Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Uh, I wasn't talking about abortion.

Sorry. I assumed you were speaking in terms of the post about the fed ban on the health care issue.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
Now I am not only surprised, I am shocked!

(I didn't really mean it. I was just being polite.)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Do I now need to consider the failure of British colonization whenever we talk about Iraq?

Only if you're going to advocagte going down the same ill-fated road.

Wonk, were we to triple-fund every need for every "disaffected" person in the world - (WTF does "disaffected" mean, anyway? - vague whiney complaints that someone isn't as happy as they should be?) - you'd be here on this board claiming that I'm a heartless bastard because I won't adequately fund the critical "buy every kid in the world a tuba" legislation. There's just no end, and the definition of "need" always expands to a point well past supply.

Yeah, me and my Pollyanna view that, in the wealthiest society in the world, it's wrong for people to go to bed hungry, or in a culvert. It's pathetic, isn't it? Have they no dumpsters?

I think we're doing the right thing, in almost the right way, at almost an acceptable price, today in Iraq. So, yeah, I think we will.

If we're doing such a great job, then why are there so many places we can't control? Including the part of Baghdad where our soldiers and diplomats live? Why are there so many people blowing things up?

Iraq won't be a success, and in fact won't be anything but a loss for the US, unless we can leave it with the people in a state of peace and a functional government in place. If we leave before achieving both, then we will be leaving an Iraq that is far more dangerous and far more likely to be a continual breeding ground for terrorists than it was before.

You are deluding yourself if you think that we will be able to do that with our current level of spending, and at our current level of involvement.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
With regard to the Bush Doctrine HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA!!!!,* I'll repeat what I've said before. If one plans to make it a policy to invade sovereign states, one had best be prepared to remain in said state pretty much indefinitely, otherwise, the invading nation will be pulling out leaving behind a bigger mess and a far more dangerous climate than existed previously.

I don't oppose imperialism outright. But I haven't yet thought through the ramifications of us doing it. I would certainly submit that Russia can ill afford to maintain its own state, let alone feed, police, and administer any colonies.

Fair enough. I'm not sure Russia has to do anything like invade Dubai. I think a decent signal would be sent by activating a battleship with humongous guns, warning all non-Dubains to get out (excepting, of course, any American military bases in the area), and telling Dubai that, pursuant to the Bush doctrine, they'd better give up the two Russian hostages who were fighting Russia's war on terror.

I realize how far this puts me on the edge, but I think Bush should then come out and say that Russia has the right to defend itself, and any country that gets in its way by providing shelter to terrorists and terrorist-leaders, is properly subject to the business end of never-ending salvos from 16-inch guns.

Or, alternatively, the U.S. and a few other allies can strongly encourage Dubai to come to its senses regarding this matter. They should not have provided shelter, and they should not have announced the arrest of the hit-men. And they shouldn't expect the U.S. not to back Russia's right in this case, particularly once the U.S. has asserted such a right for itself.

Hello

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Fair enough. I'm not sure Russia has to do anything like invade Dubai. I think a decent signal would be sent by activating a battleship with humongous guns, warning all non-Dubains to get out (excepting, of course, any American military bases in the area), and telling Dubai that, pursuant to the Bush doctrine, they'd better give up the two Russian hostages who were fighting Russia's war on terror.

I realize how far this puts me on the edge, but I think Bush should then come out and say that Russia has the right to defend itself, and any country that gets in its way by providing shelter to terrorists and terrorist-leaders, is properly subject to the business end of never-ending salvos from 16-inch guns.

Or, alternatively, the U.S. and a few other allies can strongly encourage Dubai to come to its senses regarding this matter. They should not have provided shelter, and they should not have announced the arrest of the hit-men. And they shouldn't expect the U.S. not to back Russia's right in this case, particularly once the U.S. has asserted such a right for itself.

Hello

And if the government of Dubai says "no?"

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
And if the government of Dubai says "no?"

Boom?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Yeah, me and my Pollyanna view that, in the wealthiest society in the world, it's wrong for people to go to bed hungry, or in a culvert. It's pathetic, isn't it? Have they no dumpsters?

With welfare, food banks, and all the programs designed as safety nets, I don't think there are that many people starving here. Any? I really doubt it. Most of the people who are sleeping in culverts are the mentally ill, who we sort of cast out out of a misguided concern for their right to select to live in a culvert. Shall we incarcerate them for their own good?

If we're doing such a great job, then why are there so many places we can't control? Including the part of Baghdad where our soldiers and diplomats live? Why are there so many people blowing things up?

Iraq won't be a success, and in fact won't be anything but a loss for the US, unless we can leave it with the people in a state of peace and a functional government in place. If we leave before achieving both, then we will be leaving an Iraq that is far more dangerous and far more likely to be a continual breeding ground for terrorists than it was before.

You are deluding yourself if you think that we will be able to do that with our current level of spending, and at our current level of involvement.

If things settled down right now, and we left in months, there would be quite a few remaining die-hard fanatics bent on violent overthrow who would then resume their bombings on a new, weak government without our support. We're stuck cleaning up the remains of an overly-quick invasion (isn't THAT a funny concept?) that failed to kill enough off. I'm amused, though, at the sudden decision by millions of Kerryites that the progress is failing - seems like the concern materialized simultaneously across the liberal world in the last week - couldn't be a realization that they need an issue in 45 days, could it? Bush said this would take a long time and cost a lot of money when it started. Now, you're saying "Bush lied! He said it would be slow and expensive, but it's slow and expensive! Liar!"

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm sorry. I forgot that they're calling it "intelligent design" now.

Isn't there a non-trivial difference between a theory that says God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden 8000 years ago and one that says God started his work billions of years ago and worked up to where we are now?

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Has anyone on here joined "Lawyers for Kerry-Edwards" or "Lawyers for Bush-Cheney" and if so, did you tell your firm? I don't really want my firm finding out my political affiliation (not that I can even vote, but whatever, I still have an affiliation).

I read in the WSJ today that both sides are lining up as many lawyers as they can get in anticipation of Florida-like situations post- and pre-election. I guess that explains the zillion and two recent emails in my yahoo account from a certain two people.

This is the link I have been receiving http://forms.johnkerry.com/forms/lawyers.html

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
I don't really want my firm finding out my political affiliation (not that I can even vote, but whatever, I still have an affiliation).

Why would you feel the need to tell your firm? I learned in my recent copy of the ABA Young Lawyers publication (which issue, because the division is so pathetic, is projected to be online by about 2006) that you should keep politics and work separate, unless your work is politics. On a slightly more informed note, I would think most employers would make every effort to keep the two separate to avoid the problems presumably you already anticipate. There's not much benefit to it, unless you want to declare your allegiances to someone who might get a plum political job and you want in, in which case tell them over lunch.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why would you feel the need to tell your firm?

Because I think that if you join, you are telling the campaign that you are prepared to do pro bono legal work for it. Most firms require that you get approval from a pro bono committee before you take on a pro bono project. I assume this is for billing purposes, but there could be some other reason that I am missing. I don't want to not tell my firm and then find out that my insurance is in jeopardy or something (although I can't really see how that would happen).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Because I think that if you join, you are telling the campaign that you are prepared to do pro bono legal work for it. Most firms require that you get approval from a pro bono committee before you take on a pro bono project. I assume this is for billing purposes, but there could be some other reason that I am missing. I don't want to not tell my firm and then find out that my insurance is in jeopardy or something (although I can't really see how that would happen).

It's a conflicts issue. I don't think you need to tell your firm until prior to actually performing legal work, unless joining the group is akin to an engagement letter, which I doubt.

edited by club

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Isn't there a non-trivial difference between a theory that says God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden 8000 years ago and one that says God started his work billions of years ago and worked up to where we are now?

There's evidence that it wasn't 8000 years ago- but 1 billion years ago, God or Martians planting a paramecium in the Atlantic fits within all the available evidence. An intergalactic cruiser dumping it's waste with a parasite of two. God, you were all here last time I won this one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Isn't there a non-trivial difference between a theory that says God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden 8000 years ago and one that says God started his work billions of years ago and worked up to where we are now?

Yes, but so what? The latter is not what ID stands for.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's a conflicts issue. I don't think you need to tell your firm until prior to actually performing legal work, unless joining the group is akin to an engagement letter, which I doubt.

edited by club

I think you have to be very careful with this one. In the last election, a friend at [largely Democratic D.C. firm] told me that they couldn't get involved in the Florida recount, etc. because [specific lawyer at said firm who is a prominent Republican] was working for the Bush campaign.