Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Make more sense? It made perfect sense to me. Was there an error in his logic somewhere? Did you look at the title? You missed the point of the essay completely. The point was that most of the attacks on Cox are ridiculous.

If one shares an ideological commitment to Cox's views about freeing business from that pesky SEC oversight -- which evidently you, Will, and Enron's former management all do -- then I'm sure the article makes perfect sense. As an investor, and one who wants to make sure that a strong SEC protects investor confidence, I am more inclined, perhaps, to see that Will can't decide whether he's arguing that Cox will be no different from Donaldson, or that Cox will be different and so what.

In addition, there is no evidence that Cox is an Ayn Rand devotee so calling him one is absurd.

Apart from the fact that he favorably reviewed one of her books in the New York Times Book Review, something not many politicians can say. So maybe he's no Greenspan.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by captain marvelous
More or less as courageous as the courageous tactics your slave-owning founding fathers employed on the British and later on the indigenous peoples of the North American continent.

As the redcoats retreated from Concord to Lexington, they were sniped at by patriots from nearby mosques. Later, the battle of Breed's Hill could not be won dispite the patriots who tried to stop British forces by blowing themselves and nearby civilians up with carbombs.

[captain marvelous]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As the redcoats retreated from Concord to Lexington, they were sniped at by patriots from nearby mosques. Later, the battle of Breed's Hill could not be won dispite the patriots who tried to stop British forces by blowing themselves and nearby civilians up with carbombs.

It's insight like this that has resulted in the American left wing's impotence in the face of W's murderous crimes. Congratulations on aiding and abetting the republican's destruction of Amerikka.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As the redcoats retreated from Concord to Lexington, they were sniped at by patriots from nearby mosques. Later, the battle of Breed's Hill could not be won dispite the patriots who tried to stop British forces by blowing themselves and nearby civilians up with carbombs.

Spanky and i love Japan. Its current freedom was won by holy suicide warriors who intentionally flew airplanes into ships.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by captain marvelous
It's insight like this that has resulted in the American left wing's impotence in the face of W's murderous crimes.

I'm not impotent -- it's just that I don't find him attractive. You seem to have that fascist/leather thing going, NTTAWWT.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
You can't be serious. You find hiding in Mosques and targeting civilians as courageous?

Spanky, you shouldn't respond to trolls, whether they be on the left or the right. It just encourages Penske.

[a concerned poster]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Spanky, you shouldn't respond to trolls, whether they be on the left or the right. It just encourages Penske.

Speaking of being independently wealthy, it may not be such a prudent idea to constantly post stuff outing pernske to an internet chatroom all day long.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by captain marvelous
More or less as courageous as the courageous tactics your slave-owning founding fathers employed on the British and later on the indigenous peoples of the North American continent.

I don't think what was done to the Indians was courageous. As far as I know, I have never heard of substantiated accounts of American Revolutionaries specifically targeting civilians. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams never owned slaves and were members of Abolition movements most of their adult lives. I am not sure, but I believe Benjamin Franklin falls into this catagory also.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Spanky, you shouldn't respond to trolls, whether they be on the left or the right. It just encourages Penske.

How do you know that this isn't a penske sock? Or do Penske socks only attack from the right?

Hanging Chad and Captain Marvelous seemed to have similar lines of reasoning. Accepting facts that support their position, no matter how aburd, and discounting facts that do not support their position, now matter how valid.

Could be the same person.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If one shares an ideological commitment to Cox's views about freeing business from that pesky SEC oversight -- which evidently you, Will, and Enron's former management all do -- then I'm sure the article makes perfect sense. As an investor, and one who wants to make sure that a strong SEC protects investor confidence, I am more inclined, perhaps, to see that Will can't decide whether he's arguing that Cox will be no different from Donaldson, or that Cox will be different and so what.

Who is suggesting that business will be free of SEC oversight? Is this a new proposal I missed somewhere?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Who is suggesting that business will be free of SEC oversight? Is this a new proposal I missed somewhere?

Good point. Even when the fox is guarding the chickenhouse, is there not still regulatory oversight?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
How do you know that this isn't a penske sock? Or do Penske socks only attack from the right?

Hanging Chad and Captain Marvelous seemed to have similar lines of reasoning. Accepting facts that support their position, no matter how aburd, and discounting facts that do not support their position, now matter how valid.

Could be the same person.

You're right. They must be Hank socks.

[Spanky]

I fit the profile. I am white and I think both OJ and Michael Jackson were guilty.


Gallup: Public Splits, In 'Major Racial Divide,' on Michael Jackson Verdict

By E&P Staff

Published: June 14, 2005 11:30 AM ET

NEW YORK An overnight Gallup Poll released today shows that 48% of Americans disagree with the verdicts clearing pop star Michael Jackson of all charges in the molesting case and only 34% agree -- and they are split along a “major racial divide,” Gallup said.

Whites disagree with the verdict by about 2-1 (54% to 28%) while nonwhites take the opposite view by 2-1 (56% to 26%).

This recalls the O.J. Simpson verdict in 1995, when whites disagreed with him getting off by 62% to 27% while nonwhites supported it by 67% to 24%.

A clear majority, or 62%, believe that Jackson's celebrity status was a major factor in the verdict.

Nearly half said they were “surprised” by the verdict, with 24% saying they were “outraged.”

Exactly one in four said they were “still a fan” of the singer. Almost as many said they were once fans, but no longer.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I fit the profile. I am white and I think both OJ and Michael Jackson were guilty.


Gallup: Public Splits, In 'Major Racial Divide,' on Michael Jackson Verdict

By E&P Staff

Published: June 14, 2005 11:30 AM ET

NEW YORK An overnight Gallup Poll released today shows that 48% of Americans disagree with the verdicts clearing pop star Michael Jackson of all charges in the molesting case and only 34% agree -- and they are split along a “major racial divide,” Gallup said.

Whites disagree with the verdict by about 2-1 (54% to 28%) while nonwhites take the opposite view by 2-1 (56% to 26%).

This recalls the O.J. Simpson verdict in 1995, when whites disagreed with him getting off by 62% to 27% while nonwhites supported it by 67% to 24%.

A clear majority, or 62%, believe that Jackson's celebrity status was a major factor in the verdict.

Nearly half said they were “surprised” by the verdict, with 24% saying they were “outraged.”

Exactly one in four said they were “still a fan” of the singer. Almost as many said they were once fans, but no longer.

I have avoided following this trial, as I avoid following every "celebrity" trial. That said, some things manage to leak their way through. From what's gotten through, I have no problem with this verdict -- it seemed permeated with "reasonable doubt," occasionally even overwhelming doubt.

I would not be shocked to learn that Michael Jackson had molested boys. I am shocked, however, that the prosecution chose to hang their hats on this alleged victim and his mother. They were a parody of the gold-digging plaintiffs.

Given that this was, apparently, the best the prosecution could do, I would also not be shocked to learn that Michael Jackson had, in fact, never molested boys.

The whole "this would be different if he weren't a celebrity" strikes me as, bluntly, a crock of shit. People have a gut feel about the guy because of his persona as a celebrity. No one should go to prison on gut feel. But, I think the prosecution was banking on that, and felt that they could get away with a weak case and weaker star witnesses because of the gut feel.

If he weren't a celebrity, I doubt that the case would have been brought on this evidence. I do not doubt that another wealthy defendant, one who was not a celebrity but who, like Jackson, had the means to mount a full defense, would have gotten the same result on the same evidence. In fact, I think it would've been easier for someone who did not bring Jocko's creepiness into the courtroom.

As for OJ, that's a different story. The case was stronger (infinitely), and the prosecution just grossly bungled it. The jury lost sight of the important things, but who can blame them? If the prosecution hadn't spent eight months on bullshit (including, if I remember the Bugliosi book correctly, a full day explaining that an indentation on Nicole's back was caused by the clasp of her dress), then they maybe they could have focused the jury's attention on the important stuff -- the DNA evidence. Also, one has to wonder who got the brilliant idea of asking a professional actor (OJ) to do an uncontrolled demonstration (the glove). Stupid, stupid, stupid.

OTOH, we got a great Chris Rock bit out of it, so that's something. ("You can't tell me that white people wouldn't wonder, if Jerry Seinfeld was being prosecuted for murder and the one cop who found the glove just happened to be in the Nation of Islam.")

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Good point. Even when the fox is guarding the chickenhouse, is there not still regulatory oversight?

There you go again. [This part is irony -- the literal meaning of my statement is the opposite of the actual meaning intended] If Ralph Nader were made the US Trade Rep, would you just assume that he would radically shift US policy away from free trade? [/This part is irony -- the literal meaning of my statement is the opposite of the actual meaning intended]


edited for clarity.