Politics: A new beginning - Page 152

sgtclub · 12-04-2003, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I know why he's saying it. Can you say just anything so long as you're spinning? Do you not read what he and Zoellick said and say to yourself, "Man, everyone knows what's going on here, but do they have to make it so clear that they have no shame?"

In a perfect world, yes. But this is not a perfect world; it's the world of politics. And in the world of politics, there is acceptable spin and nonacceptable spin. This is an example of acceptable spin. An example of unacceptable spin would be if his real and primary motive for going into Iraq was to secure its oil revenues for the US, but he instead spun it as going in to free the Iraqi people.*

I realize that some on this board may believe his real motive was oil.

Hank Chinaski · 12-04-2003, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I agree that Ty is kinda the equivalent of bilmore, but not quite as bad.

I was kidding. Ty's fine, but wasn't it Ty infirm kicked off for a swaer word? maybe I'm remembering wrong

ltl/fb · 12-04-2003, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I was kidding. Ty's fine, but wasn't it Ty infirm kicked off for a swaer word? maybe I'm remembering wrong

He probably was. A bunch of people were.

"fine" -- are you trying to get all multicultural like Sidd? Nifty.

notcasesensitive · 12-04-2003, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Anyway, I agree that Ty is kinda the equivalent of bilmore, but not quite as bad. However, I tend agree with him so it bothers me less. It does bother me, though.

***Ty and Bilmore both read this board. You could be offending them with this post. Just thought you should know.***

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 12-04-2003, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I was kidding. Ty's fine, but wasn't it Ty infirm kicked off for a swaer word? maybe I'm remembering wrong

Shit ya.

Not Me · 12-04-2003, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
wasn't it Ty infirm kicked off for a swaer [sic] word? maybe I'm remembering wrong

If true, how ironic. Ty is the politest person on the politics board.

Tyrone Slothrop · 12-04-2003, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
He probably was. A bunch of people were.

Not me. I even post there from time to time.

I would be flattered to be likened to bilmore, unless the comparison is coming from fringey. Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

Hank Chinaski · 12-04-2003, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Ty is the politest person on the politics board.

that is a rude thing to say, and it takes one to know one, so Ty's not polite

Not Me · 12-04-2003, 08:04 PM

My gut instinct says Politics, but it seems that gender issues are all the FB is about lately:

Bill on Potty Parity in NYC

I know I will visit the Big Apple more frequently if this bill passes.

Hank Chinaski · 12-04-2003, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
My gut instinct says Politics, but it seems that gender issues are all the FB is about lately:

Bill on Potty Parity in NYC

I know I will visit the Big Apple more frequently if this bill passes.

Quote:

Women need more restroom facilities simply because women take longer," said John F. Banzhaf III, a public interest law professor at George Washington University Law School during a telephone interview Wednesday.

Banzhaf is a tool. he teaches a class in public interest law where the class is geared to fucking something up to "fix" a wrong. Years before a "friend" of mine attended GW, Banzhaf had sued GW, for the students because GW cancelled classes one snow day. Banzhaf sued for the pro-rata share of tution. GW settled.

guess what the fall out was? Well, there could be 4 or 5 inches of snow and DC is shut done. GW? open. There could be 2 feet of snow and you stil have to get to class through a completely stopped city.

Public interest law?

Not Me · 12-04-2003, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Banzhaf is a tool. he teaches a class in public interest law where the class is geared to fucking something up to "fix" a wrong. Years before a "friend" of mine attended GW, Banzhaf had sued GW, for the students because GW cancelled classes one snow day. Banzhaf sued for the pro-rata share of tution. GW settled.

guess what the fall out was? Well, there could be 4 or 5 inches of snow and DC is shut done. GW? open. There could be 2 feet of snow and you stil have to get to class through a completely stopped city.

Public interest law?

So does that mean that this is the correct board for this post?

Suing for the tuition is an incredibly toolish move. But the potty parity benefits everyone. Like the article said, now the men won't have to hold our packages for so long while we are in the restroom.

How many times have you had to wait for your SO because of a line in the women's room? Think about it.

On a related topic, if you (assuming you are a man) were at the mall or somewhere else by yourself with your small (say 4 yo) daugther, what would you do if she needed to use the restroom? Would you take her into the men's room where she would have to walk by and see guys peeing in urinals? Or would you send her into the women's room to use the toilet by herself and guard the door to make sure that she came out OK?

sgtclub · 12-04-2003, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
On a related topic, if you (assuming you are a man) were at the mall or somewhere else by yourself with your small (say 4 yo) daugther, what would you do if she needed to use the restroom? Would you take her into the men's room where she would have to walk by and see guys peeing in urinals? Or would you send her into the women's room to use the toilet by herself and guard the door to make sure that she came out OK?

This definitely belongs on the FB.

Say_hello_for_me · 12-04-2003, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Not me. I even post there from time to time.

I would be flattered to be likened to bilmore, unless the comparison is coming from fringey. Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

While I'm sure she wasn't trying to insult all y'all or anything, I'm pretty sure she was trying to insult the two of you by implying that the two of you are equivalents. Something about using many words and dozens of posts for months to call bush a liar/patriot, depending. But you'd have to ask her to be sure.

On another note completely, and speaking of West, I have a question for everybody. I used to order a publication that comes out once a year from West. One year (two years ago) the bill went to the address of someone I know who was in no position to open it, forward it, process it, or anything. So it went months late. When I finally became aware of it (and the 6 or 10 reminder/double secret reminder/we're reporting you/we're suing you letters), I called them immediately.

The shuffled me between 3 people, all of whom said (paraphrasing) "oh that, we wrote it off". Now some of y'all might not believe it, but I was like "I don't like that I'm adjudicated a deadbeat for something I agreed to purchase blah blah blah, how can I pay". They were like "the billing record is gone... and its never coming back... enjoy the publication".

OK, so I tried, right?

Well, all of a sudden I start getting all kinds of publications from West for free. Its like they think I'm the librarian at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Hello or something. I get updates on obscure circuit court rules, textbooks on anything remotely related to my practice area, the entire *** of the World, you name it.

And all of the bills have a $0.00 charge on it. And I never get reminders/double secret reminders/we're reporting you/we're suing you notes.

Its not like I was Callum Greyshaw or anything. Fuck, I'd take back 3/4 of my posts if I could. But I figured, maybe someone over there thought I was like the poster of the fucking year of somefuckingthing.

Has this happened to any of you?

Hello

PS And this is not an attempt to reignite the "debate" regarding whether it is wrong to receive something that comes to your door or anything. This is a true story.

Skeks in the city · 12-04-2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

Quote:

Legally? fuck legally. Iraq says, "yeah you want that money, I gave it to the U.S., sure I owe , but you gotta get it from US."

Then we say "Saddam debts? we don't recognize no stinking Saddam debts."

Oh no, more like. France/Germany/Russia sue Iraq whereever they needs to for liens, garnishment, or whatever and attempts enforcement action against purchasers of oil from Iraq. Companies have voiced concern about buying oil from Iraq due to concerns over whether Iraq could provide good title to its oil

ltl/fb · 12-04-2003, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Not me. I even post there from time to time.

I would be flattered to be likened to bilmore, unless the comparison is coming from fringey. Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

I just think that (now that the absolute crazies like uh marshmallow fluff and the tottery guy are gone) you all are kind of extreme in a scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners kind of way. Like DeLay and whoever his Democrat analog is. (I honest-to-god don't follow politics that much -- because it disturbs me -- and am aware of DeLay mainly because he is from TX and b/c of the redistricting stuff.)

And I agree with sitc re: people being willing to buy stuff from Iraq because would be afraid there'd be other people claiming it and could end up paying Iraq (or whatever entity in Iraq extracts the oil) and getting nothing, or having to incur huge legal expenses fighting over ownership or what-have-you. This would seem to me to probably have the effect of Iraq having to sell at a lower price (to compensate for probability of pain-in-the-ass factor and undependability). The debt/ownership stuff has to get settled or it's not going to work well.