Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
But not everything a notary does is notarized. Just need to be sure. Dotting, crossing, etc.

Yes, attention to detail. Job 1. Ford tough. Built to last!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
Point?

Merde!

[nononono]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Merde!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by nononono
Lovarian...I don't know if that works. It sounds like, well, ovaries, which may or may not be appropriate. Perhaps you'll need to go to a Latin derivation, or the ever-lyrical "loverly."

New words have to come from somewhere. This one's mine.

[Spanky]

Reality Vs. Rhetoric in the Abortion Debate

Monday, October 24, 2005By Martin Frost

I am normally reluctant to write about the highly charged issue of abortion, but this time is an exception. For those of you who consider all abortion to be murder, you should stop reading now. These remarks are directed to the rest of the population that considers abortion appropriate in at least some circumstances — a clear majority of the American public.Two noteworthy events occurred recently that are critical to further discussion of this very important public issue: publication by the think tank ThirdWay (search) of a study entitled “The Demographics of Abortion “ and the resignation of Susan Wood, the top Food and Drug Administration official in charge of women’s health issues.First, let’s examine the ThirdWay study, one of the most comprehensive treatments ever put together on basic facts underlying the abortion issue in this country.Let’s look at the basic numbers: since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, there have been more than 40 million abortions in America. According to the study, “one of every three American women will have an abortion by the time they reach 45.” Additionally, in a typical year there are 4.1 million live births, 1.3 million abortions and 900,000 miscarriages.

The study found that “the average woman who seeks an abortion is 24 years old, unwed, earns a yearly income of about $25,000 and already is a mother…She has religious beliefs and is a Christian…the typical abortion is performed around the eighth week — well within the first trimester.”There are two remarkable findings buried in this study. Again quoting, “The social conservatives’ focus on so-called 'partial-birth abortion' affects, at most, eight of every 10,000 abortions performed. The social liberals’ traditional defense of abortion on the grounds of rape and incest or the life of the mother is irrelevant in approximately 98 of every 100 abortions.”And then there is the issue of religion. The study found “There is a vast gap between the rhetorical positions that religious leaders take on abortion and the actual practices of the laity in those religions.”Specifically, Catholics represent 27 percent of those having abortions -- roughly 350,000 per year— and Born-Again or Evangelical Christians represent 13 percent of those having abortions – roughly 170,000 per year.Obviously, abortion is widely practiced in the United States, even though it remains controversial. Virtually no one is pro-abortion, though millions of people want it to be available as an option when a pregnancy is unplanned or when the mother’s health is seriously at risk.So what’s the answer? One answer is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus to reduce the need for abortion.That’s why the resignation of Assistant FDA Commissioner Susan Wood (search) is so significant.Wood said she was leaving her position with the FDA because of FDA Commissioner Lester M. Crawford’s recent announcement that he would delay approval of the emergency contraceptive Plan B (search), which is also known as the morning-after pill.Plan B has been available as a prescription-only drug since 1999. Its distributor applied to the FDA for permission to sell the drug over the counter, and an FDA expert advisory panel voted 23 to 4 in favor of their application. It was Crawford’s action delaying approval of this application that prompted Wood’s resignation after working for the FDA for five years.Plan B prevents pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of sexual activity. Some religious conservatives have opposed it, even though in most cases it prevents fertilization of an egg and there is no abortion. This is the crowd that must believe that conception occurs when they take Cialis (search).And so we have the situation that abortion is widely practiced in this country by people of all religious persuasions, many of whom are religious conservatives, and our government is taking action that could actually result in more abortions rather than fewer.These are things that should be discussed openly, even if the subject itself is considered to be radioactive by many politicians.

Martin Frost served in Congress from 1979 to 2005, representing a diverse district in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. He served two terms as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the third-ranking leadership position for House Democrats, and two terms as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Frost serves as a regular contributor to FOX News Channel, and is currently a fellow at the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He holds a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a law degree from the Georgetown Law Center.

[bilmore]

"There is major news in the fight over the report of independent counsel David Barrett's investigation into the Henry Cisneros matter. Late today, the three-judge panel overseeing Barrett ordered that parts of his report be released to the public -- and that all of the report be given to Congress.

"The Court orders that the independent counsel, with all deliberate speed, prepare for release and make release of the now pending Final Report, except for that portion designated as Section V," the order says. It is not clear what is contained in Section V, but it is known that several Clinton-era figures have sought to prevent the Barrett report from being released, and perhaps the material in Section V relates to that. In any event, the Court further ordered Barrett to prepare a version of the report containing the publicly-withheld sections and deliver it to the leaders of Congress and the chairmen and ranking members of several committees.

But there is a catch -- the judges stipulated that their order be stayed for at least ten days in the event that any figures involved in the matter should petition the Supreme Court for a stay. "If no such stay is sought within the period granted by this paragraph, then this stay shall be lifted," the order says. One unspoken aspect of that provision is that whoever has been blocking the report's release in private -- under seal -- would, if a petition is made to the Supreme Court, have to do so publicly.

"I am extremely pleased with the decision of the court," Barrett told National Review today. "The Congress and the public have a right to know the contents of the entire report, and this is a step in that direction."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_...ive.asp#080586

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
Some religious conservatives have opposed it, even though in most cases it prevents fertilization of an egg and there is no abortion.

Not up on this at all. Did Crawford deny certification on the abortion-is-bad grounds? On the "well, sometimes it's abortion" grounds? Are there medical problems with it?

Not a loaded question - I just don't know.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
"There is major news in the fight over the report of independent counsel David Barrett's investigation into the Henry Cisneros matter. Late today, the three-judge panel overseeing Barrett ordered that parts of his report be released to the public -- and that all of the report be given to Congress.

"The Court orders that the independent counsel, with all deliberate speed, prepare for release and make release of the now pending Final Report, except for that portion designated as Section V," the order says. It is not clear what is contained in Section V, but it is known that several Clinton-era figures have sought to prevent the Barrett report from being released, and perhaps the material in Section V relates to that. In any event, the Court further ordered Barrett to prepare a version of the report containing the publicly-withheld sections and deliver it to the leaders of Congress and the chairmen and ranking members of several committees.

But there is a catch -- the judges stipulated that their order be stayed for at least ten days in the event that any figures involved in the matter should petition the Supreme Court for a stay. "If no such stay is sought within the period granted by this paragraph, then this stay shall be lifted," the order says. One unspoken aspect of that provision is that whoever has been blocking the report's release in private -- under seal -- would, if a petition is made to the Supreme Court, have to do so publicly.

"I am extremely pleased with the decision of the court," Barrett told National Review today. "The Congress and the public have a right to know the contents of the entire report, and this is a step in that direction."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_...ive.asp#080586

This is the guy who keeps burning through millions of dollars each year investigating a situation in which everybody has already been convicted and served their time, which has political implications for no one?

Um, okay.

My butt sure is puckered.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by baltassoc
This is the guy who keeps burning through millions of dollars each year investigating a situation in which everybody has already been convicted and served their time, which has political implications for no one?

Um, okay.

My butt sure is puckered.

Um, the only reason it's still alive - the only reason it's gone on so dreadfully long - is all of the ex-Clintonites who are named in the report for misuse (felonious, IIRC) of the IRS against their enemies, who have been bringing up lawsuit after motion after TRO after . . . whatever . . . anonymously, under their lawyers names, with no mention of the ID of the clients - to keep this thing under wraps. Their time just ran out.

Cool thing is, the judge was smart. People can still use the ten-day stay to take it up to the Supremes. But they gotta do it with their names on the briefs.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
My current lover's grade schooler is running a "kid's marathon" race later this year. So in return for unmentionable consideration from my lover, I have agreed to train the kid. We went to the track yesterday and in an effourt to validate my earlier anecdote I spotted the kid a half mile in a mile race. I ran a 6:03 mile ( figured I'd take it easy on the kid). The kid ran a 6:45 half. Once again, mmmmmmm3587 is proven wrong. What a jackarse.

I'm not sure you have the kid's best interest in mind. If you would like I can link you to training regiments to get someone in shape to run a distance against peers. Remember, he probably wants to beat healthy kids around his age in the race.

Your training program won't get him there. Your way, someday his only running victories will be against fat girls or little kids.

Maybe we can work together to break the cycle?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I guess it's no. I think our country is enlightened, educated and based on a communal moral foundation to be of a collective judgment, inherently, that having a man, any man, of any party, who rapes and violently beats a woman and is a serial sexual abuser of subordinate (NPI) woman in the workplace, as president or a presidential candidate is wrong.

I agree completely. However, Clinton was still a better choice for president than any of the other options

Originally posted by Penske_Account
For my part regardless of whether I do or not, I have enough respect for the rule of law to advocate that an injustice and infringement of a fellow citizens rights,m such as occured with Broaddrick or Willey et al, has no place in America and I feely duly passionate about that.

I certainly agree with you in the abstract. However, I see no indication that you give a rats ass about the rule of law or the rights of man except to the extent it suits your partisan political purposes.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
so what you saying is that any of the prosecutions in recent times for past civil rights violations (eg Byron De la beckwith et al) are the result of people who are either unbalanced or have lived an extraordinarily sheltered life?

Not at all, and it is a ridciulous comparison, for any number of reasons.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I do not understand the process by which you arrive at such conclusions. Someone was raped and the rapist not only walks around with no conseuqence but has his spokespeople mock the victim.

No Penske, you asshole. Someone says she was raped, and might have been raped, 25 years ago. I tend to believe her, but we will never know and can never know the truth (given the facts as alleged). There is a difference.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Again I would ask how you would like it if the victim here was a close family member? And if you would be outraged, why is your outrage limited to just family members? Shouldn't our laws protect all of us, whether they are related to us or not? Should we all, and especially lawyers, advocate for such process?

See above. I'd be willing to give you more credit for actually believing this when I see you apply the same sort of concern for the rule of law to your own political party.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Interesting morality you exhibit. Clinton's a rapist, but it's been 25 years since he wasn't punished for it so I am a tasteless asshole for pointing it out. Maybe to reform my image I should emulate Clinton.

No, you are a tasteless asshole for any number of reasons, but not for typing the above.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Poll: If I throw my secretary up against the wall of my office and thrust one hand up her skirt and one hand up blouse and fondle her feminine parts will all of all y'all who voted for Clinton vote for me too?

Depends . . how do you feel about the snail darter and who is running against you?

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Penske_Account
I guess it's no. I think our country is enlightened, educated and based on a communal moral foundation to be of a collective judgment, inherently, that having a man, any man, of any party, who rapes and violently beats a woman and is a serial sexual abuser of subordinate (NPI) woman in the workplace, as president or a presidential candidate is wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree completely. However, Clinton was still a better choice for president than any of the other options

This bothers me on a fairly deep level, and I'm not quite sure I can define it well. I had the same sort of feeling watching NOW defend - hell, lionize - Clinton as the rape and harassment allegations were all coming out.

It bothers me because, on the one hand, I can understand it. NOW knew that, in Clinton, its aims and goals could be more profitably sought - it knew that the major societal changes it wanted had a higher chance of realization with Clinton as Prez than with the other choices. Because of that cost/benefit analysis, NOW had to, most likely, stifle an urge to condemn the guy doing exactly those things that it professes to hate.

But what do we, as a society, give up when we make such a choice? I understand that there's no perfect leader - but how far down are we willing to draw the line of acceptability in order to fight for our positions?

This isn't just a Clinton/Dems issue - I'm not just addressing his past crimes - but do we accept a Hitler who can deliver cheap, universal medical care? A Saddam who can stop crime? Exaggerated examples, both - but illustrations of the scary idea that we make a moral choice to allow unacceptable conduct if it profits us.

It doesn't lead to admiration of what we've become.

[mmm3587]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
My current lover's grade schooler is running a "kid's marathon" race later this year. So in return for unmentionable consideration from my lover, I have agreed to train the kid. We went to the track yesterday and in an effourt to validate my earlier anecdote I spotted the kid a half mile in a mile race. I ran a 6:03 mile ( figured I'd take it easy on the kid). The kid ran a 6:45 half. Once again, mmmmmmm3587 is proven wrong. What a jackarse.

I know that the scientific method doesn't come easy to you, but I'll try to explain what it would take to prove me wrong, based on your description of your boyfriend's kid's running. Can he run 8:30 or 9 minute miles? That's the question? If he can do that, but his time magically is 6:45 for the half mile, like he falls down a foot from the half mile when he realizes that he is going to half to stop in a foot instead of going for a half mile, then you're right. If not, all you've proven is that some kid can only run 6:45 half miles and slow-ass miles.

Are you actually so fucking stupid that you think I'm arguing about whether or not everyone can run half miles in 4 minutes? I know that the answer is yes, but I still think that you've been caught with your hand in the logical cookie jar and just can't admit that you're wrong here. Even you have to understand this by now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by mmm3587
I know that the scientific method doesn't come easy to you, but I'll try to explain what it would take to prove me wrong, based on your description of your boyfriend's kid's running. Can he run 8:30 or 9 minute miles? That's the question? If he can do that, but his time magically is 6:45 for the half mile, like he falls down a foot from the half mile when he realizes that he is going to half to stop in a foot instead of going for a half mile, then you're right. If not, all you've proven is that some kid can only run 6:45 half miles and slow-ass miles.

Are you actually so fucking stupid that you think I'm arguing about whether or not everyone can run half miles in 4 minutes? I know that the answer is yes, but I still think that you've been caught with your hand in the logical cookie jar and just can't admit that you're wrong here. Even you have to understand this by now.

I think some women have told him he finishs fast, and he's just extrapolating.

[bilmore]

If IM and interactive gaming existed in 1940:

--------------------------

Hitler[AoE]: cool, i start with panzer tanks!
paTTon: lol more like panzy tanks
T0JO: lol
Roosevelt: o this fockin sucks i got a depression!
benny-tow: haha america sux
Stalin: hey hitler you dont fight me i dont fight u, cool?
Hitler[AoE]; sure whatever
Stalin: cool
...
*Roosevelt has left the game.*
Hitler[AoE]: wtf?
Eisenhower: sh1t now we need some1 to join
*tru_m4n has joined the game.*
tru_m4n: hi all
T0J0: hey
Stalin: sup
Churchill: hi
tru_m4n: OMG OMG OMG i got all his stuff!
tru_m4n: NUKES! HOLY **** I GOT NUKES
Stalin: d00d gimmie some plz
tru_m4n: no way i only got like a couple
Stalin: omg dont be gay gimmie nuculer secrets
T0J0: wtf is nukes?
T0J0: holy ****holy****hoyl****!
*T0J0 has been eliminated.*

---------------------------

(More here )