A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop

We've got, you know, armadillos in our trousers. I mean, it's really quite frightening

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Jesus fucking christ, you'd think no one's ever seen a road hump before.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I wanna go home with the armadillo....

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• The Justice Department argued in its pleadings that it now opposes the POWs judgment simply because it needs the money in question for the reconstruction of Iraq, but it has been unwilling to open talks with the POWs about that issue (despite ongoing payments to Kuwait for Gulf War damage).

Before we go any further down this road, have you found the pleadings and order anywhere? I'm looking, but nothing so far. I hesitate to respond to an argument based on how Slate characterizes what the JD said, especially when Slate also claims that the court failed to even deal with what Slate said the JD said and merely went off on its own wacky road. When everyone in authority is disagreeing with Slate's version of things, my first impulse is hardly ever to blindly defend Slate, Mickey Kaus notwithstanding.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

But once they touched the skin of the dread orgasmadillo, all they could do was smile dreamily at nothing and moan softly, to the consternation of poor Fenwick who was already regretting opening the cage for them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Before we go any further down this road, have you found the pleadings and order anywhere? I'm looking, but nothing so far. I hesitate to respond to an argument based on how Slate characterizes what the JD said, especially when Slate also claims that the court failed to even deal with what Slate said the JD said and merely went off on its own wacky road. When everyone in authority is disagreeing with Slate's version of things, my first impulse is hardly ever to blindly defend Slate, Mickey Kaus notwithstanding.

The guy who wrote the piece is not a regular Slate writer. He is, as disclosed in the piece, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in that case.

If you want to post something that establishes that "everyone in authority" disagrees with Slate, go ahead, but my understanding is consistent with what Sidd said -- your theories have been kicked around, but rarely adopted. And so far you haven't posted anything to suggest that the author of that piece is wrong in his factual characterizations. Go ahead and try, though.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The guy who wrote the piece is not a regular Slate writer. He is, as disclosed in the piece, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in that case.

If you want to post something that establishes that "everyone in authority" disagrees with Slate, go ahead, but my understanding is consistent with what Sidd said -- your theories have been kicked around, but rarely adopted. And so far you haven't posted anything to suggest that the author of that piece is wrong in his factual characterizations. Go ahead and try, though.

A. "Everyone in authority" was meant to mean, the court, and to some extent the DOJ. I missed the part about the writer being the claimants' attorney. Strangely, that doesn't dissuade me from my original point. Shockingly, it leaves me more confident.

B. Can't try until I see the raw data - i.e., the pleadings and order.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The chicken showed them that it could be done.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
A. "Everyone in authority" was meant to mean, the court, and to some extent the DOJ. I missed the part about the writer being the claimants' attorney. Strangely, that doesn't dissuade me from my original point. Shockingly, it leaves me more confident.

B. Can't try until I see the raw data - i.e., the pleadings and order.

True to form, your argument reduces to not accepting the facts presented because you think the author is biased. You should just get a macro to generate this in a standard form.

eta:
Oh, and I'll be more impressed by your appeals to the principles behind "odious debt" (or whatever it's called) when you find our government backing them when we are owed money, as opposed to trying to get our treasury off the hook.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

So, does Bush need to fire this guy, or is he OK with having his aides tell people that the inaugural speech didn't really mean much?

• WASHINGTON, Jan. 21 - A day after President Bush's inaugural speech vowing to spread freedom in the world, administration officials said Friday that Mr. Bush was setting a long-term goal that did not portend dramatic changes in American foreign policy but rather an expansion of existing approaches.
  
  A senior official said that the speech signaled Mr. Bush's intention to raise the need to expand freedoms in Russia, China and the Arab world but that this did not mean that such pressure would become the only factor in these relationships.
  
  "It's not a discontinuity, a right turn, but an acceleration, a raising of the priority," the official said of the new policy direction, discussing the speech with reporters on Friday. The official insisted on anonymity, he said, to keep the focus on Mr. Bush's words and not those of his aides.
  
  The official also said that American officials would not necessarily raise principles of freedom and democracy with foreign leaders in a public way because doing so might sometimes be counterproductive.
  
  "Do you want us to be rhetorical or to be effective?" the official asked....

NY Times

eta: The same stuff was "leaked" to the WaPo as well.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
True to form, your argument reduces to not accepting the facts presented because you think the author is biased. You should just get a macro to generate this in a standard form.

True to form, you read an interested party's ripping of Bush, and you call his assertions "facts", and denigrate attempts to look further. You should just get a macro to generate this in a standard form.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
True to form, you read an interested party's ripping of Bush, and you call his assertions "facts", and denigrate attempts to look further. You should just get a macro to generate this in a standard form.

When you two start singing "No, YOUR sources suck," please try to sing in tune, OK?

Meantime, here's a bill that would direct the Treasury to pay the 17 plaintiffs in Acree directly.

No idea where the bill stands today. My guess is that it's DOA as conlflicting with the Administration's approach, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
True to form, you read an interested party's ripping of Bush, and you call his assertions "facts", and denigrate attempts to look further. You should just get a macro to generate this in a standard form.

I don't recall that Bush's name appeared in that article or my posts. And I don't recall "denigrating attempts to look further." You haven't "looked' for anything, as far as I can tell. When you lift a mouse to post something else here, I'll be happy to read it.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
A. "Everyone in authority" was meant to mean, the court, and to some extent the DOJ. I missed the part about the writer being the claimants' attorney. Strangely, that doesn't dissuade me from my original point. Shockingly, it leaves me more confident.

B. Can't try until I see the raw data - i.e., the pleadings and order.

Order from Court of Appeals.

And, more comprehensively, a set of links that appears to cover the litigation history and all of the pleadings and orders.

It's maintained by a site called Stop POW Torture, so tread carefully, though.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Intelligent Design