Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bridge of love
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer Spree simple safe news article

Clinton's choice seems to be hitting on the main themes of the Clinton's pre- presidency, be corrupt/distinguish

Interesting that the GOP is so scared of Clark that they are labeling him as Clinton's candidate and rolling out the sleaze now (Hugh Shelton's comments repeated endlessly, etc.). Apparently the comparison of a real soldier with Bush's flight-suit photo op doesn't help the President.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Interesting that the GOP is so scared of Clark that they are labeling him as Clinton's candidate and rolling out the sleaze now (Hugh Shelton's comments repeated endlessly, etc.). Apparently the comparison of a real soldier with Bush's flight-suit photo op doesn't help the President.

Comparison of what?

MATTHEWS: What do you make of this broadside against the USS Abraham Lincoln and its chief visitor last week?
LIDDY: Well, I—in the first place, I think it’s envy. I mean, after all, Al Gore had to go get some woman to tell him how to be a man [Official Naomi Wolf Spin-Point]. And here comes George Bush. You know, he’s in his flight suit, he’s striding across the deck, and he’s wearing his parachute harness, you know—and I’ve worn those because I parachute—and it makes the best of his manly characteristic. You go run those, run that stuff again of him walking across there with the parachute. He has just won every woman’s vote in the United States of America. You know, all those women who say size doesn’t count—they’re all liars. Check that out. I hope the Democrats keep ratting on him and all of this stuff so that they keep showing that tape.

You’d think that no one else was so stupid. But you forgot one thing—Chris Matthews is. “You know, it’s funny. I shouldn’t talk about ratings,” he said, also gazing at Bush’s crotch. “But last night was a riot because…these pictures were showing last night, and everybody’s tuning in to see these pictures again.”

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh051303.shtml

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bridge of love
I always thought California was mainly Dem/Rep on a north south line, but for this issue it was coastal/inland. I know the recall question doesn't directly equal lib/con, but still this is stark.

That's the way it was, but that's the way it's always been. L.A. is a puddle of D in a sea of R in every election. The puddle is big, of course, but L.A.'s neighbors aren't of like mind. Meanwhile, the central valley is agricultural in economy and Patch in outlook. It's also rich with potential D voters who remain, as yet, unregistered and unmotivated. It's always been so, at least in my lifetime.

In this election, one of the minor problems for Davis was that L.A. county (pop. 9,637,494), which is 52% registered D and only 28% registered R, didn't swing more than 51% against recall. So Davis was unable to build enough numbers in his only southern D stronghold.

The big problem was that 26% of registed Democrats voted for recall, and about the same for Schwarzenegger. Moreover, 50% of union households had a registered voter who voted Yes/Arnold. I think these people missed out on the "enlightened" part of "enlightened self interest," but I'm just bitter.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Comparison of what?

MATTHEWS: ...
LIDDY...

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh051303.shtml

I hate to try to reconcile any reconcilable positions here so early, but this stuff entirely feeds back into my brother's theory on the real swing vote. You know, the "rebel" their mothers told them not to date theory.

Which is to say, put Clark in a black leather jacket and suitable shades in Arizona. Give him a cigarette and have him stand by a motorcycle. Tell him to make like he's looking for something to punch, though not crazily. Run it by 50 women to make sure its skanky first. Than roll the cameras.

Next, hire the moving company. Yur goin to the White House baby.

Hello

[sgtclub]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story...059068,00.html

[Vatican telling people to stop wearing condoms because they do not stop AIDS]

[bridge of love]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Interesting that the GOP is so scared of Clark that they are labeling him as Clinton's candidate

that was me not the GOP, but I have heard him labeled as such. I just did it here to put some text around the article.

and rolling out the sleaze now

but see this part wasn't the GOP, unless you count the WP as some Rep. house organ.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bridge of love
that was me not the GOP, but I have heard him labeled as such. I just did it here to put some text around the article.

This sort of stuff has been all over the place. And how do you think stories end up in, e.g., the WaPo? Sometimes they're the result of tips from political campaigns. As with Arnold and the LA Times, or so it was alleged here recently.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Substance takes a dive, but that's historically the game plan, right?

You are like one of those tiresome born-again people. Used to be king of the off-hand funniness but now that you've renounced it to be "substantive" (which I guess means playing a single note over and over and over and over and over) on the PB, the boards should entirely stop having any fucking-around fun aspect. I would ask, again, what the hell happened to you but I find I no longer care.

So, for the record: while on occasion I will be substantive, I far more often will just be fucking around and not serious. If this is horribly disturbing, put me on ignore and you won't have to see it. If you kind of like the substance when it is substantive, you will be able to tell if I'm saying anything worth reading because most likely someone else will respond to me and you'll be able to see what the topic is. You can then, if you so desire, go back and see what I've been saying that day/morning/hour. It's a nifty system.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story...059068,00.html

[Vatican telling people to stop wearing condoms because they do not stop AIDS]

Oh, god dammit.

So, condoms not permissible because they frustrate the will of God vis a vis causing pregnancies.

But HIV is so all-powerful that it can defeat that which must be banned because it cannot be overcome even by the will of God.

What in the fucking hell is the matter with people? Shit like this almost makes me agree with Lester - anyone stupid enough to subscribe to any religion should be sterilized on eugenic grounds.

BR(support mandatory celibacy for the priesthood - because do you really want these idiots reproducing?)C

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Oh, god dammit.

So, condoms not permissible because they frustrate the will of God vis a vis causing pregnancies.

But HIV is so all-powerful that it can defeat that which must be banned because it cannot be overcome even by the will of God.

What in the fucking hell is the matter with people? Shit like this almost makes me agree with Lester - anyone stupid enough to subscribe to any religion should be sterilized on eugenic grounds.

BR(support mandatory celibacy for the priesthood - because do you really want these idiots reproducing?)C

Bottom line is that the process for selecting the Pope is screwed up and one of the last remnants of the feudal world.

And the fact that preserving the patriarchy at all costs has become an obsession for the Vatican leads to a warped view of the world, of women, and of anything having to do with sex or reproduction.

G-Catholic

[sgtclub]

[i]And the fact that preserving the patriarchy at all costs has become an obsession for the Vatican leads to a warped view of the world, of women, and of anything having to do with sex or reproduction.

G-Catholic

Read: The Church is an evil institution more concerned about holding on to power/wealth than about doing good.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Read: The Church is an evil institution more concerned about holding on to power/wealth than about doing good.

That is a comical misreading. That the Church has a "warped view of the world, of women, and of anything having to do with sex or reproduction" has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is an evil institution or whether its intention is to do good.

I'm pretty close to people who hold offices in that particular Church, and I know their intentions are good. Nevertheless, I think the Church in the U.S. that they hold so dear should declare bankruptcy and move all of its assets to Africa in order to help all of the orphans its Aquinan theology has created and will continue to create. It's only right.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
That is a comical misreading. That the Church has a "warped view of the world, of women, and of anything having to do with sex or reproduction" has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is an evil institution or whether its intention is to do good.

I'm pretty close to people who hold offices in that particular Church, and I know their intentions are good. Nevertheless, I think the Church in the U.S. that they hold so dear should declare bankruptcy and move all of its assets to Africa in order to help all of the orphans its Aquinan theology has created and will continue to create. It's only right.

Fine, I'll play along.

Let me start by disclosing that, although I have nothing against Catholism in particular or religion in general, I do have a strong bent against the Catholic Church as an institution. I am also not a religious person.

That said, please explain to me the Church's stance on, for instance, exposing the pedifiles in its ranks. As I see it, the Church cannot do so because, if it did, it would be subject to crippling law suits that would leave it on the verge of bankruptcy if not bankrupt, and in turn, powerless. So instead of (a) restituting those many (hundreds, thousands) of people whose lives have been utterly distroyed and (b) preventing the further distruction of the lives of the truly innocent, the Church chooses to be uncooperative in order to stay solvent/powerful.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
That is a comical misreading. That the Church has a "warped view of the world, of women, and of anything having to do with sex or reproduction" has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is an evil institution or whether its intention is to do good.

I'm pretty close to people who hold offices in that particular Church, and I know their intentions are good. Nevertheless, I think the Church in the U.S. that they hold so dear should declare bankruptcy and move all of its assets to Africa in order to help all of the orphans its Aquinan theology has created and will continue to create. It's only right.

The road to hell....

Sitting here in the Boston Archdiocese, I can say that part of why the "troubles" are so bad is that Law clung to office in part because he and his ilk see themselves as on a crusade to defend the old, conservative Church and its ways, particularly its exclusion of women from the priesthood. I sense that the Pope's recent naming of new Cardinals was a part of this crusade, a way of fending off the "liberals" who dominate many congregetions in Europe and the U.S.

Remember, the financial strain of the troubles came more from diminished donations that real risk on the lawsuits (we are a state with charitable immunity, so even if lawsuits were won recovering on them would have been difficult). The hierarchy was ready to weather this, and to see folks leave the church, as long as those who were leaving were the more liberal elements anyways.

But as long as the Church is dominated by a self-perpetuating heirarchy, without giving any input to clergy or religious who don't have the benefit of a red hat, or even to laity, this is going to continue.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That said, please explain to me the Church's stance on, for instance, exposing the pedifiles in its ranks.

Thanks, but I do enough defending the indefensible between 9 and 5.

As I see it, the Church cannot do so because, if it did, it would be subject to crippling law suits that would leave it on the verge of bankruptcy if not bankrupt, and in turn, powerless. So instead of (a) restituting those many (hundreds, thousands) of people whose lives have been utterly distroyed and (b) preventing the further distruction of the lives of the truly innocent, the Church chooses to be uncooperative in order to stay solvent/powerful.

The Church exists in the context of a society. That society has Lemon-tested, Scalia-approved laws that require it to report such abuse when it becomes known to it outside of a penitential sacrament like confession. DHRO v. Smith established that generally applicable, religion-neutral criminal laws that have the effect of burdening even a religious practice (which, joking aside, pedophilia is not) are perfectly valid.

I say, tough darts for the Catholic Church. There's no "but this will put me in b/k" defense to mandatory reporting. You've got to rat out the pedophile and roll the dice with a frolic/non-ratification defense.