Politics As Usual

[SlaveNoMore]

Say_hello_for_me
This country is in bad shape. Can we get someone without a criminal background to step forward and run on a central platform?

We live in quite the libertine society.

Clinton used to smoke dope. W used to do coke at Yale. Ryan* tried (unsuccessfully) to voyeur his hottie actress wife to have sex.

And big fucking deal to all.

If someone is so fucking sheltered to the world at large that they haven't done stuff like this, then I don't want them holding my ATM card, let alone the keys to the nukes.



*I really feel for Ryan - only guy to go down in a sex scandal for getting cock blocked by his WIFE

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
We live in quite the libertine society.

Clinton used to smoke dope. W used to do coke at Yale. Ryan* tried (unsuccessfully) to voyeur his hottie actress wife to have sex.

And big fucking deal to all.

If someone is so fucking sheltered to the world at large that they haven't done stuff like this, then I don't want them holding my ATM card, let alone the keys to the nukes.

*I really feel for Ryan - only guy to go down in a sex scandal for getting cock blocked by his WIFE

What is "like this"? Any of the three, or all three? Despite what you and Not_Me* might think, the great majority of people in this country have not experimented with coke. And if anything close to a majority thought there was nothing wrong with it, it would already be legal.

But I like how that makes those who abstained "sheltered" (lack of opportunity), rather than "righteous" (the sense to obey laws).


Hello

*and apparently everyone else on this board who claims to be to the law-abiding clintoon-hating right, except me.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Edwards' brother wanted on a 10 year old warrant for failure to appear to answer DUI charges. Sayeth the spokesman, yes he's aware of it, he loves his brother very much.

As much as I appreciate the sentiment, one should probably arrange for family members to turn themselves in to face justice before you run for president or accept a VP nomination from a major party. How long has Edwards known that his brother was wanted? Ugh, this could get ugly.

While we are at it, could we get a definitive answer from Dubya whether he was a coke junkie before his campaign starts throwing out accusations at Edwards for abetting a substance abuser?

This country is in bad shape. Can we get someone without a criminal background to step forward and run on a central platform?

Hello

Last I checked, having a brother with a DUI does not constitute a criminal background.


ETA: I'm pretty sure that there is no statute defining "failure to make a relative cure a failure to appear," either.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
We live in quite the libertine society.

Clinton used to smoke dope. W used to do coke at Yale. Ryan* tried (unsuccessfully) to voyeur his hottie actress wife to have sex.

And big fucking deal to all.

If someone is so fucking sheltered to the world at large that they haven't done stuff like this, then I don't want them holding my ATM card, let alone the keys to the nukes.

Amen. Souter/Ashcroft '08? I shudder to think.

*I really feel for Ryan - only guy to go down in a sex scandal for getting cock blocked by his WIFE

Dude. That is really poignant.

Though I suspect that being a gazillionaire I-banker who got to fuck 7 of 9 eases the pain for him.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Last I checked, having a brother with a DUI does not constitute a criminal background.

Certainly not. Knowing that your brother is wanted, and not taking any affirmative step to resolve the situation for (up to) 10 years, raises quite a few questions for some people in society.

Its still just a question I have, and it might not amount to anything. At some point though, someone is going to ask Mr. Edwards whether he knew that his brother was wanted.

Funny thing is, there are millions of unservable warrants floating around in this country because states won't pay to extradite. My guess is that the CO warrant was probably only serviceable in CO (i.e., don't ask us to pay for his extradition from NC).

But this is the kind of thing that should show whether the guy is prepared for the Big leagues. Believe me, the right-wing sites are already frothing for him, and aiding-and-abetting a fugitive talk is going to raise the volume of the howling quite a bit.

Its a tough call for a politician too. Either he had no knowledge (yeah right) or he properly advised his multiple-DUI-til-the-point-of-a-revoked-license-brother to face the music (and he just wouldn't listen to me despite my daily pleas!).

My guess is that he told his brother that it wasn't serviceable (assuming it wasn't), so don't worry about it.

If I wasn't running for president, and as long as noboby had a tape recorder on in the room, I'd probably tell my brother the same thing (if applicable).

Hello


ETA http://www.abanet.org/cpr/ethics/mcpr.pdf

(Large PDF, but search the term "fugitive", and the relevant language appears as multiple cites in footnote 15???)

[SlaveNoMore]

Say_hello_for_me
What is "like this"? Any of the three, or all three? Despite what you and Not_Me* might think, the great majority of people in this country have not experimented with coke.

I do not know a single soul between the ages of 16 and 45 that has not experienced, at least once, with (a) coke, (b) mj, (c) hash, (d) mushrooms, (e) meth, (f) acid, (g) E or (h) any number of (a)-(g).

You really have no idea what people who grow up in fly-over land are doing with their lives, do you? Take off the blinders.

And if anything close to a majority thought there was nothing wrong with it, it would already be legal.

Stop being so simpleminded. We both know how the government picks and chooses what and when it wants to regulate.

If you care to note, cocaine was perfectly legal until it became regulated in 1914 as a controlled stubatance. Not because of public outcry, mind you - but out of political concerns that the Germans were selling it to the Brits in WWI.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I do not know a single soul between the ages of 16 and 45 that has not experienced, at least once, with (a) coke, (b) mj, (c) hash, (d) mushrooms, (e) meth, (f) acid, (g) E or (h) any number of (a)-(g).

You really have no idea what people who grow up in fly-over land are doing with their lives, do you? Take off the blinders.

I'd be a bit hard-pressed myself. But I can't help but think that you are deliberately talking past me with the use of the "or" so that you can include the coke thing in there.

I personally don't think I know anyone who fits:
that has not experienced, at least once, with (a) coke, (b) mj, (c) hash, (d) mushrooms, (e) meth, (f) acid, (g) E or (h) any number of (a)-(g) or (i) sodomized hundreds of young children,

but I hope that doesn't suggest to you that sodomizing hundreds of young children (or being a crack junkie) is mainstream. Not in Gotham, not in flyover land, and certainly not anywhere important.

On another note though, I do realize how much I missed in my 20's every time I go to South Beach and see 30 year old junkies begging for change. It makes me quite sad really.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Certainly not. Knowing that your brother is wanted, and not taking any affirmative step to resolve the situation for (up to) 10 years, raises quite a few questions for some people in society.

Its still just a question I have, and it might not amount to anything. At some point though, someone is going to ask Mr. Edwards whether he knew that his brother was wanted.

Funny thing is, there are millions of unservable warrants floating around in this country because states won't pay to extradite. My guess is that the CO warrant was probably only serviceable in CO (i.e., don't ask us to pay for his extradition from NC).

But this is the kind of thing that should show whether the guy is prepared for the Big leagues. Believe me, the right-wing sites are already frothing for him, and aiding-and-abetting a fugitive talk is going to raise the volume of the howling quite a bit.

Its a tough call for a politician too. Either he had no knowledge (yeah right) or he properly advised his multiple-DUI-til-the-point-of-a-revoked-license-brother to face the music (and he just wouldn't listen to me despite my daily pleas!).

My guess is that he told his brother that it wasn't serviceable (assuming it wasn't), so don't worry about it.

If I wasn't running for president, and as long as noboby had a tape recorder on in the room, I'd probably tell my brother the same thing (if applicable).

Hello

You should be a bit more careful tossing around terms like "criminal record" when you mean "serious questions."

You should also stop using "aiding and abetting" so freely. That term means giving material assistance. Not forcing someone to travel across the country to turn themselves in is nothing of the sort.

Why do you assume that Edwards has such influence over his brother that he could get him to turn himself in? I barely talk to one of my brothers, and if I knew he had committed a crime (which I might hear through another sibling), I would not be any more eager to talk to him, and if I did I would have no influence over what he did.

Maybe your pdf shows that Edwards has a much stronger bond with his brother. I can't get to it -- what's it say on that subject?

And why would you assume that Edwards' brother would look to him for legal advice on this subject? Sure, Edwards is a lawyer. So am I. Anyone coming to me for advice on dealing with an FTA from another state would be nuts. Nor would I give such advice.

Sure, this will give right wing sites some ammunition. So what? If they don't have that, they'll make up something else. If Kerry/Edwards lose the votes of everyone in America who has a fucked up family member who has done something stupid that they don't agree with, I'm sure they'll miss all six of those votes sorely.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I personally don't think I know anyone who fits:
that has not experienced, at least once, with (a) coke, (b) mj, (c) hash, (d) mushrooms, (e) meth, (f) acid, (g) E or (h) any number of (a)-(g) or (i) sodomized hundreds of young children,

but I hope that doesn't suggest to you that sodomizing hundreds of young children (or being a crack junkie) is mainstream. Not in Gotham, not in flyover land, and certainly not anywhere important.

Okay, I give up. Did Slave edit the sodomizing young children thing out?

Assuming it was in his post, I suspect that Slave was jokingly suggesting that the only people he might know who haven't done any drugs are Catholic priests. And he deleted it either because he thought it was tacky or because he thought you wouldn't get it.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Okay, I give up. Did Slave edit the sodomizing young children thing out?

No. "Hello" is apparently the sock for Jason Blair, as he has quite the flair for creative editing.

Assuming it was in his post, I suspect that Slave was jokingly suggesting that the only people he might know who haven't done any drugs are Catholic priests. And he deleted it either because he thought it was tacky or because he thought you wouldn't get it.

FWIW - the priests I've known personally have all smoked dope and were the biggest drinkers I know.

[SlaveNoMore]

y Say_hello_for_me
but I hope that doesn't suggest to you that sodomizing hundreds of young children (or being a crack junkie) is mainstream.

Shape Shifter may beg to differ.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
On another note though, I do realize how much I missed in my 20's every time I go to South Beach and see 30 year old junkies begging for change. It makes me quite sad really.

What about when you walk down the streets of Chi-town and see the alcoholics begging for change? How does that make you feel? I suspect you feel pity but that you still are willing to drink alcohol because you are not an alcoholic. Of course, if you are an alcoholic, that would be different.

Just like every person who ever takes a drink does not become an alcoholic, every person who tries coke does not become a junkie begging on the street.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You should be a bit more careful tossing around terms like "criminal record" when you mean "serious questions."

Arghh, I said "criminal background". It was meant to be mushy, not something specific like "criminal record" or "criminal felony record".

The PDF is only the ABA's model rules and, of course, its set in the lawyer/client context. If I was saying he aided and abetted for-sure, than I'd be saying he aided and abetted for sure. This being the politics board, I'm merely pointing out that this raises numerous questions.

Finally, for your final-hypo, I think you meant to say the six votes would be those who don't have a fucked-up family member. Personally, I'd never disavow my siblings or parents; but there are some cousins I'd have to have taken out and shot.

Confidential to Slave: Didn't mean that to come across as a misrepresentation. I myself am a bit sensitive about that kind of thing. Rather, i was just changing the hypo to show that the same logic would apply then, even as we added in even more crazy shit.

Hello

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And if anything close to a majority thought there was nothing wrong with it, it would already be legal.

What makes you think this? A great majority of California's voted to legalize pot for medicinal purposes, but the Feds are balking.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What makes you think this? A great majority of California's voted to legalize pot for medicinal purposes, but the Feds are balking.

I would venture that the new broadcasting/obscenity rules don't have the support of 99% of Americans, yet the vote in the Senate was 99-1, right?

Anyone know whom the one was?