Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Well, I for one am happy that you finally admit that the MSM is biased for Republicans.

Why would you throw out a line like this?

I admit, happily, that many members of the MSM are biased, including Fox.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
IMHO, being a member of the Hitler Youth (and the German Army, if that comment is true) would be a disqualifying factor. Whatever the reason. I recognize the range of pressures and cultural factors that drove people to such membership, and I don't claim that anyone who was, say, in the Hitler Youth is per se an evil person, or even that he was ever knowingly a Nazi sympathizer. Nor am I saying that all such people are beyond redemption. But it's a long step from there to being the representative (embodiment? I can't remember, it's been decades since Catholic school) of Jesus Christ on Earth.

If that means that a generation or two of Germans is disqualified from the Papacy, I view that as no big deal. There's other jobs.

2. The choice is very symbolic. Like last time the choice of a Pole was intended to support the human rights movement there and in the rest of Eastern Europe. Picking a former Hitler youth guy just adds a layer of explaining/ answer dodging. And, as Sidd insightfully notes, there is no big deal with not picking a German for a hundred years or so.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2. The choice is very symbolic. Like last time the choice of a Pole was intended to support the human rights movement there and in the rest of Eastern Europe. Picking a former Hitler youth guy just adds a layer of explaining/ answer dodging. And, as Sidd insightfully notes, there is no big deal with not picking a German for a hundred years or so.

We're thinking it was a specific and explicit warning to the transgressing priests of North America, reminding them of how Hitler thought to solve the pedophile problem.

We're also thinking the problem really starts to fade now . . .

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Why would you throw out a line like this?

For a laugh. Sue me, I'm cheap.

I admit, happily, that many members of the MSM are biased, including Fox.

I've only seen you and the other Rs on this board, and everywhere else, use "MSM" as a surrogate for "that fucking Liberal Media."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
We're thinking it was a specific and explicit warning to the transgressing priests of North America, reminding them of how Hitler thought to solve the pedophile problem.

If that was their thinking, they would have made a plaintiffs' lawyer the Pope. The threat of big judgments seems to be getting the Church's attention a whole lot better than, say, the fear of burning in Hell for eternity that anyone who allows the rape of children to continue should have.


Man, can you imagine how great a Pope Johnny Cochran would have made? "If it's the Lord's Day, you must pray!"

[Replaced_Texan]

Reason 876 that I hate Republicans. (spree: Austin American Statesman)

Because the scourge of gay foster parents keeps us all up at night.

"It's a learned behavior, and I think a child . . . ought to have the opportunity to be presented to a traditional family as such," Talton said. "And if they choose to be homosexual or lesbian, then that's their choice when they turn 18."

Grrr.

I need to stop paying attention to what my state legislature does.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If that was their thinking, they would have made a plaintiffs' lawyer the Pope.

Right. Name me one pedo priest who's opened his wallet. No, the fear needs to be far more personal than that.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Right. Name me one pedo priest who's opened his wallet. No, the fear needs to be far more personal than that.

As I said, the threat of big judgments is getting the Church to pay attention. (i.e. -- not any individual priest.)

Presumably the priests believe in things like Hell, eternal damnation, torture and agony and fire and brimstone and devils with pitchforks. If that wasn't personal enough to get them to stop raping little boys, I doubt anything else would do the trick.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Reason 876 that I hate Republicans. (spree: Austin American Statesman)
"It's a learned behavior, and I think a child . . . ought to have the opportunity to be presented to a traditional family as such," Talton said. "And if they choose to be homosexual or lesbian, then that's their choice when they turn 18."

Grrr.

I need to stop paying attention to what my state legislature does.

And to the Pope too.

[bilmore]

Never mind. Better for IM.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
As I said, the threat of big judgments is getting the Church to pay attention. (i.e. -- not any individual priest.)

Presumably the priests believe in things like Hell, eternal damnation, torture and agony and fire and brimstone and devils with pitchforks. If that wasn't personal enough to get them to stop raping little boys, I doubt anything else would do the trick.

God knows they raped the boys. The pope can't damn them to hell.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
God knows they raped the boys. The pope can't damn them to hell.

Presumably that defense would work for non-priest pedophiles as well? "Your honor, although my client has admitted guilt, he should be released on his own recognizance to await his eternal judgment at the hands of the Almighty."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Presumably that defense would work for non-priest pedophiles as well? "Your honor, although my client has admitted guilt, he should be released on his own recognizance to await his eternal judgment at the hands of the Almighty."

Wasn't that the basic argument that kept Clinton from being impeached?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Wasn't that the basic argument that kept Clinton from being impeached?

Close. He was released to Hilary, whch is its own form of eternal judgment, I suppose.

In other news, judges are even saying that maybe Hank's interpretation of Delay was right:

"As a judge I have to be very careful about going outside the "four corners" of the record before me in deciding a case. Clearly, some internet research is appropriate--Lexis-Nexis. But, if I tried to resolve a factual dispute in the record by doing my own research I believe I would overstepped the bounds of my ethics. That is the parties jobs and they have burdens of proof to meet. The judge is the finder of fact and is not supposed to be the developer of fact.

Especially appellant judges, who are to review the record before them as developed at the lower level. These judges are not supposed to be supplementing or developing the facts. A judges role is similar to that of a jury--to review the facts presented. It is improper for a juror to do research on factual issues and it might also be for a judge. Thus, a blanket condemnation of Mr. Delay's comments is not necessarily appropriate."

(From The Corner.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Recently, I voted at my firm on an issue where we compromised to get agreement. The compromise was not exactly what I wanted. I supported the proposal. One can support a compromise, you know. And if the majority of the House republicans don't support something. should it pass? This isn't a coalition government.

Suppose you're Denny Hastert. Ready for a vote is an intelligence reform bill that you think is an important step to make the nation safer from terrorist attacks. It has plenty of Democratic support, but only 45% of the GOP House members support it. The alternative favored by the majority of the GOP House members cannot pass -- too many Republicans and Democrats oppose it. Everyone agrees that doing nothing is a terrible idea.

Do you let the intelligence reform bill favored by the majority of House members but a minority of GOP House members (including you) come to a vote, knowing that it will pass even though a majority of GOP House members oppose it? Or do you place GOP unity before national security, and prevent a vote?