. It's my calls I don't want bugged.

Sidd Finch 01-23-2006 11:24 AM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have no problem with bugging Al Qaeda calls. It's my calls I don't want bugged.

Silly liberal. How can Cheney be sure you aren't al Qaeda until he has listened to your calls?

If the feds had been conducting un-warranted wiretaps widely in early 2001, it would have prevented 9/11. (Somebody might have said "al Qaeda plans attacks within US", and that kind of thing is much more of an attention-grabber when spoken instead of written).

Hank Chinaski 01-23-2006 11:59 AM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Silly liberal. How can Cheney be sure you aren't al Qaeda until he has listened to your calls?

If the feds had been conducting un-warranted wiretaps widely in early 2001, it would have prevented 9/11. (Somebody might have said "al Qaeda plans attacks within US", and that kind of thing is much more of an attention-grabber when spoken instead of written).
when bill clinton repeatedly decided to not take Bin Ladin, pre-9/11, was that because it would have been unwarrented?

Sexual Harassment Panda 01-23-2006 12:35 PM

Spanky's Mystery Woman
 
What happened to Spanky's wealthy woman of mystery who was all lined up to take on Pombo?

sebastian_dangerfield 01-23-2006 12:37 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Chavez is a thug. A tyrant. And a rogue that is actively working to establish technological ties with Iran.

So, back to your statement. Why would we care?
You mean like the energy deal Cheney was trying to cook up with Iran pre-9/11?

ltl/fb 01-23-2006 12:41 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Chavez is a thug. A tyrant. And a rogue that is actively working to establish technological ties with Iran.

So, back to your statement. Why would we care?
The administration should have thought out their stated objection better. Plus, if the war-machine makers want to sell, they should be allowed to. Free market, etc.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-23-2006 12:44 PM

The bottom line on ANWAR
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why don't you stop pretending that developing ANWR involves "driving one road and one pipeline" into it? You sound like a shill for an oil company. It's ignorant.
Are you using ignorant as an insult? I love that.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-23-2006 12:48 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The administration should have thought out their stated objection better. Plus, if the war-machine makers want to sell, they should be allowed to. Free market, etc.
Amen. How in the hell can we justify invading Venezuala or assassinating Chavez if he doesn't have adequate hardware to make him a threat?

You'd think we would have learned our lesson in Iraq. How many despots do we have to provide with inadequate WMD, causing us to lose face during subsequent invasions of their nations, before we learn?

Tyrone Slothrop 01-23-2006 01:01 PM

The bottom line on ANWAR
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Are you using ignorant as an insult? I love that.
I was using it to mean "ignorant," but I'm happy I could please.

Spanky 01-23-2006 01:14 PM

Spanky's Mystery Woman
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
What happened to Spanky's wealthy woman of mystery who was all lined up to take on Pombo?
She turned out not to be a good candidate. We decided it would be a lot easier for Pete to get earned media. So we went with Pete. The official announcement is coming from Lodi today. Do you want to donate?

Sidd Finch 01-23-2006 02:22 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when bill clinton repeatedly decided to not take Bin Ladin, pre-9/11, was that because it would have been unwarrented?

No, I think it was obvious to any thinking person by early 2000 that Bin Laden should be taken out, hard.

Pity Bush didn't become President until September 10, 2001, or he might have had time to do something about that.

Hank Chinaski 01-23-2006 02:24 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No, I think it was obvious to any thinking person by early 2000 that Bin Laden should be taken out, hard.

Pity Bush didn't become President until September 10, 2001, or he might have had time to do something about that.
sudan kept it's offer open?

Shape Shifter 01-23-2006 03:39 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
sudan kept it's offer open?
The fake you seems much less ignorant.

Sexual Harassment Panda 01-23-2006 03:59 PM

Spanky's Mystery Woman
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
She turned out not to be a good candidate. We decided it would be a lot easier for Pete to get earned media. So we went with Pete. The official announcement is coming from Lodi today. Do you want to donate?
I'll pass, but thanks for asking. Best of luck in getting rid of Pombo, though.

Hank Chinaski 01-23-2006 04:12 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The fake you seems much less ignorant.
I thought you had stopped sucking slave's dick?

SlaveNoMore 01-23-2006 04:25 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Hank Chinaski
I thought you had stopped sucking slave's dick?
"Brownnose Mountain"?

Shape Shifter 01-23-2006 04:36 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Brownnose Mountain"?
So you admit that you're the fake Hank?

SlaveNoMore 01-23-2006 04:47 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Shape Shifter
So you admit that you're the fake Hank?
Um, no. I can barely bother to post here. You really think I'd be posting there, too?

Is there a Hank on the Monkeyscribe site?

Hank Chinaski 01-23-2006 04:52 PM

Appropriateness?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Um, no. I can barely bother to post here. You really think I'd be posting there, too?

Is there a Hank on the Monkeyscribe site?
its GGG. you can tell by his mad-photoshop skills. place is pathetic- they gave me a crown for periodically bitching that they let him steal my name. SS is the only one else there- I bet in HS he played football with the middle school kids down the street.

SlaveNoMore 01-23-2006 11:45 PM

Tory! Tory! Tory!
 
Good thing all those Baldwins and other hacks didn't move to Canada, eh?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:28 AM.

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