Politics: J'accuse!

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Not Me
See that is the difference between the Reps on this board and the Dems. Reps will criticize those of similar party affiliation if they are deserving of criticism. We won't defend someone simply because they are a Rep if they do something wrong.

Hello, I am a Dem. I just wanted to say that Clinton was wrong when he lied under oath about having consensual sex with another adult.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Hey, are you saying Scalia is a Republican? Shame on you for viewing the world through such a partisan lens.

Yes, Scalia is a Rep. And Ruth Badar Ginsburg is a Dem. See the way it works is that a president of the US gets to nominate who he wants to the USSC. This results in the nomination of Dems by Dem Presidents and the nomination of Reps by Rep Presidents. Of course, occassionally one switches sides on you after being appointed (e.g., Souter).

Originally posted by Gattigap
And you know, I've heard this line of argument from you, oh, two or three or twenty-five times now. I must say, for someone whose maintenance of a consistent persona is dependent upon argumentative hairsplitting such as "well, I didn't really say I was black, you fools, I just said what if I was," your ability to make blanket statements like this takes some real guts. Brava!

I don't see what one has to do with the other. If you have any example of Dems on this board acting other than how I have characterized them, feel free to cite it.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Hello, I am a Dem. I just wanted to say that Clinton was wrong when he lied under oath about having consensual sex with another adult.

What consequences should he have suffered for that crime? Should Clinton have faced a criminal penalty? And if not, why not.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Not Me
What consequences should he have suffered for that crime? Should Clinton have faced a criminal penalty? And if not, why not.

Does my statement erode your blanket generalization about the differences between the Reps and Dems on this board?

eta: Yes, I'm sincere in my condemnation of Clinton's act.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Does my statement erode your blanket generalization about the differences between the Reps and Dems on this board?

No it doesn't because all you are willing to say is that it was wrong, when in fact, it was a crime. You are minimizing what he did. He didn't just do something wrong. He commited a crime. But Dems cared more about retaining the power of the presidency than they did about doing the right thing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I feel that criticizing the US's war against terrorism on the basis that it is really a war against radical islam is Blame-America-First type of anti-Americanism.

Either you are making up odd things and attributing them to Kerrey, in which case I decline to argue with you, or you should read the op-ed piece bilmore linked to by Kerrey in the WSJ, which should disabuse of your silly ideas about what he thinks.

Hank did a good job yesterday of explaining that. I will humor you with a summary. Both Lott and Dodd made statements that were perceived by others to indicate they endorsed the racist pasts of two men with racist pasts.

I see. And Clarke has made statements that have been misreported by others, and you guys blame Clarke for that too. It all comes together now.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
1. The art of framing a question so that it subtly makes a statement is lost on Roemer. How embarrassing that he believed his statements could pass for questions. He looked like the people you see stammering foolishly in municipal court after the judge tells them they have to frame things in questions if they want to try the motor vehicle charge they are fighting.

Agreed. I was embarassed by the behavior of many of those on the commission. This commission has the potential to do something valuable for all of us but instead has degenerated into a partisan joke.

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
2. Did he have a bet going with another commission member over who could say "Dr. Rice" "Dr. Rice" more during questioning? That "Dr. Rice" stuff was disrespectful and condescending. He may as well have shouted "M'am!".

That isn't as bad as the multiple "Dr. Clarke" references by Kerrey.

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Um…and the discrepancy is……? The rest basically has Blitzer trying to get Roemer to say what constructive factual information he expects to obtain through a public questioning of Rice, followed by Roemer “answering” by bitching about this or that, and praising Clarke, etc. I’d respect him if he’d just said, “Even after we questioned her in private, we still think she and the President fucked up and I’d like the opportunity to tell her that in front of the American People. I know I will not get additional factual information from additional questioning and will not change my mind on anything that happened. Instead, I’d like to debate her in public to convince other Americans to agree with MY point of view.”

Yep.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Either you are making up odd things and attributing them to Kerrey, in which case I decline to argue with you, or you should read the op-ed piece bilmore linked to by Kerrey in the WSJ, which should disabuse of your silly ideas about what he thinks.

In fairness, Kerrey's rather odd behavior at the hearing (odd in the sense that it seemed to contradict his earlier statements, writings, and whatnot) was confusing. I have seen it characterized, in blogs, as his VP audition.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Not Me
What consequences should he have suffered for that crime? Should Clinton have faced a criminal penalty? And if not, why not.

Well, in addition to being impeached but not removed, he paid a fine/sanction/whatever and had some bar troubles.

Are you suggesting that those were insufficient consequences? Do you think that he should have done time? If so, would Eglin be sufficient? Danbury? Or Atlanta, with the really bad criminals?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
In fairness, Kerrey's rather odd behavior at the hearing (odd in the sense that it seemed to contradict his earlier statements, writings, and whatnot) was confusing. I have seen it characterized, in blogs, as his VP audition.

You are being too fair. You posted a link to something he wrote on the subject, and she obviously didn't bother to read it before calling him anti-American.

She's taking her cues from Senator Frist. ("He's a perjurer. OK, well I don't know of any basis for that, but if there are contradictions between what he said before and what he's saying now, he's a perjurer.")

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
you should read the op-ed piece bilmore linked to by Kerrey in the WSJ, which should disabuse of your silly ideas about what he thinks.

I said I haven't had time to read it, yet. All I have read/seen are the transcript and the news stories and the news clips. I said it is possible that I intepreted what he said differently than how he meant it. But if so, then he wasn't clear in what he said at the hearing. Sounds like from what you are saying he clarified things in the WSJ editorial.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I see. And Clarke has made statements that have been misreported by others, and you guys blame Clarke for that too. It all comes together now.

Yeah and Bush lied.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Not Me
No it doesn't because all you are willing to say is that it was wrong, when in fact, it was a crime. You are minimizing what he did. He didn't just do something wrong. He commited a crime. But Dems cared more about retaining the power of the presidency than they did about doing the right thing.

I'm sorry - what was it you said originally? Oh yeah --

Originally posted by Not Me
See that is the difference between the Reps on this board and the Dems. Reps will criticize those of similar party affiliation if they are deserving of criticism. We won't defend someone simply because they are a Rep if they do something wrong.

Wow, splitting hairs IS fun!!

You conclude (from nothing) that I'm unwilling to say it was a crime, ergo, I am minimizing what he did. I did no such thing. I never said whether I thought it was a crime. Sorry if I didn't respond to your question directly, at the precise moment you asked it. But life is unfair.

I am impressed, though, by your ability to simultaneously change both what you said in a previous post AND twist I said in a previous post. Brava!

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Well, in addition to being impeached but not removed, he paid a fine/sanction/whatever and had some bar troubles.

Are you suggesting that those were insufficient consequences? Do you think that he should have done time? If so, would Eglin be sufficient? Danbury? Or Atlanta, with the really bad criminals?

I'm one of those psycho libertarians and I'd like to take issue with Panda's assertion that Billy Bob lied about having sex with that woman. Blow jobs and cigar dildos are not "sex." They just aren't. Ask any HS cheerleader. Whole thing was total bullshit.

BR(yes, I am sincere)C

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't see what one has to do with the other. If you have any example of Dems on this board acting other than how I have characterized them, feel free to cite it.

Well, here's one from Atticus that I recall. There are others, but I see that you've already dragged someone else into the high weeds to argue about Clinton, so other than observing that you've adroitly shrunk the size of your blanket to a place more comfortable to you, I'll leave it at that.

Oh, forgot to add:

Originally posted by Not Me
Yes, Scalia is a Rep. And Ruth Badar Ginsburg is a Dem. See the way it works is that a president of the US gets to nominate who he wants to the USSC. This results in the nomination of Dems by Dem Presidents and the nomination of Reps by Rep Presidents. Of course, occassionally one switches sides on you after being appointed (e.g., Souter).

Whiff.


etft -- T.S.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You posted a link to something he wrote on the subject, and she obviously didn't bother to read it before calling him anti-American.

You have your timing wrong. I posted my comments based on the hearing yesterday.

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...4290#post84290

Bilmore posted the editorial today in response to my comments. Moreover, I have stated several times that I was basing my conclusion on what was said at the hearing. That is how it came across to me.