Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
And you can hear it at http://www.lawtalkers.com/voicemessage.wav

His partners must be so proud.

There are advantages to litigation -- having a Judge around imposes some modicum of restraint on counsel.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
There are advantages to litigation -- having a Judge around imposes some modicum of restraint on counsel.

Only in writing and in voice mails. Otherwise, please, are you joking? When there is no record of the event, litigators can be nasty. I know. I can be one of the nastiest (when it will be in the best interest of my client, of course, and when it is not being recorded).

Sometimes in litigation you catch more flies with honey, but sometimes, you can push opposing counsel around and intimidate them and it will result in a quicker or better outcome for your client. You have to size the situation up properly to know. It is most often useful when opposing counsel are not seasoned litigators or are trying to litigate in an area that they don't have much legal expertise in and they have a small client without much reserve to litigate. It can be really fun. Hehehehe.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I've been lurking here for about three months or so. I've posted here only once before, thus, I'll first just identify myself as a democrat who's previously voted Bush Sr., Clinton, Clinton, Gore in the past four elections. However, following 9/11, I was very pleased that it seemed like our country was being run by adults instead of the "lob a few missiles" Gore/Clintonites. Truth be known, if the GOP were to change their positions on abortion, gay marriage, and separation of church and state, I'd probably switch political parties.

I'm no big fan of Kerry or Bush, leaving me undecided for this election.

One thing I'm curious about is why is everyone is so surprised when "the other side" does not denounce ads that attack "the other candidate"? Is all this outrage feigned to make this site more interesting or something?

Am I the only one who realizes that:
1) Kerry most likely has exagerrated his Vietnam/"Cambodia" stories to his benefit?
2) Bush most likely benefited from his family's connections to land his nat'l guard gig?
3) Kerry has actually put forth some proposals and is not running based solely on his service in Vietnam?
4) Fahrenheit 9/11 is propaganda loosely based on fact?
5) All politicians flip-flop often?
6) A bad decision is a bad decision. Showing conviction by sticking with a bad decision is not to be applauded.

Also, as for character assassinations, I suggest that both republicans and democrats do it, but that the GOP is simply better at it.

God damn it!!! I hate it when you "mature" types with your "balanced" andd "pragmatic" views of the world come around here and try to make the rest of us grow up.

Cut it out, willya?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
If we were all as irresponsible as you, yeah, we just might take this sort of approach to things. And then, after internet traffic drops to zero and all the new dot-coms bomb, late night TV reverts to Dr. Phil reruns, half of us are laid off because we find that (once we all stop posting our political passions) we really only need half of us to accomplish our work, our overly liberal neighbors want to TALK to us again, and we all have to stop reading news and actually spend time with our spouses, we can all sit back and rue the day you ever found your keyboard.

Now, either insult someone gratuitously, or make up something bad about Bush or Kerry. Either way, this damn rabblerousing needs to stop.

See, soup sandwich? It's starting already. Bilomre and I agreed that you're a troublemaker. Now get lost before this madness spreads.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Coltrane, Hand, Wonk --

Is Keyes getting any support from anyone in Illinois? Or is it just sad to watch?

Based on this recent collection of quotes from state GOP officials, I can't imagine that there's much effort going into this at all.

My favorite quote: "A lot of the mainline Republicans in our area would like to have seen somebody who isn’t so far right,” said state Sen. Dale Risinger, R-Peoria. “We’re going to support Alan Keyes and hope for the best.”

NPR reported on him getting booed at an event a few days ago when he advocated reparations for former slaves. Other than that, I haven't heard much about him at all.

[Gattigap]

The docks at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are getting busier, and recently posted openings for 3,000 new jobs. They're among the best blue collar jobs around (that are still around, anyway), that pay between $20 and $28/hour.

They expected to have a good number of applicants, but nothing like the wave of half a million Americans from across the country who have applied for them.

Now I ask you -- how could this happen in Bush's America? I thought that the new jobs generated by his economy were the good ones, that we were turning the corner.

Ah well. I'll plan to tune in to FNC, watch the coverage of the convention, let that warm, comfortable feeling wash over me, and everything will be fine.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I am willing to condemn it without even having seen it, simply based on the news reports about allowing people to draw misleading inferences.

I think you're willing to condemn it even without the benefit of the news reports, but we'll give you an "E" for effort anyways.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
Sometimes in litigation you catch more flies with honey, but sometimes, you can push opposing counsel around and intimidate them and it will result in a quicker or better outcome for your client. You have to size the situation up properly to know. It is most often useful when opposing counsel are not seasoned litigators or are trying to litigate in an area that they don't have much legal expertise in and they have a small client without much reserve to litigate. It can be really fun. Hehehehe.

Certainly, the "drop the claims or I'll show you my hoo-ha" scared my client to death. How you knew that would work during a conference call negotiation was beyond me.

I tried to explain to them that even though Penske's been a bit "touched" since he reportedly saw it, he's still OK -- but the client wanted no part of that action.

[Say_hello_for_me]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...oat/index.html

Yeah, we'll see what kinda man George Bush is. We'll see what he's made of. If anyone doesn't realize he's a big meany after the last 34 months of being mean to terrorists and other long-time enemies, they'll realize it when Bush doesn't tell almost every person who served in Vietnam with John "Hey, did you know I served in Vietnam?" Kerry, to quit exercising their first amendment rights.

OK, I admit, I'm just paraphrasing the junior pro-choice, pro bucks-for-unborn-babies Senator.

And that goes for all the rest of you big mean Republicans. Sidd* and Ty and Moore were just playin, but you guys are being mean. Really, really mean.

Anyone got a pacifier for the poor fella?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Anyone got a pacifier for the poor fella?

Presumably you'd say the same for that pussy John McCain, eh?

[spree: New Kerry commercial, from the 2000 Republican primary debates. McCain calls Bush on the same shit, 4 years earlier. Coming to a TV set near you.]

[Gattigap]

[double post.]

[Gattigap]

William Rood, an editor for the Chicago Trib, served alongside Kerry the day that they stormed the riverbank and chased down the VC firing upon them, and breaks his 30 year silence on the subject to contest the Swiftvets for Revenge, whose allegations he says are both untrue, and are placing doubt on everyone who served there.

There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago--three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

Among other things, Rood's account determines that the VC Kerry chased down and killed was a grown man, not "teenager in a loincloth," that Kerry's decision to turn on the bank was not impulsive but discussed beforehand with all three skippers of the boats, and that Rear Adm. Hoffman (who has since been very critical of the Kerry campaign) said at one point in a congratulatory message that the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers."

Of course, Rood is a journalist for a major newspaper, and is undoubtedly biased. Fucking liberal.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Of course, Rood is a journalist for a major newspaper, and is undoubtedly biased. Fucking liberal.

Here's the most even-handed treatment of the new Rood stuff I've seen.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
William Rood, an editor for the Chicago Trib, served alongside Kerry the day that they stormed the riverbank and chased down the VC firing upon them, and breaks his 30 year silence on the subject to contest the Swiftvets for Revenge, whose allegations he says are both untrue, and are placing doubt on everyone who served there.



Among other things, Rood's account determines that the VC Kerry chased down and killed was a grown man, not "teenager in a loincloth," that Kerry's decision to turn on the bank was not impulsive but discussed beforehand with all three skippers of the boats, and that Rear Adm. Hoffman (who has since been very critical of the Kerry campaign) said at one point in a congratulatory message that the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers."

Of course, Rood is a journalist for a major newspaper, and is undoubtedly biased. Fucking liberal.

To the unwitting reader who doesn't follow the details of national stories (e.g., the 50%+ who thought that Saddam Hussein built Osama bin Laden from clay), the story came across as an authoritative contradiction of the Swiftees. But that was just the tone, not necessarily the substance within the article.

What is clear from the article is that Kerry fragged himself in the ass and then was wounded (again) slightly later because he bumped his arm around the time of an explosion which presumably was caused by enemy munitions (of course, its hard to guarantee as this part of the story is told immediately after the part where its made clear that Kerry wasn't too careful with his own). Believe me, I'm doing my best not to put quotes around the term "wounded" there, but I think think the description of hte incident is enough. Than again, in my old stressful life, I used to tell my coworkers that every day was a potential sick day, because there is probably something or other that ain't perfect on any given day. Similarly, I'm wounding my fingers typing this message into the keyboard. 3 Purple Hearts and out, right?

What I really, really, really liked in the article though, was that Kerry's "diaries" were written circa 1971. That's a cute trick. For. Describing. 1969.

Oh, and Kerry's camp refuses to release or authorize the release of papers, claiming that they have an exclusive obligation to his biographer. Isn't his biographer that Boston Globe dude who is like his communications director or something (I seriously might be mistaken)? Either way, whatever.

I'd be perfectly happy if people left the war out of it, but it was too hard for Kerry's camp to pass by the Texas Air national guard thing. Yeah, that shit troubles me too. But the difference shows here. Bush keeps smiling (sorta like Reagan or Clinton would).

In stark contrast, Kerry is an insecure and sanctimonious little prick. So he see's the attack, and rather than letting out a belly laugh, he gets a serious look on his face and actually tries to debate half of the flippin Vietnam era navy. The smart thing to do would have been to make a few jokes about it, and never address it with a serious comment.

Christ, I don't think Bubba ever showed that he was taking the Monica thing seriously until he realized the tests would show his DNA was on her dress. The penalty for P-E-R-J-U-R-Y scared Bill, politics and questions about the past scare O'Kerrystein.

Kerry looks plainly pissed. And whiny. And shrill. And pathetic. There is no way he comes out of a battle with hundreds of his contemporary veterans looking good. The only real choice here was not to directly engage. All in all, this has been a disaster for Kerry.

Hell(edited because the points I'm making could have been stated soooo much better the first time)o

[Not Me]

To aide the voices of truth in spreading their message Click Here