Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Janet Reno's justice department thought there were al queda/Iraq WMD links

When conservatives resort to citing Clinton Administration policies & decisions as support, you know they are desperate.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
When conservatives resort to citing Clinton Administration policies & decisions as support, you know they are desperate.

well the Clinton administration didn't make any decision and had only a laissez faire policy, so I'm not citing those. I'm citing what Janet alleged about AQ/Iraq ties, because some of you said there weren't any.

[sgtclub]

In case anybody wants to read it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/378fmxyz.asp

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/980078.asp

Which isn't really news justifying a link. My question relates to this quote about the Malvo trial:

“They are really making a play to save his life” by planting the idea, even before the sentencing phase that would follow a conviction, that Malvo was a child who was manipulated, said Andrew Sacks, a defense attorney who has handled prominent murder cases in Virginia....
So, “even if that (insanity) defense doesn’t fly, it gives them the opportunity to begin sensitizing the jury to the human side of their client,” Sacks said.
That approach could work, given that the jury includes several people with ties to children, including a teacher, a retired teacher, a retired assistant principal and a lunchroom monitor, said Donald Smith, an Old Dominion University sociology professor who studies jury behavior.

My question: Why in the hell would they think that present or former school teachers, principals or lunchroom monitors would not in fact be MORE likely to sentence one of the misbehaving little fucks to death? Given what I've heard from the teachers and school admins I know, that strikes me as a possibly very mistaken assumption.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic

My question: Why in the hell would they think that present or former school teachers, principals or lunchroom monitors would not in fact be MORE likely to sentence one of the misbehaving little fucks to death? Given what I've heard from the teachers and school admins I know, that strikes me as a possibly very mistaken assumption.

Perhaps, but they probably figure they're soft enough to give him only life without parole. After all they never (yet) followed through on their threats to kill all the little brats.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Perhaps, but they probably figure they're soft enough to give him only life without parole. After all they never (yet) followed through on their threats to kill all the little brats.

They've never (yet) been given the opportunity.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
[My question: Why in the hell would they think that present or former school teachers, principals or lunchroom monitors would not in fact be MORE likely to sentence one of the misbehaving little fucks to death? Given what I've heard from the teachers and school admins I know, that strikes me as a possibly very mistaken assumption.

No no no. Teachers, lunchroom monitors and especially administrators like disciplined kids. Its anarchy and food fights that make these guys want to go capitol. Malvo was good at taking instruction and extremelly controlled.

Malvo's the kind of guy they'd make hall monitor. I predict life, with recommendation to be a trustee.

[Atticus Grinch]

"Just because I may have been doing something that appeared to be contradictory to what I was suggested others do doesn't mean that what I was suggesting others do was wrong," he said. "Critics want to harp on all this hypocrisy, there is no hypocrisy in this."

Can someone please help me parse this sentence from Rush Limbaugh today? If you can't parse it, can you at least diagram it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Can someone please help me parse this sentence from Rush Limbaugh today? If you can't parse it, can you at least diagram it?

I think he means
"those who can do. those who can't teach."

or more accurately "those who can not do, don't; those who can't not do, teach others not to"

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Can someone please help me parse this sentence from Rush Limbaugh today? If you can't parse it, can you at least diagram it?

So what he was telling others to do was correct but what he was actually doing himself was wrong. But there was no hypocricy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Rush Limbaugh on drugs
what I did young, he does now,
second childhood time.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
So what he was telling others to do was correct but what he was actually doing himself was wrong. But there was no hypocricy.

No no no, he said that what he was doing appeared to be contradictory to what he was saying others should do. Obviously, things were not as they appeared.

I was relieved to hear that he is now aware that drug rehab places are not just big liberal indoctrination programs.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Can someone please help me parse this sentence from Rush Limbaugh today? If you can't parse it, can you at least diagram it?

Here is the passage again. if he means this, it just proves -- as I've always suspected, that Rush really isn't very smart. More likely, though, he's just lying:

"'Just because I may have been doing something that appeared to be contradictory to what I was suggested others do doesn't mean that what I was suggesting others do was wrong,' he said. 'Critics want to harp on all this hypocrisy, there is no hypocrisy in this.'"

His first sentence is absolutely correct. His second sentence is a non sequitur, and is absolutely wrong.

S_A_M

P.S. to Say Hello -- I really liked your earlier post, where you suggested that Kennedy and Johnson and Clinton were isolationists, and that Kennedy and Johnson did not confront the Soviet Union. Nice piece of work there.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Clinton [was an] isolationist,

i call bullshit! I saw hillary kissing Arafat. you got to be doing that for foreign relations, ain't no wat you kiss arafat for aestetic value.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
P.S. to Say Hello -- I really liked your earlier post, where you suggested that Kennedy and Johnson and Clinton were isolationists, and that Kennedy and Johnson did not confront the Soviet Union. Nice piece of work there.

Nice. The post was to suggest that their policies were failures. Failure to send the Marines in behind the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs anyone? Kennedy/Johnson's non-isolationism was one of our country's greatest modern failures. You wanna brag about their foreign policy, have at it. Please.

If anything, I'm not a fan of the foreign policies of most presidents post-1945. North Korea surprising our extremely deteriorated peacetime army? Ugh, but lotso blame to go around there. Anyone ever heard of Gen. Dean (seriously, Gen. Dean). I hope he wasn't related to Howard, or there would be two ties to surrendering soldiers in the Democratic presidential camp. Not the legacy I'd want to convey. At least, not after the Manchurian Candidate and all. I can only imagine one of the Clinton's ancestors surrendered to the Chinese before the Chinese were communists (any time I can, I will).

But the list of our foreign policy failures goes on and on. The Spanish Civil War anyone? Seems "Homage to Catalonia" would indicate there was room for American governmental action there. Maybe Orwell would've stayed if he could get a gun without swearing allegiance to Moscow.

What have we done right in Europe or Asia?

Well, no doubt about it, Japan is a shining beacon for Roosevelt/Truman. South Korea is a shining beacon for Truman too. We helped in Greece after WWII too, right? Kudos to the democrat who chose the right side there.

But point to one flipping thing that Kennedy/Johnson supporters can proudly point to. One thing that Carter can point to. Please. They might not have been isolationists, but they sure as hell weren't successful in the foreign policy arena.

Sorry if you were confused about what I intended to suggest. Reagan's policy of fight-them-everywhere by proxy, was the way to go.

And, whether more muslims get mad at us or not, GWBs policy of fighting *them* everywhere by proxy or by Johnny, is the way to go. But he still needs to do a better job of picking his battles and his generals. Rumsfeld and co. are at least arguably causing a great deal of long-term damage to our national interests with their use of our military. Though things like the withdrawal of troops from Western Europe and Korea are things I have long advocated, wherever feasible. The problem is, if they keep tinkering with plans until there is no real plan, people like me won't encourage our kids to join the military. Not even the reserves or the national guard. And that looks like it is going to be a long term problem.

Which is to say, its not the feelings of the french or the germans that I worry about. Its the feelings of our own youth and potential-part-time soldiers. Dissuade them from volunteering by using them in a foolhardy fashion, and we are going to have some real long-term problems on our hands.

Just a few (too many) thoughts.

Hello