glass houses
 

the Sun made up what Liebermann said? hmmm, was it "accurate, even if made up?" Does CBS own that rag?

If President Nixon asked you to rob an office in the Watergate building and told you that it would be OK, would you trust him? Probably so, but you would deserve your time in a federal penetentiary.

Your hypo points to an important facet of this, which is that he won't tell Congress what the telcos did that they should be immunized for.

nice. you try and equate something anyone knows would be illegal, with an act that is certainly not that.

You state a better argument for when the guy who pulled the trigger on vince Foster tries to argue that Clinton told him it was ok.



why is congress passing the law, i mean it's wrong, right?

glass houses
 

And I here thought you were busting my chops for citing blogs, not for citing sources that made up what other people said. Mostly 'cause I don't do that.

1-0

Why is Congress passing what law? You are even less lucid than your usually non-lucid self.

fuck ty, i don't know. bush will veto something if it doesn't have something in it. what is he vetoing, lunch plans?

oh, and way to avoid the skewering of you argument.

That's a graceful concession -- thanks.

2-0

Sure, but you won't get a win on this one.

I am sure that you are right that the help that AT&T et al gave to Uncle Sam was very helpful in the GWOT. In fact, maybe the FBI can just ask all the lawyers in the country to let them rifle through their files. Check with your managing partner; maybe she can set up a G-Man (uh, G-Person) in that empty space on 27 by the Feinsterblocker Conference Room to let him/her look through the files on all of the firm's estate planning and tax clients for "patterns." Who knows? They might find out that one or two of them are laundering money for Hamas or Al Quida or ETA.

Translation: President Clinton we can kill Osama. we know where he is." "Let's not."

Bob, you have either been drinking at lunch again, or you have no respect for me. That was a silly comparision.

QED Hank Chinaski 345-20. Pisses me off that Ty covered the spread and got a count for his side, but the spread has gotten pretty one-sided by now, and i can't always cover. WTTW.

I'm not sure your hypo goes far enough, since I don't see the criminal exposure for letting the FBI rifle through some files.

No. And, fwiw, I assume that it wasn't George Bush personally calling each CEO, asking for help.

If I can step out of character for a moment -- I represented a business entity that was one of several victims of a criminal. State and federal law enforcement authorities investigated, and asked for copies of documents that were (like phone conversations) protected by federal statute. We said, love to help, send us a subpoena. They went ballistic, bullied, blustered, etc., and finally sent a subpoena.

Anyway, my point is that if my client had given the documents without the complusion of the subpoena, they would have been the one in violation of the statute, not the state and fed law enforcement types who would have been in receipt of the records.

Interesting discussion here about the topic http://www.overlawyered.com/2007/10/...com_immun.html

fighting joe
 

Wow - an highly rare example of "politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment "

And to think that I considered adding "oh, hank, mentioning anything regarding cruise missiles, Clinton, and Osama is non-responsive to a discussion of the government shut-down," and did not because I figured even you wouldn't go there. C'est la vie.

fighting joe
 

I would have thought that you would be all for a war with Iran, and yet you don't seem disappointed by the notion that all the saber-rattling is not preparation for war, but just paranoia. I hope you're right.

Meanwhile, Joe is all-war-all-the-time. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but it's usually wrong.

I remember the good old days when conservatives complained that Clinton was too promiscuous in shooting cruise missiles at Osama.

it's extrememlly relevent, goes to your mindset. it's why you can't see the reality.

I know a lot of babies are named that, but I didn't know they named a mountain after him.

• Clinton probably came within hours of killing bin Laden on Aug. 20, 1998, when the US attacked training camps in Afghanistan near Khost, where the CIA believed terrorist leaders were gathering to plan further attacks in the wake of earlier bombings of US embassies. The cruise missile strikes, launched from Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea, mostly hit their targets but missed bin Laden, most likely by just a few hours (9/11 Report, p. 117). . . .
  
  Clinton's Republican Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, described Clinton as vigorously trying to get bin Laden. Cohen told the 9/11 Commission that "President Clinton and his entire national security team devoted an extraordinary amount of time and effort to coping with the threat."

link

and i should post the times he passed, and you cite blogs about how it didn't happen? no thanks. i have a life.

do you have Sandy B's cell number? ask him.

oh, and ps "they named a mountain after him?" was the funniest thing here in months, and all you do is spit this back. that doesn't sound like the open minded ty we were prominsed we'll start seeing.

What reality don't I see? Kidding aside, Hank, if you think that the fact that there are people out there who want to destroy us and our way of life* means that our government must return to the legal standard of "the king can do no wrong," then discussion is really fruitless.

*Unlike, say, the Nazis and the Soviet Union, who simply wanted to be left alone.

no one said anything about the President. the question is an entity that seems to have believed he had some authority, which I think we'd like it to keep up its confidence, since Ty believes* congress is extending a law that will require the tele cos. to help with.

What law are you concerned they broke by the way?

*by "believe" I mean he cites a blog summary that claims the law is being extended.

18 U.S.C. 2511, according to the smart folks at Overlawyered. Violations of it give rise to a private right of action with statutory damages (18 U.S.C. 2520(c)(2)), which presumably is why the immunity provision was proposed.

fighting joe
 

Why would we want to go to war with Iran?

The UN and the Democrat party constantly reassure me that their nuclear enrichment programme is solely for benign, domestic purposes.

Apocalypse, then!
 

We were attacking sovereign nations back in 1998?

The horror. The. Horror.

It is very unbecoming to dance in the end-zone like that. Hank's had a hard day.

Sometimes my Hank-to-English translator doesn't work so well.

And the business about Clinton not taking Sudan up on their offer to ship us Osama is a pile of crap, and you know it.

Neither you nor Congress know what the telcos believed, since the White House will not disclose what it is that they're receiving immunity for.

Don't let that stop you from making up whatever facts you need.

fighting joe
 

If you're going to make shit up about what Democrats say or think, at least get the name of the party right.

I'm pretty sure none of the budget bill's provisions were people. That would make my response to your question "No."

oh. sorry, that would be "what law might have been broken." but you have answered Ty's initial question, or Ty's blog of the day's question, "why would bush insist on the immunity before he signs"........ and all you guys focus now "the extension the congress is apparently getting ready to pass." To not insist on the immunity would render the extension meaningless, no company would get involved.

Here all you guys are hatching hair brained theories about how many bad things the companies did, when you don't know fuck all about what they did.

And you are the reasonable ones. Imagine how many lawsuits the extreme libs at daily kos et al might bring.

Don't you see how that would frustrate Peloisi and Teddy K's desire to see the extension work?

Poll: do you think GGG cheers for his team when they foul off a good fastball, calls it a win?

so you don't think i'm dumb, and atticus thinks i've only been dumb one time.

HC 2-1

fighting joe
 

It utterly baffles me that the term "Democrat party" gets you so incensed.

From some blog:

---

In response, Karl Rove got cussed out by the nutroots.

The commenters at Crooks and Liars and Atrios proved Rove right.

Here's a fine example:

"F*ck the f*cking f*ckers."

***

Say what you will, his point about nutty fringe soapbox is spot on.

Agreed.

And the "Democrat Party" thing is usually intended to be deliberately insulting, so perhaps that's why it bothers Ty (and me) when you and Spanky use it here. From Wikipedia

• Republican leader Harold Stassen said in 1940, "I emphasized that the party controlled in large measure at that time by Hague in New Jersey, Pendergast in Missouri and Kelly-Nash in Chicago should not be called a 'Democratic Party.' It should be called the 'Democrat Party.'"

fighting joe
 

I don't think he was so incensed. He just pointed out that you sounded stupid. Which you did.

The people on Dailykos.com and Townhall.org are not nuts. They're tools. IRL, you'd never even look at those people. Nuts, OTOH, are sometimes worth engaging in real life. They can be amusing.

Your party is a machine, and its controlled by people with a vested interest in keeping govt big. Try to shake the "Democrat Party" label all you like, but it fits. That's why it's lasted so long.

I'm not saying the GOP is any better. If you have a slur for purported free marketeers who are more than happy to subsidize their businesses at the govt trough and drain that trough knowing the result will be a Democrat Party big govt resurgence in their wake, I'm happy to use it. "Greedheaded Big Govt Profiteers" is too clumsy.

Karl Rove arguing in favor of raising discourse? Shirley you're kidding. I'm want to throw out a funny comparison, but try as I might, the word "Goebbels" keeps working its way into my thoughts.

He was scum, even among his kind.

shucks, thanks.:blush: :blush:

oh. and FWIW, I don't believe Ty is a tool.

Explaining why you think that the insult is accurate and sticky doesn't change the fact that it is an insult.

eta I don't mean to sound thin-skinned -- I was simply trying to answer Slave's question. Insult away, just be aware that it is an insult, that's all.