President Bush's speech to the Nation

Joe from Chicago tells us he is a law graduate from the University of Michigan.

If so, I would think he knows of the reputation and skills of Judge Richard A. Posner.

Judge Posner is the author of the book-

"An Affair of State"

In that book, Posner writes:

"Even if, as I do not for a moment believe, none of President Clinton's lies under oath amounted to perjury in the strict techincal sense, they were false and misleading statements designed to derail legal proceedings, and so were additional acts of obstruction of justice--as well as additional overt acts of a conspiracy to obstruct justice involving Clinton, Lewinsky, Currie and possibly Jordan and others as well, such as Blunmenthal. An imaginative prosecutor could no doubt add counts of wire fraud, criminal contempt, the making of false statements to the government, and aiding and abetting a crime.
It is interesting to speculate on what punishment a person might receive who committed the series of crimes that I have sketched. The maximum punishment for one count of perjury or subornation of perjury is five years in prison, and for one count of witness tampering ten years...a conservative estimate of the outcome( ignoring perjury in Clinton's answers to the questions put to him by the House Judiciary Committee and certain other peripheral offense) would be a prison sentence of thirty to thirty seven months>"

Since Joe from Chicago seems to boil Clinton's crimes down to just a "Blow-Job"( Actually there were ten Blow-Jobs), I am very much afraid that the University of Michigan Law School( Joe from Chicago's alma mater_ has prohibited students from reading Posner.

A pity- since The Latest US News and World Report lists the University of Michigan's Law School as the Seventh best in the country.

I sincerely want to thank you, nimh, for doing what many do not do, namely. checking the source.

I try to be scrupulous in my reporting of sources since they eventually establish credibility( or the lack of it)

I am compelled to point out that 52% is more than half(approval of Bush) and 72% is far more than half(USA has done a good job in Iraq since the fighting ended) and 62% is far more than half( USA going to Iraq was the right decision).

49% say costs were worth it, 43% say no and 8% not sure. I have followed polls for a long time and have some good articles about methodology. Poll experts say that the not sures or no responses USUALLY break down evenly as the not sures and no responses begin to form an opinion( I can provide some data on this if you want it), It would then seem that this question is also answered in the majority as far as costs being worth it.

Finally, the question concerning the military campaign- Successful- 32%

Unsuccesful- 13%

In Between- 53%

The definition of In Between is "that which is between two extremes"Neighter successful or unsuccesful".

I think that is acceptable.

Again, thanks for your care in examining the source.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I have read a number of Posner's judicial opinions and some of his theoretical writings. Your point?


I don't recall saying that Clinton committed any crimes.


Honestly, I can't remember reading any of Posner's writings while in law school. But I sincerely doubt that his writings are banned. Ignored, maybe, but not banned.


Yes, it is a very fine school. Thanks for mentioning that.

Hey, if you can't make any headway with your political opinions, you can always raise the matters of your opponent's taste, judgment, even alma mater.

And all this from someone who believes ten blow-jobs are even worse than one. What is this world coming to?

Brown shoes don't make it
Brown shoes don't make it
Quit school, why fake it
Brown shoes don't make it
Tv dinner by the pool
Watch your brother grow a beard
Got another year of school
You're okay, he's too weird
Be a plumber
He's a bummer
He's a bummer every summer
Be a loyal plastic robot
For a world that doesn't care
That's right
Smile at every ugly
Shine on your shoes and cut your hair
Frank the Zapper

so cut your hair
and never stare
at people who ain't aware
that every morning
they wake up dead

take off your boots
amd join the ranks
of young recruits
who have a collective ideal.
Richard Farina

I am very much afraid that Tartarin' comment about not making headway with political opinions is just whistling in the dark. There are at least three instances where Tartarin's points have been totally thrashed. Perhaps his reading and analytical skills are insufficient to come to that conclusion.

I would respectfully suggest that Tartarin stop blowing smoke and begin to buttress his weird generalizations with documentation and proof.

Joe from Chicago, is, I am afraid, also guilty of either oversimplification or misreading.
First of all, Joe from Chicago points out that my comment that. except for the sciences, most of the subjects at the University of Chicago lean very far to the left, is incorrect since Economics at Chicago leans to the right.

Joe from Chicago evidently is not aware that Economics is referred to as "The dismal SCIENCE>"

Tartarin shows that his understanding of the crimes committed by former president Clinton is nil.

His smarmy remark about "ten Blow Jobs being worse than one" is a puerile attempt to mitigate thecrimes of President Clinton.

Perhaps, Tartarin missed the announcement made by President Clinton on Jan. 19th 2001 that he was taking a "Plea-Bargain" from the Special Prosecutor and that he was accepting a five year suspension of his law license, a $25,000 fine and admitting to lying in his depositions.

Tartarin's attempt to exculpate Clinton simply does not jibe with the record.



Now, as to my point concerning Posner. Joe from Chicago asks what's the point of my introduction?

The point is that if you know of Posner, you know that he is one of the foremost commentators on the law today.

I am sorry to hear that he might have been ignorned at the U. OF M. Law School. I don't think he was. I believe that Joe from Chicago may have fallen asleep when Posner was mentioned.

Samdford Levinson, for the University of Texas Law School has said-regarding one of Posner's chief works- "Overcoming Law" that "Posner can be compared only to people like Holmes, William O. Douglas. Jerome Frank and William Story."

I hope that Joe from Chicago knows who those last four individuals are.

I also am certain that the U. Of M. Law School did mention Judge Posner since he was appointed as the chief mediator in November 1999 in the Microsoft Antitrust case.

Again, I hope Joe from Chicago did not miss that lecture.

Finally, Joe from Chicago missed my point in listing the U. of Michigan as seventh among USA law schools.

He says it is a fine law school. Granted,

My point was that it was seventh and there are at least six that are better.

Perhaps I should flesh out my messages more thoroughly. Subtlety does not seem to make the point.

subtlety?

subtlety- Definition- "fine-drawn distinctions"

It is clear to me that Joe from Chicago, missed, among other things, the fact that my listing of U. Of Michican as the seventh best law school in the country as not only a boost to the school but also a SUBTLE knock insofar as it was ranked Seventh instead of first. second, third or fourth.

Yes, subtlety.

is that the same kind of subtlety that one uses to kill flies on the ceiling with a 12 guage?

ha, ha, ha, ha......... LOL

Mr. dyslexia- I am afraid not, since the Dictionary definition of subtlety is:"Delicacy of discrimination"

I am unaware of any 12 guage shotguns that could be described as subtle under the definition above.

That was his point, Gato.

Perhaps he was being too subtle for you.

(Pleasssse, spare me any response that alleges you were being too subtle for me!)

Scrollin' Ital.

Except for one comment. Men who are annoyed with women sometimes comment, "She just needs to get laid." May I suggest that Ital just needs a decent blow-jog?

And now I'll scroll, ladies!

Italgato
As usual when all else fails attack Clinton
Yes and yes Clinton broke the law by lying about a "Blow Job." However, how many people did his lie kill. Did his lie end up depleting the US treasury? Did his lie make the US gain the enmity of the rest of the world? No!! Can the same be said about the present occupant of the White House???

There is nothing in anything gato wrote that can be construed as anything but an attack. On anything, anybody.

What sensitivity ms gato displays! What discretion! What learning and lore! What a wonderful contribution to this discussion!

Surely ms gato is aware of the fact that Chicago has produced many redoubtable personages beyond the illustrative Posner? Ah, perhaps not. Is he handsome, this Posner of yours, that you ladies swoon? Can it be that one is so lacking in male attendace that one just has to keep harping on one name? This would help explain the lady gato's constant bringing up of the name of Clinton.

Get a grip, madam, and address the topic.

That has nothing to do with it for people like Gato, Au.

People like Gato hate Bill Clinton for what he did to them.

You remember, don't you?

Back when Bush Pere was running for re-election --- the nation's conservatives were crowing about their power. As far as they were concerned, the media was right in its hype that averred that NO PERSON WILL EVER BECOME PRESIDENT OVER CONSERVATIVE AMERICA'S VETO. In fact, may conservatives supposed that no person could become president without conservative America's explicit blessings.

But Bill Clinton showed them they were dreaming.

And after a smear campaign against him that raged on for four years -- he jabbed them in the eye again by getting re-elected.

When he was first elected, the conservatives all fell to the floor on their collective backs and started kicking their heels against the wood. When he was re-elected, they continued to kick and started holding their breath.

After four years of blue conservatives -- they finally got to elect the current moron -- and even that they did not do with a plurality of the vote.

Back when Clinton was president, we heard about how he did not get a majority of the electorate. But he did get a plurality.

Now we don't hear any of that kind of talk from conservatives.

Back when Clinton was president, we heard about youthful use of marijuana and draft dodging. Now that the conservatives have a hard drug using, recovered alcoholic who also dodged the draft -- they are quiet about those things.

Gad, they are such a bunch of hypocrites -- it makes one wonder why anyone would even admit to being one.

Frank
Frank, SALUDE!

---BumbleBeeBoogie

Bingo, Brother Frank!