Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Don't worry, Hank, I don't expect more of you.

He sets the bar low, or at least that is what his wife tells me.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I haven't read that. Have you read that from an American Muslim.

S_A_M

Slave is posting from the UK.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2. once i realized that this was not what you meant, I constructively pointed out that it seemed what you had intended, and suggested your written advocacy skills might be somewhat low, and further suggested allowing associates to take over all of any future briefing in your client files.

I suppose what i am saying is that nonono could have been more helpful than she was.

I didn't try to explain to you how you'd misread the post because -- I like a challenge, but not that big a challenge.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So you weren't trying to pick a fight? Condescension is your normal way of interaction?

Good to know.

No, Sidd. I'm being arch, not condescending. It's where I get to when someone is being a complete ass.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Seems to me that you can walk into a classroom and watch them teach.

Who gets to do this? Is this fair? Balt was worried about Morons decided he gets to keep their jobs. This is subjective and people could play favors. There is no arguing with a test.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
Hank's right. And you're far too emotional and prickly to have a clear conversation, so we can leave it at that.

These are common afflictions of the close minded myopic faux intellectual elitists of the left. Side effect of the kool aid their plantation masters at the DNC put into the bedtime bottles they all suck on.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you don't think most prosecutors won't use a challenge in a domestic violence case that way? Sidd, do you think so?

The times I have been around the picking of a criminal jury they bounced people based upon sterotypes- i got bounced by a prosecutor for being an engineer/patent attorney in a murder case based upon fiber evidence.

When i've picked jurys i am always jumping to conclusions.

Serious question, Hank -- have you been able to ask jurors what their religion is? It's not something that would normally be relevant to me. I've only tried once (it wasn't my idea, and it was irrelevant) and the judge struck the question from the questionnaire.

I question whether most judges would allow the inquiry.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I didn't try to explain to you how you'd misread the post because -- I like a challenge, but not that big a challenge.

exactly. you should delegate, but from the start. you keep trying to fix stuff after you've fucked it up.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by nononono
No, Sidd. I'm being arch, not condescending. It's where I get to when someone is being a complete ass.

No, I meant when you started.

Perhaps you should read more slowly. And take some deep breaths. The emotions are overwhelming you.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
exactly. you should delegate, but from the start. you keep trying to fix stuff after you've fucked it up.

This from the guy who spent a year trying to explain why "towel-heads" was not an insult?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Serious question, Hank -- have you been able to ask jurors what their religion is? It's not something that would normally be relevant to me. I've only tried once (it wasn't my idea, and it was irrelevant) and the judge struck the question from the questionnaire.

I question whether most judges would allow the inquiry.

god no. but I've only been involved in picking patent juries. i was in a box once for a criminal jury, as i said. That is why I asked you.

Maybe you could get a question about having strong feelings with regard to the husband being completely in charge of the house- you know, ask about the mindset, w/o asking about the source of the mindset.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
hmmm. 2 years ago he was a great candidate for the Presidency.

No, but he was the nominee. Revisionist history Hank. I challenge you to find anything from a non-Penske lunatic sock praising Kerry to the sky.

Being better than Bush isn't a high bar.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Don't worry, Hank, I don't expect more of you.

you beat me once in an argument here, so I respect you, and always go out of my way to try to help you see, but to no avail.

when we write the history of the PB, I'm afraid you'll be the don Larson of the board.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Chris Mathews and Dick Armey have my proxy:

• One surprise: just heard [Chris Matthews] say flat out that reading the full transcript it's clear that Kerry was insulting the president, not the troops. Dick Armey was on at the time and essentially agreed and laughed about how funny it was that the GOP was feigning mock outrage.

Originally posted by Spanky
Kerry told the students that if they studied hard they could do well, but if they didn't "you get stuck in Iraq."


Here it is - watch it for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLuMWiQ6r2o

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I posted something suggesting that if you read the full transcript of Kerry's remarks, it's clear that he was talking about the President, not about anyone in the Army. And, in ostensible response, both you and Hank linked to a clip of the ten seconds of Kerry's remarks that got him in trouble. The subtext apparently being that ten seconds of pictures and sounds combined are much more compelling than a bunch of words.

Congratulations on your tie in this little race to the bottom.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So many conservative epistemologists, so little time. Dick Armey's word on this is enough for me.

Originally posted by Spanky
Funny how you can't find it anywhere on the internet. You would think if it was exculpatory it would be posted everywhere.

Who knows what Dick Armey really said and if he was privy to the right transcript.

So far all we have seen is the one that is really damning. It does not seem to reference the President at all. I saw one clip where Kerry explained he left off the end of the joke, but that is a far cry from him actually saying it and it being cut.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, try to understand this. I haven't looked for it anywhere on the internet, because I don't really give a shit. (I'm pretty sure that John Kerry wasn't dumping on people who join the Army, even though I think he's a lousy politician who should not be set loose near a microphone, because the man went to Yale and then enlisted in the military and went to Vietnam.) I saw that item about Chris Mathews and Dick Armey on Brad DeLong's blog, so I posted it.

The only reason that this little exchange holds interest for me at this point is that you and Hank both posted the same moronic response to what I said. In response to the suggestion that the full context of John Kerry's remarks suggests that his target was the President, both of you somehow thought it would be intellectually worthwhile to post a clip to ten seconds of his speech.

I've read that Kerry aides circulated an advance copy of the speech with the joke he was trying to make about Bush. If you care about this, go check out those stories.

Originally posted by Spanky


I have looked and I can't find it. If what you claim were true don't you think it would be everywhere?


We posted video clips from two different websites. Mine was from You Tube (is that a bastion of conservative bias) and his was from somewhere else. How was our response moronic? Because we posted a primary source to refute your allegation? I am sorry I forgot you rules. If the facts averred support the Democrats or a liberal view, you must take them as true. If the fact averred support the Republicans or a conservative position you must post a primary source.

That is because those are the only clips on the net. I can't find any others. And Kerry has admitted he left the part of the joke off where he referred to George Bush. His statements seem to contradict your claim that part of the clip is left off. He is not saying his quote was taken out of context, he is saying he screwed up the quote.


As I have always said, that is nothing more annoying than someone who is arrogant and ignorant.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No. Because my "allegation" was about the full context, posting a ten-second clip not only did not "refute" it, it didn't even respond to it.

Please tell me you get this now.

Originally posted by Spanky
I am still waiting for Ty's extended version (the one we were supposed to just trust existed) that shows that Kerry was referring to Bush.

"You know, education — if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

Ty: what words need to be added to this so the true meaning is clear? What is left out? Inquiring minds need to know? You mocked Hank and I for questioning that such lines exist. You couldn't believe that we would distrust Dick Armey (or what was alleged Dick Armey said).

We are waiting....

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Insert the word "us" between "get" and "stuck." "If you don't [study hard and do your homework and make an effort to be smart,] you get us stuck in Iraq."

And just so we're clear what I mocked you for: I can believe that you would distrust Chris Matthews or Dick Armey. I just can't believe that you both would be so clueless as to respond to the suggestion that the full transcript of the remarks puts them in a different light by saying, "Oh yeah? Well if you look at only ten seconds, they look pretty bad." That's not mistrust, that's cluelessness.

Originally posted by Spanky
I am sorry. Am I missing something here? Are you saying the transcripts and the video clip don't represent what he really said? You said if we were privy to the entire transcript that it would be obvious the meaning was different. You never said anything about changing what he said to get to the true meaning.



You didn't point out which words you were referring to. You just had the general notion that some words were out there and that those nebulous words were misleading compared to some other group of nebulous words that were not misleading. Until I had put up the clip we had no definite idea of what was said. I was I suppossed to read your mind and know exacly what words you though were insufficient and which words were not. I put up the video clip to show the exact words he said (because a transcript could be erroneous and at the time no one had posted an exact quote). In addition, sometimes a video clip shows meaning through inflections and sarcasm that does not come across in a transcript. I put up the video clip to show that the meaning was not changed through infelction etc. In addition, I thought if you listened to the video clip it would be hard to imagine any words before or after that would change the meaning of what I said. In other words, if you listen to the video clip you will realize that there could be no words before or after his comment that would change the meaning of what he said. And I am right. There are no words.




Like usual you had some hearsay about Kerry's clips and you just assumed it was true because it was pro Kerry. Of course if it was an unsubstantiated allegation about something that supports the President you would have demanded a cite and would have immediately assumed it was not true. But since the assertion you bought supported Kerry you just assumed it was true and couldn't believe any one else would assume that the clip showed all the relevent material.

You make a nebulous assertion and I post the actual relevent clip about the statement in question but somehow you believing an unsubstantiated allegation that turns out to be wrong, and me believing the actual video tape makes you in the right and me moronic. Please. Give it up.

You assumed an usubstantiated allegation is true and it blew up in your face.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

quote posted by Spanky:
________________________________________
Are you saying the transcripts and the video clip don't represent what he really said?
________________________________________


Tys response:

No.

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Wait. I don't really care that much about what Kerry said, other than to express amusement and frustration that he's trying to fuck up an election he's not even running in. But now I'm confused.

I've heard from several places now that the "ask Pres Bush" line was in Kerry's "prepared" remarks but that he fucked up the delivery.

If I understand it correctly, it sounds like your quoted source, whoever it is, is going batshit and conflating these two -- saying that NYT is asserting that Kerry actually said that.

Am I reading it wrong? Or is the idea that there were no "prepared" remarks, and that's where the NYT's treasonous lie, ... um ... lies?

1) Kerry said what he said

2) Purportedly, the actual "prepared" remarks included a line about George Bush

3) Kerry never uttered a word about President Bush

4) Per the NYT, the only word Kerry dropped was "us" - which suggests he did say the sentence about Bush.

5) To say the NYT is reckless with the truth is an insult to the word "reckless"

"Prepared" versus said, courtesy of LGF: