Politics: A new beginning

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
maybe you got that going, but remember we can always hit you guys with ballots where you have to punch the chad next to the name of the person you want elected.

Ah yes -- the punch-card ballot -- cleverly designed to neutralize the political clout of the AARP. Diabolical.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Ah yes -- the punch-card ballot -- cleverly designed to neutralize the political clout of the AARP. Diabolical.
S_A_M

I am saddened that you would make such an ungracious and nasty slur against some of our most vulnerable and deserving citizens just to satisfy your own need for partisan vitriol. I think it cheapens all of us.

(Well, not really - I'm just mad I didn't think of that one first - but I wanted to see how such BS plays out when directed against the other side.)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Bush says his decision to drop the steel tariffs had nothing to do with the WTO decision or the looming trade war he was about to start -- no, the tariffs achieved their purpose, says he. Those of us who question his truthfulness will find this hard to believe. You don't have to be an economist to figure that out. Although the lousy job done by the press in covering this doesn't help.

Of course the explanation is untrue -- but I agree with club that it within the realm of political spin to be expected. I also think that pressure from the domestic steel consumers was an important factor -- not just the WTO decision and pending EU sanctions.

The Administration made the right decision (never should have imposed them in the first place), and had to explain it somehow-- but could hardly be expected to acknowledge that the tariffs were illegal in the first place (or foolish -- except for politics)and/or characterize their recission as a retreat in the face of pressure from foreigners. Remember, Man, these colors don't run!!

Really, expecting politicians to honestly explain why they do what they do would be a radical innovation indeed -- and the results would likely sicken our populace and forever destroy the starry-eyed idealism that we attempt to inculcate in each successive generation of young people.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
On a related topic, if you (assuming you are a man) were at the mall or somewhere else by yourself with your small (say 4 yo) daugther, what would you do if she needed to use the restroom? Would you take her into the men's room where she would have to walk by and see guys peeing in urinals? Or would you send her into the women's room to use the toilet by herself and guard the door to make sure that she came out OK?

I have had to think about this recently. My decision:

(a) first choice -- Men's Room with her in a stall.

That's really the only choice, because I can't get in the Ladies' Room except in a huge emergency -- and there is no way that I will ever allow a young child of mine to be alone in a public restroom.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am disturbed by the fact that you are disturbed by this. Why are so many women disturbed by passionate discourse between people who disagree with each other? . . .

It is reassuring that know that we are not entirely Lunatic-free.

Keep up the good work, Sister!

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I am saddened that you would make such an ungracious and nasty slur against some of our most vulnerable and deserving citizens just to satisfy your own need for partisan vitriol. I think it cheapens all of us.

(Well, not really - I'm just mad I didn't think of that one first - but I wanted to see how such BS plays out when directed against the other side.)

I'm rubber, you're glue. What bounces off me sticks to you! (Really. -- If I were a Republican, -- or, honestly, a Democratic Presidential candidate -- I'd have to whip out a tearful, b.s. apology to rival that of Trent Lott.)

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(Really. -- If I were a Republican, -- or, honestly, a Democratic Presidential candidate -- I'd have to whip out a tearful, b.s. apology to rival that of Trent Lott.)

You aim too high. No one - no one - can whip out a tearful, b.s. apology to rival Trent Lott.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
You aim too high. No one - no one - can whip out a tearful, b.s. apology to rival Trent Lott.

Except WJC. The man was a genius.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Except WJC. The man was a genius.

Touche'

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Of course the explanation is untrue....

Am I surprised? No. It's too bad that Zoellick, who had more of a reputation, has to debase himself in the same way.

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Me
I sure do got a lot of posts for a sock. BTW - I prefer to be referred to as someone who is "password challenged."

Think "Charlie the Tuna" commericals and get back to me.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That's really the only choice, because I can't get in the Ladies' Room except in a huge emergency -- and there is no way that I will ever allow a young child of mine to be alone in a public restroom.

I don't have any daughters yet, so THE QUESTION IS MOOT! as to me. However, I wonder whether the fear of letting young girls (say, ages 3 to 6) use a public restroom alone is statistically justified. Of course, I wouldn't send a three year old into a deserted restroom in a public park alone, but in that case I could take her in myself and not give a shit whether there's a skirt painted on the door. I'm talking about a relatively busy women's restroom in which there is at least one woman already in attendance. The chance of (a.) a lurking predatory male eluding the gaze of all female occupants or (b.) an abusive female happening to be in the restroom alone when Goldilocks entereth seems remote. Just my .02.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The chance of (a.) a lurking predatory male eluding the gaze of all female occupants or (b.) an abusive female happening to be in the restroom alone when Goldilocks entereth seems remote. Just my .02.

You are wrong. I, err, they can be very crafty when young girls are involved.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I don't have any daughters yet, so THE QUESTION IS MOOT! as to me. However, I wonder whether the fear of letting young girls (say, ages 3 to 6) use a public restroom alone is statistically justified. Of course, I wouldn't send a three year old into a deserted restroom in a public park alone, but in that case I could take her in myself and not give a shit whether there's a skirt painted on the door. I'm talking about a relatively busy women's restroom in which there is at least one woman already in attendance. The chance of (a.) a lurking predatory male eluding the gaze of all female occupants or (b.) an abusive female happening to be in the restroom alone when Goldilocks entereth seems remote. Just my .02.

I'm sure you are correct and that danger is indeed remote -- although I would add to the list (c) a female working in concert with a predatory male. Like The Shadow, I have some idea "what evil lurks in the hearts of Men. " I too would probably go into a deserted ladies room with a daughter.

I argue, however, that it is not irrational to take simple, low-cost precautionary steps against the worst possible thing that could happen in my world -- even if the odds of said event happening at any given time are less than 1 in 10,000.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

The reason I bring this up is because I don't think it would be a good idea to take a young girl into the men's room where they have urinals and where she might see adult men peeing. Yet, I never hear anyone advocating for changing men's rooms to accomodate the possibility that men might have their young daughters with them and not want to bring a little girl into the men's room because of the urinals. You or at least I always hear people advocating to put baby changing facilities in men's rooms, so I find this curious.