Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What does your post subject line have to do with the content of your post?

That was the title of the Article.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Suppose we used a computer virus to slow their development of nuclear weapons by eight years. Do you see any benefit at all to the US from that? Or is it meaningless because eventually they can work around the problem?

It would be helpful only if you can accomplish something during that period to stop them from eventually building of the bomb. But if they eventually built the bomb then it didn't do you any good.

Kind of like the Germans fighting the invasion of France. At the time it did them some good, but since they eventually lost France it really didn't do them any good.

The point is to stop them from building bombs. If they end up building the bombs, in the end the virus was of no use.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Suppose that I posed a hypothetical question? Could I do that without "advocating" the hypothetical situation involved?

If we could do that to North Korea, we absolutely should.

Somehow, though, I suspect that those particular computers are not attached to the Web.

New plan -- we offer to outfit all of NK's computers with cool new software by MS! That'd screw'em for sure.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


New plan -- we offer to outfit all of NK's computers with cool new software by MS! That'd screw'em for sure.

S_A_M

You say that as a Joke, but it is unfortunately true.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
not asking you to buy into Carter's dementia, but wasn't putting the deal "in the wastebasket" a seemingly good idea? The alternative was to give NK even more technology.

Although you found a single document from a "nuclear consultant" who was in Rome in 2000 who thinks so, I'm not sure that the only alternative to "putting the deal in the wastebasket" as of 2000 was to give North Korea "even more technology" that they could use to build a bomb. I'm not saying I know otherwise -- I'm just saying I don't know.

Be that as it may, your post 's not responsive to my question. I understand that you conservatives like to trash Carter, but Reagan was the demented ex-President, not Carter. Nothing in the piece Spanky quoted suggested to me that he blames Bush for North Korea, whatever that means.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
It would be helpful only if you can accomplish something during that period to stop them from eventually building of the bomb. But if they eventually built the bomb then it didn't do you any good.

Kind of like the Germans fighting the invasion of France. At the time it did them some good, but since they eventually lost France it really didn't do them any good.

The point is to stop them from building bombs. If they end up building the bombs, in the end the virus was of no use.

Nonsense. The reason we care about North Korea having the bomb is that they might use it or give it to others. Setting aside the plutonium they had in 1994, that was eight years in which they did not nuke anyone or speed nuclear proliferation. It ain't everything, but it ain't nothing.

If you disagree, please loan me $10,000. I'll give it back to you in a year.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Nonsense. The reason we care about North Korea having the bomb is that they might use it or give it to others. Setting aside the plutonium they had in 1994, that was eight years in which they did not nuke anyone or speed nuclear proliferation. It ain't everything, but it ain't nothing.

If you disagree, please loan me $10,000. I'll give it back to you in a year.

Nonsense? Do you know what year Inda got the bomb or care? Do you know what year China got the bomb or care? Do you know what year Pakistan got the bomb or care?

If India got the bomb in 71 as oppossed to 79, how muc difference does that make to us now. If Pakistan got the bomb in 91 or 99 does that really make a difference to us now?

I tell you what. I will give you ten thousand right now and you give me back twenty thousand in one year. You certainly place a lot of value on that year, it has got be worth at least ten grand.

This is just a pathetic attempt to try and claim that Clinton deal got us something. It did not. Give it up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Nonsense? Do you know what year Inda got the bomb or care? Do you know what year China got the bomb or care? Do you know what year Pakistan got the bomb or care?

If India got the bomb in 71 as oppossed to 79, how muc difference does that make to us now. If Pakistan got the bomb in 91 or 99 does that really make a difference to us now?

I tell you what. I will give you ten thousand right now and you give me back twenty thousand in one year. You certainly place a lot of value on that year, it has got be worth at least ten grand.

This is just a pathetic attempt to try and claim that Clinton deal got us something. It did not. Give it up.

Thank you for abandoning the argument that North Korea's nuclear program is somehow Clinton's fault.

On that $10,000: Once you start in on the proper rate of interest, you've lost the game. I'm not arguing that Clinton saved the world, but you're arguing that he got us nothing.

Your second paragraph makes roughly as much as sense as saying that if Penske gave me a really nice bottle of Washington pinot noir and I drank it, what difference does that make now? Even I am not that ungrateful.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your second paragraph makes roughly as much as sense as saying that if Penske gave me a really nice bottle of Washington pinot noir and I drank it, what difference does that make now? Even I am not that ungrateful.

LOL!!!!:rofl: :rofl: Really nice Washington Pinot. You crack me up. I had no idea the politics board could be so funny.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Thank you for abandoning the argument that North Korea's nuclear program is somehow Clinton's fault.

On that $10,000: Once you start in on the proper rate of interest, you've lost the game. I'm not arguing that Clinton saved the world, but you're arguing that he got us nothing.

Your second paragraph makes roughly as much as sense as saying that if Penske gave me a really nice bottle of Washington pinot noir and I drank it, what difference does that make now? Even I am not that ungrateful.

France was able to delay German Rearmament for about fifteen years after WWI. If you walked around France in 1940 saying what a great accomplishment that was, how many Frenchmen would agree with you?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
France was able to delay German Rearmament for about fifteen years after WWI. If you walked around France in 1940 saying what a great accomplishment that was, how many Frenchmen would agree with you?

If you walked around France in 1940, you'd probably run into people wishing that the people who'd run the country from 1919-34 were still in charge, rather than the clowns who screwed things up for the past six years.

Funny, that.

[Spanky]

Why I Sued to Stop Jerry Brown
By Thomas G. Del Beccaro ~ October 19, 2006


Today I will file an action entitled Thomas Del Beccaro* v. Jerry Brown, et.al. The purpose of the action is to obtain a Court order declaring Jerry Brown ineligible to even be on the ballot for the position of Attorney General. Let me tell you why.


First, although sometimes we take it for granted, at this moment it bears repeating: We are a nation of laws not men. None other than George Washington believed that the Rule of Law provided us "ordered liberty."


Second, and rather importantly, that Rule of Law applies to each us, no matter what our station in life. Theodore Roosevelt perhaps said it best: “No man is above the law and no man below it.” US Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis added to that by stating that:


At the foundation of our civil liberties lies the principle that denies to government officials an exceptional position before the law and which subjects them to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.


All of which brings us to Jerry Brown. He wants to be our Attorney General. It is important to note that, according to California Constitution: “It is the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced.” Indeed, the enforcement of our laws in a dispassionate, uniform and fair manner is the central role of the Attorney General.

Unfortunately for Jerry Brown, it is also the law of this state that no one is eligible to be Attorney General:
“unless he shall have been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office.”


The law is NOT as Brown’s consultant told the Sacramento Bee last night that Brown need only be “admitted to the bar.” There is a difference and the law matters.


Brown’s consultant either misreads the law or knows full well that Jerry Brown does not meet the minimum qualifications for election as Attorney General. In fact, for whatever reason, Jerry Brown chose not to meet the basic requirement for the full five years. Brown has only had an active law license for about 3 ½ years, far less than the minimum five years required. When his law license was inactive, Brown could not appear as a lawyer before any of California’s courts.


According to our Supreme Court:


“An inactive member of the State Bar, of course, is not entitled to practice law, and the involuntary enrollment of an attorney on inactive status thus operates as a temporary suspension from the practice of law.”[1]


Further, our Supreme Court also ruled, in a similar case – reviewing the same requirement and operative language, that if an attorney is under suspension, that attorney specifically does not meet the above eligibility requirement.[2] Why did our California Supreme Court rule that way? Because, according to the Supreme Court:


It is self-evident, we think, that said provision requires as a fundamental qualification . . . that the candidate for such position be qualified as an attorney actually entitled to practice in the state courts.


Brown was not so qualified.


Given Brown’s ineligibility, it is simply wrong for Jerry Brown to even be on the ballot. He cannot serve as our Attorney General and Jerry Brown is not above the law. His celebrity notwithstanding, he is subject to “the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.”


For Jerry Brown to claim otherwise is for Mr. Brown to undermine our laws – even before he potentially took office.


Further, he believes the law does not apply to him, how he can be trusted to apply the law fairly and judiciously to others?


Finally, in no way should Brown be permitted to wiggle his way around the law – that is hardly the type of leadership we need out of an Attorney General.


Obviously, as citizens, we must expect more from the person who is to occupy the very office charged with enforcing our laws in a uniform manner.


By filing this action, I attempt to honor the many who have gone before me and who stood up for the Rule of Law and made our Constitution real. To do otherwise would be to dishonor their memory and the future of our State.


Please join me in telling Jerry Brown that he is not above the law.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you walked around France in 1940, you'd probably run into people wishing that the people who'd run the country from 1919-34 were still in charge, rather than the clowns who screwed things up for the past six years.

Funny, that.

So I guess your answer to my question was no.

(Did France switch governments in 1934. Was there a serious policy change in 1934?)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you walked around France in 1940, you'd probably run into people wishing that the people who'd run the country from 1919-34 were still in charge, rather than the clowns who screwed things up for the past six years.

Funny, that.

the people who were in charge of France from 1919-34? The ones who let hitler build up his machine without any interference?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the people who were in charge of France from 1919-34? The ones who let hitler build up his machine without any interference?

According to Spanky, "France was able to delay German Rearmament for about fifteen years after WWI."

Sounded about right to me.