Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
God, you were all here last time I won this one.

Most of the people who believe in this stuff are monotheistic, but I'm not surprised that you would be the exception, Hank.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
We're stuck cleaning up the remains of an overly-quick invasion (isn't THAT a funny concept?) that failed to kill enough off.

It never fails to bring a smile to my face when you say this. I know I for one was loudly predicting that our troops would not be able to set foot in Fallujah in 15 months when I saw the stirring imagery of SH's statue being pulled down. "Too fast, my friends, too fast!"

I bet you were the guy who originated the "I'm a workaholic" answer to the "what's your biggest weakness" interview question.

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?

So we haven't been complaining consistently enough about the situation in Iraq? Damn, now you are hitting too close to home. Ty, put on some coffee. It's gonna be a long weekend of bellyaching to make up for lost time.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

Exactly. I know a firm can't get involved because there are folks at fairly high levels on _both_ sides -- the perils of having a large and active lobbying group.

S_A_M

P.S. Damn! That icon is enough to make me wanna spend some time on the FB (not you club, or you, Ty).

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
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.

Why not? I've had thoughts about the difficult logic of this doctrine for awhile now, ever since we signed that peace treaty with the Mujeheddin al Khalq, the Iranian opposition group. They are undeniably terrorists and the Iranian govt has denounced them as such, and yet we effectively have given them aid and comfort (sign a peace treaty, consultations with our mil in Iraq).

Not that anyone is going to lose sleep over Iran feeling like we're playing dirty pool, but it does kind of suggest that we won't honor invocations of the doctrine by everyone. The question is how many countries get on the wrong side of the velvet rope, and what does that mean for future efforts at collaboration on antiterrorism initiatives.

FWIW, I favor the response that backs Russia in this case. I'm just wondering when the bad facts are going to make bad law on this one.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

Exactly. There are roles that are non-legal and don't involve advice in recounts and the like, but what organizations like these will do is go in and challenge the Rs on specifically legal issues. As an example, where they make a significant number of challenges of people on capacity grounds in nursing homes that cater to Blacks or Jews or that have Medicare/ Medicaid patients, someone will need to defend the elderly person's right to vote. Usually, you need a fleet of people because the strategy is to make it an obvious hassle for a group of people to vote rather than to disqualify any single voter, so the lawyers are there to give comfort to the voters that they aren't alone. (By the way, the legal folks recruited by the Rs will be the one's challenging people's capacity and making it a hassle to vote).


If you want to keep your politics quiet while helping out, you'll need to get some real comfort that you're getting involved in a non-legal role, such as observing counts, rather than a legal role, such as challenging counts. You still have the possibility that you are making yourself a witness. I clear all this stuff with the right conflicts people before I do it, but, then, no one has to ask my affiliation - it is not possible to know me and not have some idea.

[Not Me]

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 if they are planning on discussing strategy before doing any legal work, then they may have the expectation of attorney-client privilege. Therein lies your conflict. You should do a conflicts check even if all you are going to do is listen to their thoughts about how to go about contesting any elections.

It is like meeting with a potential client for the first time. I ask them to tell me the name of any potentially adverse parties and I run a conflicts check before I will even listen to their problem.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

You are refreshingly naive for one who holds his opinions so confidently.

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?

You're actually pretty much on target here, except that your choice of the word "incarcerate" is either hyperbole or belies a bit of misplaced compassion. The de-institutionalization movement was one of the most misguided efforts the liberals in AMerica ever undertook.

I personally believe that a lot more people do need to be institutionalized.

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!"

Do me a favor. I do you the courtesy of treating you as an individual with an independent mind, conscience and will. Please do me the same courtesy and stop referring to me as though I were one of millions of faceless liberals.

I never said Bush lied when he said it would be long and expensive. I'm not saying he lied now, either, at least not about that. If you won't treat me with the same dignity and respect I treat you, there's no further point to our discussions.

I don't believe progress is failing. I don't think we have made much progress since the beginning and it's one of the reasons I wasn't so sure we should be going in at this particular time.

Things haven't settled down, and as long as there are diehards ready to lob bombs at a govenrment not yet ready to resist them, then our leaving will be a failure. I predict we are there for the indefinite future, and more likely than not, when we leave, it will be a Republican president getting us out because the conservatives will no longer be willing to shoulder the financial burden.

You seem very committed now, Bilmore. Will you continue to be when interest rates go back up to double digits and your tax bill goes up 20%?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk

I personally believe that a lot more people do need to be institutionalized.

pot meet kettle.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
P.S. Damn! That icon is enough to make me wanna spend some time on the FB (not you club, or you, Ty).

Thanks, but I don't post much on the FB.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Why not? I've had thoughts about the difficult logic of this doctrine for awhile now, ever since we signed that peace treaty with the Mujeheddin al Khalq, the Iranian opposition group. They are undeniably terrorists and the Iranian govt has denounced them as such, and yet we effectively have given them aid and comfort (sign a peace treaty, consultations with our mil in Iraq).

Not that anyone is going to lose sleep over Iran feeling like we're playing dirty pool, but it does kind of suggest that we won't honor invocations of the doctrine by everyone. The question is how many countries get on the wrong side of the velvet rope, and what does that mean for future efforts at collaboration on antiterrorism initiatives.

FWIW, I favor the response that backs Russia in this case. I'm just wondering when the bad facts are going to make bad law on this one.

As you seem to acknowledge, the law ultimately devolves into the law of the gun. If you harbor terrorists, it may be considered an act of war. So don't harbor terrorists if you want to avoid a war. In the case of Russia and Dubai, I'm not suggesting that Russia is right merely based on the legal logic of the Bush Doctrine. I'm suggesting that Russia is right (also) based on the fact that they can kick Dubai's ass.

In the case of Iran, I don't think Iran wants to step up to this particular plate. At the same time, I think the Bush administration might find it in their interest to put a leash on independent anti-Iran forces that can be controlled on U.S.-controlled territory.

Hell though, although I think we go after Syria in the next 4 years, and before we go after Iran, I think its more than conceivable that someday we target Iran for sheltering Al Quaid operatives from us. In fact, I think we could argue that we are tolerating the anti-Iran forces as a proxy for us in an undeclared war, based on Iran sheltering Al Quaida operatives from our wrath. If Iran wants to increase the noise on this issue, they are more than welcome. Something tells me they won't though.

In any case, I think we are probably communicating with Iran about our relative situations. I doubt the same was happening much between Dubai and Russia. Still, Dubai should back out of hostile activities against another nation that can kick its ass within the realm of the Bush doctrine. The immediately preceding sentence is probably a good summary of my answer to your "why".

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I clear all this stuff with the right conflicts people before I do it, but, then, no one has to ask my affiliation - it is not possible to know me and not have some idea.

38. Beauty Is As Beauty Does


Gilligan suggests a beauty contest to decide which of the three women will become "Ms. Castaway." Mr. Howell attempts to sabotage the other contestants by spreading glue on the stage before Mary Ann's big dance scene, and by shooting spit-wads at Ginger while she performs. The Professor then distorts the music when it is Mrs. Howell's turn. Then, when all the competitions are complete, the final decision rests with the judge.....Gilligan!


b: 23-Sep-1965 w: Joanna Lee d: Jack Arnold

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
pot meet kettle.

No wonder you are so easily impressed by your stellar wit.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
As you seem to acknowledge, the law ultimately devolves into the law of the gun. If you harbor terrorists, it may be considered an act of war. So don't harbor terrorists if you want to avoid a war. In the case of Russia and Dubai, I'm not suggesting that Russia is right merely based on the legal logic of the Bush Doctrine. I'm suggesting that Russia is right (also) based on the fact that they can kick Dubai's ass.

See, that's the problem with this "doctrine." It comes down to who can kick whose ass. I would have thought that several thousand years of history would have proven the folly of this as a political philosophy, especially in the post-nuclear age.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
See, that's the problem with this "doctrine." It comes down to who can kick whose ass. I would have thought that several thousand years of history would have proven the folly of this as a political philosophy, especially in the post-nuclear age.

Someone does a count every year of the number of armed conflicts and the resultant damage. It seems like the number is always around 100. Heck, you like Israel too, right?

I'd suggest the current number would be even higher were it not for nuclear weapons and the fact that we are subsidizing European warmongers to make sure they all don't feel the need to go out and get gatts.

Hello

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Heck, you like Israel too, right?

Hello

I am actually quite peeved at Israel these days. It seems far too inclined to invoke any means to achieve what I do feel is a legitimate end. But we could spend years on Israel and end up with my thoughts being no less ambicalent than they are right now.

Pesonally, I'd rather go have a martini. Happy Friday, Hello.