Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yes, that's why a business enterprise spent millions to bring the book to print. To sell me and my uncle a copy. You're fucking idiot......

As it happens, I've heard this was the exact sales pitch ("Of Course, It's New and It's True! After All, We Spent Millions to Bring It To Print!") that Anonymous Press used in its pitch to Wal-mart.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Maybe he was under the standing threat/risk of Arkancide. He certainly knew Clinton had a dislike of him that manifested itself in a puerile manner (although hard to expect anything more of arrested adolescent psyche)

Later, relations got so bad that President Clinton reportedly began referring to Freeh as “that F…ing Freeh.”[

What a classless person.

Why is it that you don't want the truth to come out?

Calling someone a curse name makes you classless? Hmmm. Do you feel that this applies to the current president and his mother? The vice president?

I do want the truth to come out. If Bill sold military secrets to anyone, and Freuh knew about it and did nothing (despite the investigations that were looking into it), I want to know why. I'd kinda like the head of the FBI to actually, you know, do something about it when he can, rather than waiting five years and writing a book about it.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
As it happens, I've heard this was the exact sales pitch ("Of Course, It's New and It's True! After All, We Spent Millions to Bring It To Print!") that Anonymous Press used in its pitch to Wal-mart.

this post is more appropriate for a PM than it is for the board. try to stay on substance and topic.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
No, it's not. Nobody but you and the other members of the He-Man Hillary Haters Club gives a flying fuck. You're like the crazy uncle in the corner who blames Ike for handing the country over to the commies.

Maybe so, but you underestimate the size of that club.

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Calling someone a curse name makes you classless? Hmmm. Do you feel that this applies to the current president and his mother? The vice president?
.

I think that there is a difference between using an explicit in a heated/emotional context and having a standing nickname for a subordinate worker that incorporates an explicitive. It is even more offputting when its the PotUS coining/using the nickname and the subordinate is the FBI Director. I think the office calls for a little more decorum, respect and dignity. If he called Freeh a fucker once, I could understand it. If its a standing nickname, something different.

Originally posted by Not Bob

I do want the truth to come out. If Bill sold military secrets to anyone, and Freuh knew about it and did nothing (despite the investigations that were looking into it), I want to know why. I'd kinda like the head of the FBI to actually, you know, do something about it when he can, rather than waiting five years and writing a book about it.

I understand and sympathise with his desire not to die in Ft. Marcy park. Justice delayed does not have to be justice denied.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Maybe so, but you underestimate the size of that club.

S_A_M

2. Truer words have not been posted.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account

Later, relations got so bad that President Clinton reportedly began referring to Freeh as “that F…ing Freeh.”[

What a classless person.

Nixon invented fucking _____.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Perhaps you did. So what? I did not say "christian values" preclude including curricula that contains explicit sexual descriptions or themes, in part. I said that there is an argument that could be made that the term "christian values" included in the mission statement, as it was in that school's mission statement, could preclude such teaching.

Are you saying that it's not possible that a reasonable person, in the context of sending their child to a school whose mission it is, explicitly, to impart "christian values" couldn't come to that conclusion?

I am saying nothing of the sort. But I would assume that a person sending their child to an Episcopal or Catholic high school would understand that their child would be exposed to at least some literature which includes these themes. Heck, the Song of Songs includes these themes. I also think, however, that it's the parent's perogative to pull the money and/or their kid if she/he is not comfortable with what the school is teaching.

I haven't read the book in question. Nor have I attended the class at the school in which the book was discussed, so I don't know if the book is porn or not, or if the teacher was encouraging the students to engage in conduct Not Consistent with Episcopal Church doctrine. I'll assume (though it is a rebutable assumption) that (a) it is Not Porn, and (b) the teacher was Not NAMBLA recruiting.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You're fucking idiot......

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Later, relations got so bad that President Clinton reportedly began referring to Freeh as “that F…ing Freeh.”[

What a classless person.

2.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What do you expect Freeh to say:

"I investigated allegations of a number of things, including Red China campaign cash. In fact, I found sufficient evidence to indict the president, but I decided not to."


For years, there was a guy who stood near the Rock Creek Parkway, outside the Watergate, holding a two-sided sign, which he rotated so passing motorists could read both sides. It said something like "Clinton Sold us Out to China/Gore was the Bag Man". He did this from at least 1999, and kept going until some time in 2002. Then he gave up. Apparently he was sane.

I wouldn't dismiss this so easily, Burger. penke's posts included 3 sirens along with bold and red type. It looks serious.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Gattigap
As it happens, I've heard this was the exact sales pitch ("Of Course, It's New and It's True! After All, We Spent Millions to Bring It To Print!") that Anonymous Press used in its pitch to Wal-mart.

Millions? Some hack probably banged out Freeh's book in a week in exchange for a case of Camels and a weekend in Vegas.

And lest we forget, we're talking the same guy who was a complete failure at his job - do the names Hansen, Ames, Leung ring any bells? He also didn't believe in computers for his agents, or in the need for compartmentalization within the agency. The Michael Brown of the Clinton years.

• Facing this potential onslaught, Freeh made a tacit arrangement with the new Republican barons on the hill, as David Plotz of Slate and others have written. Freeh would focus on multiple investigations of his nominal bosses in the Clinton administration--Whitewater, Henry Cisneros, Mike Espy, Vince Foster--in exchange for a free pass on his and the bureau's many failings. That left problems in counter-intelligence free of either internal or congressional scrutiny. If Clinton administration officials were alarmed about the FBI's compartmentation problems and had plans to fix it--and it's not clear that they were--there was little they could do because of the Republican power on the Hill. Any attempt to rein in the bureau would be seen as an effort to stymie those investigations. In that climate of malign neglect, the bureau's ills were allowed to fester.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
She is not qualified. There are others who are and fit his stated philosophy. Put them up and let the process work. I honestly don't believe that the Senate could thumbs down a succession of JRB, Jones, Clement, Luttig, McConnell, et al. At some point public opinion would turn. These are, by any objective standard, qualified, accomplished, impressive jurists. Miers is a slap in the face to that concept.

Nonsense. Nobody on the Rabid Right gives a shit about Miers' qualifications. The Right's sole concern is the same as the Left's - they don't know how she'll vote on Roe.

The Right's been fucked over by GOP Presidents who put pro-Roe judges on the bench twice already and doesn't want to get fucked again. Stop bullshitting about how you're concerned about her qualifications. You'd put a donkey on the SCOTUS if its trainers could assure you it would vote against Roe.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
McCain's statement on the amendment, via Andrew Sullivan:

• Mr. President, war is an awful business. I know that. I don’t think I’m naïve about how severe are the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant the service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them and their comrades, but some of what had to be done by their hand to prevail.
  
  I don’t mourn the loss of any terrorist’s life nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next.
  
  What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about is what we lose, what we -- the American serviceman and woman and the great nation they defend at the risk of their lives – what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence – we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, our greatest strength – that we are different and better than our enemies; that we fight for an idea – not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion – but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
  
  I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. Well, we drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies didn’t adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But everyone of us knew, every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.
  
  The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt, as they hold the international conventions that enshrine them such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture in contempt. I know that. But we’re better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others – even our enemies.
  
  Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and by the sacrifices – the many terrible sacrifices -- that have been made in our defense – we are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country’s honor to prevail; that they are always, always – through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss – they are always, always Americans, and different, better, and stronger than those who would destroy us.
  
  God bless them as he has blessed us with their service.

Well put.

Fucking pussy terrorist-sympathizer.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Ding. Cite please. I just question why moral compasses are awry. Murder and rape are wrong, despite Wonk's self-proclaimed checkmate.

We never discussed rape. Possibly because that is something we both know we agree is an absolute wrong. But you misrepresented where we stand on murder.

You took the position that killing is an absolute wrong. Yet you also claimed that you did not oppose the war in Iraq.

I asked you how you can argue that killing is an absolute wrong, but support a war at the same time.

Your response was that the killers would have to answer for their sins, but that was God's prerogative and not yours.

Which brings me to my next questions.

1. Will Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the command structure behind the war be punished for their sins? If so, then why should we as a people respect or support these sinners?

2. How about the grunts in the streets? Will they be punished for their sins? Why should we as taxpayers be foreced to pay for this sin? Why should we respect these killers?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It seems to me that part of the controversy, if that's what it is, stems from deep philosophical questions in the Episcopalian Church regarding what the "Christian values" are with regard to homosexual relationships.

Perhaps, but I am not reading religious manifesti in order to post on this board.

OTOH, if the donor or the recipient would like to retain me, I would certainly be able to address this issue.