Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) You're the only one on here saying the criticism was "unpatriotic". The truth of the matter is that the comments were wholly irresponsible and politically unjustifiable.

2) What the people say in the streets and what the would-be leader of the US say and do are 2 separate things. If you see no distinction, you're insane.

3) To argue the truth is shitty and low? As you may say, so fucking what?

1. "Irresponsible" and "politically unjustifiable"? Jesus, man, do you think I've never been introduced to the concept of "wiggle words"? Consciously or unconsciously, the message Lockghart's criticism was intended to convey was that Kerry's comments were unpatriotic and endangering American soldiers. You can massage that message all you like to avoid getting broadsided like Lockhart. In that case, assume my criticism is directed at Lockhart, not you. You're absolved, you semantic dandy...

2. Bullshit. The GOP have a ten foot erection for "straight talkers" at the moment. Everybody's yammering about how Bush "tells it like it is." Kerry told it like it is. Bush's people just don't like being assfucked with their own favorite rhetorical device.

3. Exactly.

I will give you this... the Dem's present campagin of villifying Cheney and Bush for accusing Kerry of being AQ's favorite candidate is just as ludicrous as Lockhart's whining about Kerry's comments on Allawi. It is entirely proper for Bush to say that Kerry would put us in peril - national defense is a huge issue this election. That said, Bush is dead wrong factually. AQ is PRAYING for a Bush re-election. The LAST thing they want is Kerry playing nice and trying to take away the moral authority they've accumulated in the muslim world as a result of Bush's pre-emption doctrine. Bush will bring the war they want - if AQ could, they'd probably donate to Bush's campaign.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
There's a big difference between pro-life and pro-death. Be more exact.

Here is what he said: "If Tom Cobourn gave money that was funneled to people who bomb abortion clinics, deporting him would be fine with me."

How could one be more exact?

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Migawd, you are truly a hotair fuckin' thompson wannabe.

Just figured that out? No offense, Sebby.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
In litigation, we argue that unguarded moments are guileless ones. It's the basis for the hearsay exceptions you're most likely to remember, like Dying Declaration, Present State of Mind, and Folksy Moment with NBC Morning Show Host.

Rubbish. There's an old Irish saying that "Every joke is a half truth." There's another that claims "A man is never more honest than when in his cups." Both employ the same dubious assumptions behind the Dying Declaration and Present State of Mind exceptions.

I liike arguing evidentiary motions/objections because evidence is based on such a pile of horseshit assumptions, but I don't trust any of it. Its worse than statsistics/projections.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
What do you think "neocon" means?

ETA - It's a conservative viewpoint that accepts the role, and the morality, of Israel, as a good thing.

That _may_ be what the term meant in 1970, but it is certainly NOT what the term means in 2004.

Ah -- drinking in the airport while awaiting your flight. Now it begins to make more sense.

Don't be too hard on BB -- he's spending much of his political time these days as an apologist for incompetents.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
Migawd, you are truly a hotair fuckin' thompson wannabe. Screw you, and maybe shut up when you know nothing.

It IS exactly like Neil decided to be a fuckin' islamisict. You didn't grow up playing guitar and singing and leading to 200 kids with Cat's songs didja?

Stop and think - maybe other people had different experiences.

Actually, I stole more of my style from PJ O'Rourke, but I had to leave his writings when he slid from libertarian to right winger.

Know nothing? Hot air? Are YOU really accusing ME of being full of shit and opining on what I don't know? I've told you this before, but it bears repeating - when you become entertaining or enlightening, I'll tip my hat. Until then, I'll treat you like a free Bud at a cookout. I'd prefer to have a good beer, but if all you've got is some bland unoffensive suds, I'll drink it.

I am not suprised in the least that you'd lead 200 kids in some glorious version of Peace Train>Kumbaya. Where can I get a tape of your "Fresh Air Kamp 1986" with the legendary 20 min Been Through the Desert on a Horse with no Name?

PS - I don't care about your experiences.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Bush has championed the biggest inititive, and overseen the greatest result in increasing alternative energy cars and resultant emission reduction. Look it up.

See! Provide a real cite and some "evidence" of harm and I'll blow it apart.

If you believe that Bush has any intention of actually getting hydrogen cars or more electric cars on the road in the near future, or that his meager allowance of a few billion toward research toward production of such cars is anything more than lip service to people crying about oil dependency, you have passed through the looking glass and are now incapable of sensible debate.

I'll bet my wife's ring finger and a case of Red Stripe that the billions promised will never even get to the hydrogen car/electric car program. Bush will proclaim success on fighting for alternative energy sources, sign some piece of paper in the Rose Garden called "No Hydrogen Car Left behind" and then a few million will trickle to some eggheads at MIT. When they call for the second wave of the pedged financing, those eggheads will get a "This line has been disconnected" message at the White House switchboard.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If you believe that Bush has any intention of actually getting hydrogen cars or more electric cars on the road in the near future, or that his meager allowance of a few billion toward research toward production of such cars is anything more than lip service to people crying about oil dependency, you have passed through the looking glass and are now incapable of sensible debate.

I'll bet my wife's ring finger and a case of Red Stripe that the billions promised will never even get to the hydrogen car/electric car program. Bush will proclaim success on fighting for alternative energy sources, sign some piece of paper in the Rose Garden called "No Hydrogen Car Left behind" and then a few million will trickle to some eggheads at MIT. When they call for the second wave of the pedged financing, those eggheads will get a "This line has been disconnected" message at the White House switchboard.

I have a partner whose spouse is a Chief Engineer in GM's electric car group. It's a big ass sham, that is powered by some incentive made in the distant past by some prior administration.

There won't be e-cars at your local dealer anytime soon. That isn't because GM wouldn't sell them if it could. Hell, GM would probably be looking at selling small cars with built in bombs for the Mid-East market if it could ensure payment post-mortum.

The reason you won't see e-cars is because the technology isn't there yet. Ed Begley, Jr. is willing to cope- you and I not so.

BUt hybrids are out today. You would do fine with one. They are smaller cars, but MUCH cheaper to operate. I know some areas let you drive in HOV lanes if you have one. I was bullshitting saying Bush has driven the move, but it certainly has happened while he was President. And in the end its not Bush deciding that hybrids are good that will result in their being on the roads. In the end it you and me deciding to buy one that will do it.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
BUt hybrids are out today. You would do fine with one. They are smaller cars, but MUCH cheaper to operate. I know some areas let you drive in HOV lanes if you have one. I was bullshitting saying Bush has driven the move, but it certainly has happened while he was President. And in the end its not Bush deciding that hybrids are good that will result in their being on the roads. In the end it you and me deciding to buy one that will do it.

I know this was unwelcome to many of the NIMBY "libertarians" and mostly-Rightists here two weeks ago, but this is yet another example of problems we wouldn't need to solve if subsidized and public housing were fairly distributed. First, the suburbs end as scared honkies don't have to keep running away (no, Sebby really did just want a one acre lot because he really, really likes planting an apple orchard!). Then, as people say, "fuck it, might as well live closer to work", there's less driving. Hell, mass transit gets funded, Democrats are driven out of their mobster-politician roles as the working and professional classes return, schools get re-desegregated (this time, voluntarily), Chicago turns into a shining Tokyo on a hill, and you and him don't even need to consider buying a hybrid or e-car.

Its like the unification theory. It just requires the death of the Democratic party and the end to asinine compromises between scared whites (read: just about everybody who protested here) and love-to-spend-other-people's-money liberals.

Hello

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Hitchens just got back and he was jumping all up and down on the news shows about how successful things are in Afghanistan.

Same goes for a bunch of blogs I linked to over the weekend.

But as we all well know, the Dems crave failure.

I disagree with you completely, but you may enjoy reading this article in which Hitchens accuses the Dems of craving failure.

http://www.slate.com/id/2107193/

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
but you may enjoy reading this article in which Hitchens accuses the Dems of craving failure.

http://www.slate.com/id/2107193/

The Board died. Does this make you happy?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The Board died. Does this make you happy?

Yes, it would be best if we not speak of Hitchens again.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I know this was unwelcome to many of the NIMBY "libertarians" and mostly-Rightists here two weeks ago, but this is yet another example of problems we wouldn't need to solve if subsidized and public housing were fairly distributed. First, the suburbs end as scared honkies don't have to keep running away (no, Sebby really did just want a one acre lot because he really, really likes planting an apple orchard!). Then, as people say, "fuck it, might as well live closer to work", there's less driving. Hell, mass transit gets funded, Democrats are driven out of their mobster-politician roles as the working and professional classes return, schools get re-desegregated (this time, voluntarily), Chicago turns into a shining Tokyo on a hill, and you and him don't even need to consider buying a hybrid or e-car.

Its like the unification theory. It just requires the death of the Democratic party and the end to asinine compromises between scared whites (read: just about everybody who protested here) and love-to-spend-other-people's-money liberals.

Hello

Actually, I had always figured on moving to the burbs. I dig the space, and I like to be able to drive places and not have to get my car out of a secure lot to go anywhere, or never be able to find parking. Shit City, where I lived, gets old quickly, but it has nice burbs. Hell, I can drink vodka tonics with my wife naked in the backyard. Couldn't do that in the City... The freedom is great.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

The Speaker of the Massachusetts House just stepped down to take a lobbying job, and his replacement is on the other side of the gay-marriage issue:

• The effort to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to voters in November 2006 suffered a major setback yesterday with departure of House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and the elevation of Salvatore F. DiMasi, whose arrival is expected to shift the Massachusetts legislative agenda to the left on social issues such as gay rights, abortion, and stem cell research.
  
  A key legislative backer of the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage and establish civil unions yesterday all but declared defeat, saying that Finneran's exit from Beacon Hill was the final straw in an effort that already was in trouble because the state has legalized same-sex marriage with little of the uproar predicted by opponents.
  
  "It is pretty much over," said Senate minority leader Brian P. Lees, a Springfield Republican who cosponsored the amendment with Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini. The House and Senate, sitting in a constitutional convention, must vote a second time in the next session before it could go to the voters on the 2006 ballot.
  
  "In fact, there will be a question as to whether the issue will come up at all," Lees said. He said the issue has faded to the "back burners of Massachusetts politics," because few problems have surfaced with the implementation of the Supreme Judicial Court's decision to legalize gay marriage.
  
  "With the fact the law has been in effect for a number of months and with the change in the House leadership, it would appear any change in the constitution to ban marriage is quickly fading," Lees said.
  
  DiMasi supports same-sex marriage, and Finneran does not. In this year's constitutional convention, DiMasi opposed all versions of the proposed constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and, in some cases, establish civil unions. He was among the few lawmakers who saw any amendment as a dilution of the SJC decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

Boston Globe

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The Board died. Does this make you happy?

I promise to never disagree with you again.