Politics: J'accuse! - Page 64

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-09-2004, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
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.

You're still repeating the canard today, and have spent more time doing so than it would take you to simply look at the op-ed piece (90 seconds, top). Why? Because it amuses you to call Kerrey anti-American. Whatever. I'm done with this one.

bilmore · 04-09-2004, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
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.

While I will say that, yes, it was a gross overgeneralization that won't stand strict scrutiny, I think it would be worthier if you addressed the meat of what she's saying, as a generalization, and not jump on the "here's an exception" train, especially when your exceptions seem to be posts specifically aimed at forming exceptions to that specific overgeneralization. If AG has to make a post that specifically says "here's one to put an end to the "we don't eat our own" paradigm", there's probably SOMETHING to the paradigm.

Not Me · 04-09-2004, 05:26 PM

Quote:

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?

The question that will shed light on this issue is "Do any of the Dems on this board agree that Clinton should have faced these or other consequences for lying under oath?"

Not Me · 04-09-2004, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
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.

So was it a crime and do you support consequences for that crime and if so, what consequences?

Not Me · 04-09-2004, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You're still repeating the canard today, and have spent more time doing so than it would take you to simply look at the op-ed piece (90 seconds, top). Why? Because it amuses you to call Kerrey anti-American. Whatever. I'm done with this one.

No it was because I was busy posting to you, et al., and trying to get some work done and ovulating (which causes mittelschmerz and makes me cranky).

Sexual Harassment Panda · 04-09-2004, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
While I will say that, yes, it was a gross overgeneralization that won't stand strict scrutiny, I think it would be worthier if you addressed the meat of what she's saying, as a generalization, and not jump on the "here's an exception" train, especially when your exceptions seem to be posts specifically aimed at forming exceptions to that specific overgeneralization. If AG has to make a post that specifically says "here's one to put an end to the "we don't eat our own" paradigm", there's probably SOMETHING to the paradigm.

Baloney. If I get four or five others to start posting that Bilmore eats spoiled herring, and someone posts that they met you IRL and you despise spoiled herring, does that mean there was something to the accusation to begin with? We're not responding to it because it's so ridiculous ab initio, not because we don't want to go there.

Sexual Harassment Panda · 04-09-2004, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
So was it a crime and do you support consequences for that crime and if so, what consequences?

See posts #934 and 939. The latter is incorporated by reference in its entirety.

bilmore · 04-09-2004, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Baloney.

I actually think there's something to it, but not as a result of any intrinsic quality of, or difference between, the philosophies. Rather, it's an extension of Jane's Law ("The party in power is smug and arrogant. The party out of power is insane"), which, for now, allows Republicans the freedom of being smugly magnanimous, and Democrats the freedom to be rabid, while the roles were reversed during the Clinton years.

Not Me · 04-09-2004, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
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.

He does appear to be criticizing unnamed anti-Bush protesters in that post that is 3 months old. I will search for posts from the Dems on this board that criticize named Dems and get back to you when I find them.

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Oh, forgot to add:

Whiff.

Whiff, whiff.

etft -- T.S.

Sexual Harassment Panda · 04-09-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I actually think there's something to it, but not as a result of any intrinsic quality of, or difference between, the philosophies. Rather, it's an extension of Jane's Law ("The party in power is smug and arrogant. The party out of power is insane"), which, for now, allows Republicans the freedom of being smugly magnanimous, and Democrats the freedom to be rabid, while the roles were reversed during the Clinton years.

True dat. That's strange - I don't feel rabid.

If I misconstrued notMe's posts about Dems to be an inherent feature of Dems v. Reps, as opposed to an imperious discourse on an inherent feature of the powerless v. those in power, I humbly apologize for wasting time and electrons.

bilmore · 04-09-2004, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
If I misconstrued notMe's posts about Dems to be an inherent feature of Dems v. Reps, as opposed to an imperious discourse on an inherent feature of the powerless v. those in power, I humbly apologize for wasting time and electrons.

No, I think you read what was written. I'm just being reasonable, to see what it feels like.

I don't like it much.

Not Me · 04-09-2004, 05:56 PM

I agree that the editorial indicates that Kerrey sees this war the same way I see it. I just don't understand what the point of his comments were at the commission.

My advice to him would be to be more careful with his phrasing while he is being televised interrogating the national security advisor as a member of the 9/11 commission. I know I wasn't the only person who took what he said to mean something different from what he wrote in the WSJ editorial.

Gattigap · 04-09-2004, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
True dat. That's strange - I don't feel rabid.

It's subliminal. Our time spent on the Democratic "street" has desensitized us to our actions, and we don't even notice the spittle anymore.

(Aside to Bilmore -- yeah, it's an interesting theory. I was going to say that it also might be because regardless of its truth, it's become such an article of faith among Reps on this board, but Panda beat me to it.)

Quote:

If I misconstrued notMe's posts about Dems to be an inherent feature of Dems v. Reps, as opposed to an imperious discourse on an inherent feature of the powerless v. those in power, I humbly apologize for wasting time and electrons.

Well, you did misconstrue 'em's posts, but they're not really about that. Actually, the subtext has to do with polygamy.

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-09-2004, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
I agree that the editorial indicates that Kerrey sees this war the same way I see it. I just don't understand what the point of his comments were at the commission.

My advice to him would be to be more careful with his phrasing while he is being televised interrogating the national security advisor as a member of the 9/11 commission. I know I wasn't the only person who took what he said to mean something different from what he wrote in the WSJ editorial.

I think he objects to the idea of a war "on terrorism." Makes sense to me.

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-09-2004, 06:08 PM

Does anyone have good recommendations for coverage of what's going on in Iraq? I'm really underwhelmed by the major media -- they have not been useful at all this week. Someone just pointed me to Juan Cole, who seems good to me, but either the situation over there is much worse than CNN et al. can say right now, or he's on the negative side -- I don't know enough to tell yet. Iraq Blog Count links to a number of Iraqi blogs, but they're more impressionistic. And Brad DeLong has been posting some interesting stuff in the last day from Americans in Iraq.