Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

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


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.


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



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.



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.


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


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

S_A_M

Billmore's post said essentially what I think. Regardless of my belief in the rule of the law or whether or not I crticise my own party, the lowering ot the standards of acceptability are what is at issue. Rape is a crime. Sexual harassment is indefensible. You and millions of sheeple like you chose a rapist and sexual abuser as your president because Dole or GHWB were that much worse?!?!? They are fairly moderate all things considered. So you chose a rapist, sexual abuser and subsequent perjurer over a moderate republican. A criminal of a level that you probably would never hire to be an associate or even a copy boy in your office. And yet you call me a tasteless asshole. Fuck you. You defend rape and sexual harassment because Bill Clinton was the perpetuator, and in pointing that I realise that the truth hurts but perhaps you should take a look at your moral compass and try to figure our why it is so far awry.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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?

No pain, no gain.....just win baby!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

After the Clintons the only thing that stands between us and complete ruin is the Second Amendment and the babyjesuschristsuperstar. Let's pray to the latter that the former can hold off the RedChinese overlourds of the Clintons.

[Penske_Account]

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.

there is no strict logic to athletic performance and if you had ever competed in running above the level of a casual jog on the waterfront or the St Paddy's Day drunk run you would know that. Sure there may be science that can offer a reasonable prediction, i.e. if someone can run a 36 min 10K then they should be able to run a 17:22 min 5K and a 5:07 mile or whatever. The key word is should. What qualifies is fast twitch v. slow twitch, anearobic v aerobic, the time of day, the weather, dietary/fuel issues et a. It's nonsense to say that someone who can run an 8:30-9: minute mile will be able to, on any given day, under all conditions, to run a 4 minute half. Keep beatin it, but it doesn;t make it true. I assume given your continued reaction that you must be an 8:30/4 minute guy. Congrats on that.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by 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 )

Clinton (circa 96-97): ISO BBW 4 bbbjns, nsa.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

* * *

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?

* * *

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

It bothers me on a fairly deep level too, and I'm the one who said it and (I think) believe it.

I am not pleased by the lowering of standards for our political leaders and the cynicism and hypocrisy that is such a part of our political lives on both sides of the aisle. I used to be far more idealistic than I am today -- and had planned as a kid on a life of public service (prosecutor/politician). I now know that I could never stomach a politician's life.

I think part of the problem may be that everything is all out war now. In the past decade, the country has realigned so that the two major political parties more nearly mirror the socioeconomic and cultural divides in this country than ever before. (Witness the not-so-gradual demise of Conservative Dems and Liberal Repubs.)

This makes one more likely (on a party level) to demonize the opposition and defend your leaders just because of who is against them. Also, so long as your leaders are effective, makes you willing to lower your standards. Desparate times, etc.

I'm not happy about it. Like I've said on here (I think) I was such a damn fool that Gary Hart was one of my heros -- until it all fell apart. I saw the movie Primary Colors as a wrenching indictment of our win at all costs political system.

I could easily vote for John McCain or Colin Powell (maybe even Giuliani), in part because I want to believe again. What are the chances that they could be nominated? Not good.

Al Gore was a decent, honorable man with a fine record of service to his country (as was Bob Dole for that matter). What happened to them? That stuff doesn't matter much anymore.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Kay Hutchinson floated the "I hope Fitzgerald has more than perjury or obstruction, because those don't really count" defence yesterday. Makes me fucking ill.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by baltassoc
"a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage"

i.e., "You, City of Round Rock, may not grant health care benefits to the non-spousal heterosexual domestic parters of your employees, because they are FORNICATORS."

ETA: Yeah, I'm a little slow. Whiff. Sin, Texas. That's just outside of Brady, right?

Sweet pea, that's different than outlawing housing arrangements.

Are you trying to stand in for Ty?

ETA and currently 247 of the Fortune 500 have domestic partner benefits, per Human Rights Campaign Foundation: http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sect...rchSubTypeID=1

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You and millions of sheeple like you chose a rapist and sexual abuser as your president because Dole or GHWB were that much worse?!?!? They are fairly moderate all things considered. So you chose a rapist, sexual abuser and subsequent perjurer over a moderate republican.

You don't listen well when it interferes with your ability to rant, do you?

I told you that I did not vote for Clinton in 1996. I also did not vote for Bob Dole, though -- despite the fact that I admire him greatly on a personal level, and as a competent pragmatist who could govern effectively. I just could not stomach or support the GOP of the mid to late 1990s.

(I've also told you that my opinion of Clinton was low enough that hearing credible rape allegations did not lower it.)

Originally posted by Penske_Account
A criminal of a level that you probably would never hire to be an associate or even a copy boy in your office. And yet you call me a tasteless asshole. Fuck you.

Nothing I have done or said has any bearing on your status as a tasteless asshole. Try not to confuse the issues.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You defend rape and sexual harassment because Bill Clinton was the perpetuator, and in pointing that I realise that the truth hurts but perhaps you should take a look at your moral compass and try to figure our why it is so far awry.

Tell me where or when I ever mounted such a defense.

However, I can see you're offended by the realization that I would rather have such a man run the government than someone who believes as your board persona purports to do. Its true.

My moral compass is awry in part because I sold my soul and mortaged my dreams to provide a very comfortable life for my family, and because I don't have the balls to risk changing that.

How about you?

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Kay Hutchinson floated the "I hope Fitzgerald has more than perjury or obstruction, because those don't really count" defence yesterday. Makes me fucking ill.

Now this is a principled man.

S_A_M

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
Here's the best source if you're really looking: http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/pubsconam...analyses05.pdf

What you're seeing isn't the actual language, but what gets put on the ballot (which, I must say, is a screwy way to have people vote on an amendment - I would think you'd have to put up the actual words you're changing from and to, but, hey, what do I know?) and the actual language is clearer.

My question wasn't about the analysis. My question was about the language that we're voting for. I do not think that the following language is any clearer than the language on the ballot, and I think, reading the language on its face, that a reasonable person could determine that the legislature is asking us to eliminate marriage all together.

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

[taxwonk]

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.

If that is the case, then I would agree with you. However, if it turns out that either Scooter Libby or Karl Rove actually did out a covert agent in service of a political agenda, then that would be a different story.

After all, it's not really in tune with our system of criminal justice to condemn people for crimes which are alleged but cannot be proven

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Is Scooter as creepy as Karl?

He's Cheney's hatchet man. Do you really need to ask the question?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My question wasn't about the analysis. My question was about the language that we're voting for. I do not think that the following language is any clearer than the language on the ballot, and I think, reading the language on its face, that a reasonable person could determine that the legislature is asking us to eliminate marriage all together.

Bilmore is right, the actual language is clearer, but clearer in a way the drafter(s) should not have intended. Setion 32 defines marriage and then provides:

"This state [] may not [] recognize any legal status identical [] to marriage,"

which, unless you torture the meaning of identical*, means that Texas may not recognize any legal status of marriage. Doesn't mean you can't get married w/r/t your church.

I don't know how that can be interpreted any differently, unless recognition of marriage as a legal status in Terxas is also provided for in the constitution. Then you'd have to read to two provisions together to give both some reasonable meaning.


*from m-w.com: identical
1 : being the same : SELFSAME <the identical place we stopped before>
2 : having such close resemblance as to be essentially the same

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
However, if it turns out that either Scooter Libby or Karl Rove actually did out a covert agent in service of a political agenda, then that would be a different story.

Agreed, with the caveat that they knew she was covert, and that she satisfied that within-five-years requirement.

(In other words, that the statute was violated.)