0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2003 10:17 am
PDiddie wrote:
Quote:
Off-topic about a thousand miles again this thread is, eh?


I don't think we're off topic here. We're arguing a point of logic.........but you're right, maybe we should look back and find what the point of logic was about in relation to the subject of this thread.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2003 10:18 am
Quote:
Certainly not the highest achievement of our culture, but hardly unique to us. I have seen similar (and worse) events among the military in the UK, Denmark, South Africa, Canada, and Australia.


george... my god, will you never stop with this justification maneuver?! A Taliban adherent, lifting a stone to add to the pile around the dying woman's head, can point to similar incidents in corners of Iran and Pakistan - "So, hell, what are you on my case about?!"

We know of a too common leniency in militaries to ignore the sexual maltreatment of women by their forces...lots of examples worldwide. We also know that rape happens in all cultures. We know people often drive drunk and that most murdered children are murdered by men.

No moral licence is provided simply on the basis that a behavior is found with frequency.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2003 10:19 am
lola

You and I will work this out in person. I think that's the only way on a matter of such....heat.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2003 10:39 am
Laughing
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2003 10:51 am
Lola wrote:

What I did say, that you didn't speak to, is that you so often are comparing unlike things. And it's on this basis that I disagree with your logic. I gave the Tailhook example from the other thread which, oddly, triggered a big discussion about Tailhook.........but little discussion about my real point. Tailhook and Clinton/Monica are unlike situations. They can't be compared. Tailhook, however shared is the responsibility, was not about consentual sex. Monica/Clinton was. Apples and oranges, you see.


Lola,

I concede your point as you stated it. However I had intended a slightly different twist. Perhaps my analogy wasn't sufficiently clear. Pat Schroeder and Barbara Boxer were prominent champions of "fair employment" laws that expanded the definition of culpable sexual harassment in the workplace to include virtually any sexual behavior on the part of a male boss towards female subordinates. Somehow all that was forgotten in the defense of a President who had obviously violated the spirit and explicit intent of those laws. Meanwhile puerile, stupid behavior on the part of a bunch of Naval Aviators was the object of systematic, sustained persecution by these same legislators, extending to a long list of people whose involvement was peripheral at most.

In addition I wrote the 'trick' bit while emerging from pleasant, restful dreams and suddenly encountering a blizzard of opposition from many quarters: while groping for my coffee, I used whatever was immediately available to fend it all off. I will never oppose or disagree with you again.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2003 10:55 am
Lola wrote:
Also, I want to comment..........Tailhook has been compared to the abuses in Military training. These are also unlike things...........Tailhook being a party that was optional, not required for training. The Air Force Academy is not. If a woman wants military training, she has to attend the academy. Apples and oranges again.


I fully agree.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2003 11:03 am
blatham wrote:

george... my god, will you never stop with this justification maneuver?! A Taliban adherent, lifting a stone to add to the pile around the dying woman's head, can point to similar incidents in corners of Iran and Pakistan - "So, hell, what are you on my case about?!"


You are picking nits. You seize on a comparitive statement on a peripheral aspect of the main argument to launch it off into hyperspace to find a contradiction. OK, but not at all relevant to the main point.


blatham wrote:

No moral licence is provided simply on the basis that a behavior is found with frequency.


True enough, but one must consider the built in aspects of human nature in constructing his moral judgements - we have addressed this point in other contexts, and I believe you have recognized it.


Sofia,

But do you respect me?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2003 11:04 am
george wrote to me:
Quote:
I will never oppose or disagree with you again.


Rash promises are often broken, george..........but I'll love you anyway. But if you're referring to my skills at logical argument.....then I accept the compliment. However, I recognize that one person's logic can be another's bullpoop.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2003 11:08 am
Lola,

Actually, every now and then I don't like your arguments. But I do have a growing admiration for your character. I will be faithful to you Lola, in my fashion.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2003 01:49 pm
george-- Cool
To be perfectly honest, I saw an opinion of someone I usually agree with-- winced sharply, and remained silent. I saw the ensuing hub-bub, and started selective skimming. I don't know what you said, and I may not look back. I don't want to fuss with 'friends' today.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2003 03:24 pm
Quote:
Pat Schroeder and Barbara Boxer were prominent champions of "fair employment" laws that expanded the definition of culpable sexual harassment in the workplace to include virtually any sexual behavior on the part of a male boss towards female subordinates.

False. You ought to be able to figure out what you have intriguingly wrong there, george, but I'll leave you hanging in the breeze until you spot it.
Quote:
Somehow all that was forgotten in the defense of a President who had obviously violated the spirit and explicit intent of those laws.

False again. Boxer's words at the impeachment hearing... "It was irresponsible and indefensible: a young woman, a relationship wrong in every way, a president trying desperately to hide the affair." ( http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/boxer.html ) I don't have time to search out shroeder's comments, though I would if I thought it would do much good here.
Quote:
Meanwhile puerile, stupid behavior on the part of a bunch of Naval Aviators was the object of systematic, sustained persecution by these same legislators, extending to a long list of people whose involvement was peripheral at most.

And you are doing apples/oranges, and you are doing justification, but selective.

If, for example, a commander of a carrier got a blow job from a junior officer years younger than he, and if it were happily consensual, I sure as hell wouldn't push for his resignation. If it weren't consensual, then I might (depending on related details).

But in that case (or Clinton's), we are speaking of two individuals in either example. The situation of an institution, such as the military, is importantly different.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2003 08:57 pm
Blatham,

Did I leave out the binary part?
0 Replies
 
hamnet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2003 09:50 pm
I think George OB is correct about President Clinton and that the quote given in response to him with regard to Senator Boxer is quite misleading.

If Boxer did say "It was irresponsible and indefensable; a young woman, a relationship wrong in every way, a president trying desperately to hide the affair" that quote does not mesh with the ideas and behavior of Senator Boxer both before and after President Clinton's impeachment hearing with regard to her stance defending Clinton.

The Almanac of American Politics- 2002 - clearly states:

quote(P. 156)

"...she was also a staunch defender of Bill Clinton. In 1998, the Senator who had marched across the Capitol to protest the cross-examination of Anita Hill, found little to believe in the charges against Clinton until he admitted their truth and even then limited her condemnation to a perfunctory statement combined with a total committment to defeat impeachment."

End of quote

It would appear that Mr. George is quite correct.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 12:45 am
hamnet

That's what you call 'perfunctory'?

Of course, it doesn't follow, if she was thinking what Clinton did was 'wrong', that she ought to have inevitably supported impeachment. Most didn't. Certainly, most of the American public didn't either. They didn't consider that the act(s) merited that penalty, and they did consider that the campaign to impeach was a partisan over-reach. And, as we know, he wasn't impeached.

So, what is it that george is correct regarding?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 10:00 am
Quote:
Bush reelection team looking to register 3 million voters
By Dan Balz and Mike Allen, Washington Post, 11/30/2003

President Bush's reelection team, anticipating another close election, has begun to assemble one of the largest grass-roots organizations of any modern presidential campaign, using enormous financial resources and lack of primary opposition to seize an early advantage over the Democrats in the battle to mobilize voters in 2004.
Bush's campaign website already has signed up 6 million supporters, 10 times the number that Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean has, and the Bush operation is in the middle of an unprecedented drive to register 3 million new Republican voters. The campaign has set county vote targets in some states and has begun training thousands of volunteers who will recruit an army of door-to-door canvassers for the final days of the election next November.
The entire project, which includes complementary efforts by the Republican National Committee and state Republican parties, is designed to tip the balance in 18 states that both sides believe will determine the winner in 2004.
"I've never seen grass roots like this," said a veteran GOP operative in one of the battleground states.
Dean, a former governor of Vermont, has made major strides in organizing a grass-roots campaign in a bid for his party's nomination. His advisers say it is the largest in the history of presidential politics.
While saying he is not familiar with all the details of Dean's grass-roots and Internet efforts, Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman said, "Our goal is for the largest grass-roots effort ever."
Organization alone cannot elect Bush to a second term. Given the reality that the president's campaign team cannot control such potentially decisive factors as the economy or events in Iraq, officials are determined to maximize their advantage in areas they can control.
Rarely has a reelection committee begun organizing so early or intensively -- or with the kind of determination to hold state party and campaign officials, and their volunteers, accountable for meeting the goals of the Bush team.
In Ohio, for example, more than 70 elected officials and volunteer workers dial into a conference call every other Wednesday at 7 p.m. to report on their efforts to recruit leaders and voters, and to hear updates from Bush's campaign headquarters in Arlington. Roll is called, which initially surprised participants used to less regimented political operations.
The massive ground war now in the early stages underscores the latest turn in political campaigns, in which there is renewed interest in applying the shoe-leather techniques of an earlier era, enhanced with advances in technology.
Campaigns, both Democratic and Republican, have rediscovered the importance of putting people back into politics, after years of focusing on television commercials.
"We live at a time of the greatest proliferation of communications technology in history, and in an ironic way that technology has taken us back to the politics of an earlier time," said Ralph Reed, former Georgia GOP chairman and now a regional official in Bush's reelection campaign.
Having the biggest presidential campaign treasury ever -- more than $105 million raised already and heading toward $170 million -- and no primary opposition give Bush the luxury of focusing now on general-election organizing. The RNC and the Bush team have begun planning across a wide range of fronts, including an analysis of which supporters are likely targets for absentee ballots or early voting, an increasingly critical aspect of turning out the vote.
The Bush campaign not only has started early, but also has set deadlines for developing its organization.
In Ohio, there is a deadline tomorrow for recruiting county chairmen in the state's 88 counties. In Florida, the first three of a dozen planned training sessions have been held, and two campaign staffers are working out of an office in Tallahassee; county offices -- complete with plenty of lines for phone banks -- are scheduled to open shortly after Jan. 1.
In Iowa, the campaign's state chairman, David Roederer, said volunteers have been identified in all 99 counties, and they are working to expand their rosters down to the precinct level.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/30/bush_reelection_team_looking_to_register_3_million_voters
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 03:00 pm
Blatham and others have found that my comparison of the response of certain Democrats to Clinton's actions vis a vis Lewinski, and the reactions of these same Congressmen to a fairly long list of Naval Aviators who attended the now infamous Tailhook convention, is invalid because the 'crimes' or actions involved are not themselves comparable. This is an interesting approach, precisely because my point was that the events were indeed not at all comparable. The problem is the reaction of the Democrat inquisitors was wholly out of synch with the actions themselves. They rationalized illegal acts and grossly defective judgement on the part of the Democrat president, but hounded and ruined the careers of about 200 career Naval Aviators who had violated no law or regulation at all.

Clinton violated Federal law and written Executive Department policy by engaging in a sexual act with a subordinate in the workplace, and, at least in the eyes of one Federal Judge, committed perjury in a deposition involving another case. In addition there was the matter of reckless behavior and a serious lapse of judgement on the part of a senior official,

The men persecuted and denied promotion by the repeated intervention of Sen Boxer, Rep. Schroeder and others, committed no offense whatever. Instead they were present at a large Las Vegas convention, attended by several thousand people over a three day period. There were extensive investigations of misconduct: a few individuals were tried at courts martial, and others received article 15 punishment - these all for specific illegal acts. The others were cleared of wrongful action in the subsequent investigation, but persecuted at the specific intervention of Schroeder and Boxer, merely because they were present at the event.

This is flagrant hypocrisy.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 03:05 pm
The efforts by Boxer and Schroeder to put a dent in a culture that promotes sexual harrassment are to be applauded, not disdained. For those interested, I reccomend this series that Ran in the Denver Post:
Betrayal in the Ranks
"Boys will be Boys" as an excuse for assault is pathetic, George. I have no sympahty whatsoever for those whose carers were "ruined."
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 03:23 pm
Evidently you advocate punishment of the innocent as an appropriate means to 'change a culture" you don't like.

The Denver Post is merely an overstuffed medium for Walmart & Safeway ads and auto dealer listings - hardly a reliable news source, not to mention in depth investigation.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 03:31 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Evidently you advocate punishment of the innocent as an appropriate means to 'change a culture" you don't like.

No, I advocate punishment of those who participated in an offensive act.


Quote:
The Denver Post is merely an overstuffed medium for Walmart & Safeway ads and auto dealer listings - hardly a reliable news source, not to mention in depth investigation.

Oh, please! Rolling Eyes What an intellectually shallow response!
0 Replies
 
Heywood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 05:00 pm
I'd love to see a woman in the white hose. Probably less of a chance of us jumping to bomb other people.

Although it is a bit disconcerting to see how hard the GOP is prepping for this next election. They know they lost last time, and it would be a little to fishy to steal two elections in a row. Although its a little on the shady side, I'm glad their trying to win it a little more "legit" now Laughing

In any case, hopefully the average American will have woken up to the fact that Bush is little more than a puppet being manipulated by companies and will want a change in '04.

The best more level headed individuals can do is to educate our friends and get them to see past the administrative lines that have been spoon fed to them from a media thats too scared to actually investigate for themselves.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/02/2025 at 08:23:52