Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 249

Gattigap · 10-24-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't know that it is useful in every instance, but in this case I do think the hypocrisy is telling.

With an embrace of absolutist reasoning to further your argument? Of course you would think so.

bilmore · 10-24-2005, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
I happen to agree with her, btw.

For the same reason I thought Martha Stewart got railroaded, I agree with Ms. Hutchinson here. I think that, when one is investigating a crime, it's hardly sporting to find no crime, but then prosecute one for deficiencies in answering questions posed in the pursuit of the noncrime.

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-24-2005, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
How is that possible? Rape is okay with the passage of time? You are okay with the President of the US being of a character where as a 30 plus yo he could rape and violently beat a woman and baldfacedly lie about it?

I ask you as I asked Gatti (who has yet to answer), if it was your mother or wife or daughter would you be so nonchalant?

(a) You misunderstand, Mr. Penske.

(b) It did not change my view of Clinton much because by the time I read the Broderick interview I had long since concluded that he was a deeply flawed and in many ways probably a lousy human being. I did not vote for him in 1996, because I had long since decided that he would do or say anything to be elected.

(c) That said, there are a limited number of choices each cycle as to who can possibly be the President of the United States. You have a choice -- who do I want to govern our country from this bunch. Whether they are shitty human beings is only part of the equation. There is also the whole party that comes with them, policy issues, etc.

(d) I am very pleased that Bill Clinton was President from 1992-2000 as opposed to any of his GOP opponents or even any of the GOP primary contenders. I would have voted for him over Bush in 2000 had he been running.

(e) Let's not get into rape hypotheticals involving my family members. Of the four candidates you have listed, two of them have been violently raped.

(f) If you can truly summon such tremendous personal outrage over such 25 year old (alleged) crimes involving people you do not know [and which (as alleged), while very bad, were not near the extremes]) you are either unbalanced or have lived an extraordinarily sheltered life.

(g) If you are not truly so outraged, then your displays here are all the more tasteless, and even less excusable.

S_A_M

Not Bob · 10-24-2005, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
For the same reason I thought Martha Stewart got railroaded, I agree with Ms. Hutchinson here. I think that, when one is investigating a crime, it's hardly sporting to find no crime, but then prosecute one for deficiencies in answering questions posed in the pursuit of the noncrime.

Agreed, although poor Martha was prosecuted for a statement that wasn't even made under oath.

sebastian_dangerfield · 10-24-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
For the same reason I thought Martha Stewart got railroaded, I agree with Ms. Hutchinson here. I think that, when one is investigating a crime, it's hardly sporting to find no crime, but then prosecute one for deficiencies in answering questions posed in the pursuit of the noncrime.

I agree. It cheapens the whole investigation.

I hope he lets them all off, but in doing so, offers up a report stating that, based on what he found along the way, it appears the Neocons ginned up a phony basis for the Iraq War.

Fitzgerald could start the impeachment now.

ltl/fb · 10-24-2005, 06:29 PM

where do sebby and NB stand on the Clinton perjury thingy?

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-24-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
For the same reason I thought Martha Stewart got railroaded, I agree with Ms. Hutchinson here. I think that, when one is investigating a crime, it's hardly sporting to find no crime, but then prosecute one for deficiencies in answering questions posed in the pursuit of the noncrime.

Careful, Bilmore, or Penske may start frothing at you too. [My sincerest apologies for lapsing into the PoPD.]

Depends on what you means by a "deficiency."

S_A_M

bilmore · 10-24-2005, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If you are not truly so outraged, then your displays here are all the more tasteless, and even less excusable.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but, if the standard is to be "good taste", posts will go unposted and there will be less entertainment throughout the land. The social contract here is to avert eyes from offense, even when it would be easy not to.

All of those tasteless Terri Schiavo jokes, at a time when my mom was lying on her gurney in a coma, and did I jump in and protest my offense? No. That would be unfair to the board. You guys had no way of knowing, and I can't hold you to a standard that assumes malice without evidence.

(Of course, that's all bull. Right?)

Civil discourse has its place.

Waaaaaayy over there, preferably . . . It's no fun to have to watch yourself all the time.

sebastian_dangerfield · 10-24-2005, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Broaddrick was rape. Jones was certainly sexual assault. Possibly attempted rape. Differences with minour distinctions. All are about sex in the world of the looney left.

On NewsMax.com, anything but missionary style for the sole purpose of having children is rape.

bilmore · 10-24-2005, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
On NewsMax.com, anything but missionary style for the sole purpose of having children is rape.

Michael Jackson has children all the time, and I doubt his position during the act buys him any forgiveness.

sebastian_dangerfield · 10-24-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
where do sebby and NB stand on the Clinton perjury thingy?

Oh, it was perjury. And they were right not to bother trying to prosecute that damned silly thing.

The Clinton thing showed that the law has limits. People just won't stand for nailing a guy to cross for lying in the face of a political witchhunt over something utterly irrelevant.

For that reason, I hope nobody gets charged with perjury in this Libby/Rovegate. I don't want the Right to adopt a mantle of "We were the party rightly voted to power, brought down by conniving Democratic elitists..."

ltl/fb · 10-24-2005, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Oh, it was perjury. And they were right not to bother trying to prosecute that damned silly thing.

The Clinton thing showed that the law has limits. People just won't stand for nailing a guy to cross for lying in the face of a political witchhunt over something utterly irrelevant.

For that reason, I hope nobody gets charged with perjury in this Libby/Rovegate. I don't want the Right to adopt a mantle of "We were the party rightly voted to power, brought down by conniving Democratic elitists..."

I would be good with them releasing copies of statements made by Libby and Rove that they later admitted were lies, without actually charging them with anything.

Is Scooter as creepy as Karl?

sebastian_dangerfield · 10-24-2005, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I would be good with them releasing copies of statements made by Libby and Rove that they later admitted were lies, without actually charging them with anything.

Is Scooter as creepy as Karl?

Agreed.

No. Scooter is a stumpy Napoleonish prick.

ltl/fb · 10-24-2005, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Agreed.

No. Scooter is a stumpy Napoleonish prick.

How would you describe Rove's prickishness?

Not Bob · 10-24-2005, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
where do sebby and NB stand on the Clinton perjury thingy?

That living with his very pissed off wife was punishment enough.