Nutjobs Ranting About Politics. - Page 204

Not Me · 08-30-2004, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I've always wondered why the GOP has not utilized Rudy more. I was hoping after his term as mayor, they'd make him AG. Is there anyone here that doesn't think he'd be better than Ashcroft?

I think he would make a great AG.

sgtclub · 08-30-2004, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I've always wondered why the GOP has not utilized Rudy more. I was hoping after his term as mayor, they'd make him AG. Is there anyone here that doesn't think he'd be better than Ashcroft?

I think that would be a step down for him. His status is such that he can only go after the Senate, Governor of NY, VP or POTUS, without damaging it. Maybe CIA Director or the new intelligence spot too.

Atticus Grinch · 08-30-2004, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Maybe CIA Director or the new intelligence spot too.

Yeah, surely there's no blackmail material against a PHILANDERING FORMER MAYOR OF NYC. Give the guy a security clearance, ASAP! So we can make Clinton the CIA director in four years!

The guy's got charm, but the intelligence services? Please.

sgtclub · 08-30-2004, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Yeah, surely there's no blackmail material against a PHILANDERING FORMER MAYOR OF NYC. Give the guy a security clearance, ASAP! So we can make Clinton the CIA director in four years!

The guy's got charm, but the intelligence services? Please.

I didn't say he'd be a good choice, just that the office would fit his status. I haven't really thought about whether he'd be a good choice.

Shape Shifter · 08-30-2004, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think that would be a step down for him. His status is such that he can only go after the Senate, Governor of NY, VP or POTUS, without damaging it. Maybe CIA Director or the new intelligence spot too.

AG is a cabinet-level position and can used as an effective platform. Rudy has a well-respected background as a prosecutor taking on organized crime and securities fraud. I think that background would make him an excellent choice for fighting the war on terror and for dealing with various corporate scandals. His appointment would also do much to ease the minds of moderates who do not trust Ashcroft's social agenda.

Gattigap · 08-30-2004, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
And, by the way, all you have left is "okay, he didn't lie, but, damn, I didn't agree with his philosophy, so I can still call him a liar!"

On the flipside, beating back the charges of outright malfeasance to rest on the shores of predilection and incompetence may be a short-term tactical victory, but hardly, I'd imagine, a comforting one.

08-30-2004, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
On the flipside, beating back the charges of outright malfeasance to rest on the shores of predilection and incompetence may be a short-term tactical victory, but hardly, I'd imagine, a comforting one.

Atticus Grinch · 08-30-2004, 08:12 PM

So in 1996 you gouged out your girlfriend's eye with a steak knife. You plead insanity and beat the rap. You're called in for jury duty in 2004 and despite the fact you're still being treated for the mental illness that kept you out of jail, you're found to be eligible because you have a driver's license.

And here I thought Californians were alone in believing car ownership was a hallmark of maturity.

Atticus Grinch · 08-30-2004, 08:35 PM

The Pentagon goes off-message. {Spree: apparently forgetting both the theme and the denouement, Pentagon pays for touring company to stage the Scottish Play at 13 military bases.}

Hank Chinaski · 08-30-2004, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Yeah, surely there's no blackmail material against a PHILANDERING FORMER MAYOR OF NYC. Give the guy a security clearance, ASAP! So we can make Clinton the CIA director in four years!

The guy's got charm, but the intelligence services? Please.

He's already outed as a philanderer, and I doubt there's anything wierd he's got going. Like Ckinton now; how you going to blackmail him? He got outed for shooting on a whore's dress. You've got something that'll embaress him?
Hoover. now there was a potential blackmail target.

Whack Mybuttski · 08-30-2004, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

Hoover. now there was a potential blackmail target.

Discussions of Hoover's x-dressing ways is about as original as all of the veiled comments that I heard last week about P. Hamm's sexual predilections. However I do have to admit that all of the nipples and buttock shots from the Olympics broadcast coupled with the weight lifting commentary about "go for the snatch" and "clean and jerks" having given me pause for more than a few giggle-fests.

In fact, I'm chuckling now.

bilmore · 08-30-2004, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
This was in Friday's hard copy edition. I don't agree with the premise.

I thought much of his logic, and analogizing, was faulty. I'm convinced he was trying to leave GOP pride unscathed should Bush lose. ("Yeah, well, this is better for us.")

Hank Chinaski · 08-30-2004, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Whack Mybuttski
Discussions of Hoover's x-dressing ways is about as original as all of the veiled comments that I heard last week about P. Hamm's sexual predilections. However I do have to admit that all of the nipples and buttock shots from the Olympics broadcast coupled with the weight lifting commentary about "go for the snatch" and "clean and jerks" having given me pause for more than a few giggle-fests.

In fact, I'm chuckling now.

W-A-T-E-R

when Atticus and I start posting at each other its usually all about subtext.

Right now, Atticus is worried why the Lit. group leader has scheduled him to come in Thursday AM to talk about some "issues" that Atticus might have.

Meanwhile he is also a little worried about whether someone didn't see him last Thursday night when "he was all alone" at the office and he boke out the Jackie O. suit, complete with pillbox hat.

Not Me · 08-30-2004, 10:15 PM

I was posting on another board and another posters said to me that I needed to be less judgemental. Bawahahahaha!!! Anyhow, I told her that when I wanted advice from her I would ask and until then to put a lid on it and didn't she have something better to do like go write an advice column. Clearly, not my greatest flame ever, but I digress.

So then the stupid bitch tells me she is a solicitor/lawyer and I better watch it or she was going to "come after me." Well, of course I told her I was an attorney, too, and said for her to bring it on because there is nothing I like more than a good fight.

Now here is the good part, she tells me what firm she is with and asks me to tell what firm I am with. Of course, I don't tell her since I am not a dumb ass like she is. Now I think I have identified who she is at that firm based on other things she has posted in the past. She is young, fresh out of law school and the firm in based in another English speaking country but they have a US office. Well respected firm that does mostly transactional work for big corporate clients.

Should I or should I not report to the firm that one of their associates is threatening to sue people (without any basis) and throwing around the firm's name on internet chat boards as if that is some kind of threat?

I am leaning towards passing on the information to her firm. Any firm I have ever worked at would fire an associate who was posting the firm name like that on the internet. This isn't some ambulance chasing firm. It is actually quite a stodgy firm. I am sure that they would cringe if they found out, especially given the type of board we were posting on.

Hank Chinaski · 08-30-2004, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
I was posting on another board and another posters said to me that I needed to be less judgemental. Bawahahahaha!!! Anyhow, I told her that when I wanted advice from her I would ask and until then to put a lid on it and didn't she have something better to do like go write an advice column. Clearly, not my greatest flame ever, but I digress.

So then the stupid bitch tells me she is a solicitor/lawyer and I better watch it or she was going to "come after me." Well, of course I told her I was an attorney, too, and said for her to bring it on because there is nothing I like more than a good fight.

Now here is the good part, she tells me what firm she is with and asks me to tell what firm I am with. Of course, I don't tell her since I am not a dumb ass like she is. Now I think I have identified who she is at that firm based on other things she has posted in the past. She is young, fresh out of law school and the firm in based in another English speaking country but they have a US office. Well respected firm that does mostly transactional work for big corporate clients.

Should I or should I not report to the firm that one of their associates is threatening to sue people (without any basis) and throwing around the firm's name on internet chat boards as if that is some kind of threat?

I am leaning towards passing on the information to her firm. Any firm I have ever worked at would fire an associate who was posting the firm name like that on the internet. This isn't some ambulance chasing firm. It is actually quite a stodgy firm. I am sure that they would cringe if they found out, especially given the type of board we were posting on.

N.B. WTTW! since this arises from another Board that are serious copyright issues raised. Silence is advisable on this one issue.