chiczaira wrote:I am very much afraid that no one said anything about President Clinton odoriferous qualities, as Setanta suggests. Rather, comment was made about his adolescent inability to keep his pants zippered.
Setanta may not be aware that there is good evidence that Bill Clinton raped one Juanita Broadderick years ago.
"So oft it chances in particular men..shall in the general censure take corruption from that particular fault"
Fits Clinton to a T.
Setanta probably is not aware of it. Since it does not exist.
The Juanita Broadderick story is a good example. She claimed that Clinton raped her some 25 years ago. Except there was no evidence that a rape ever took place, and she herself not only denied the story under oath repeatedly, but publically stated that she changed her story later only under duress from conservatives, who threatened to publicize her husband as a "coward" for not wanting to get Clinton for something that didn't happen in the first place.
I am very much afraid that the assumption that there is an assumption that anyone who is Anti-Bush is also Pro-Clinton would not wash. However, anyone who is so dense that he believes that Presidents like Clinton do not change the very essence of the office with their behavior is naive indeed.
The brilliant American Jurist. Richard Posner, says that Anyone who damages the mystique of the American Presidency as Clinton did, should have, of rights, lost his job.
Any critique of President Bush must take into account the changed aspect of the presidency--changed by Bill Clinton.
Or has no one noticed the almost complete lack of civility in politics these days?
chiczaira wrote:
The brilliant American Jurist. Richard Posner, says that Anyone who damages the mystique of the American Presidency as Clinton did, should have, of rights, lost his job.
Basically, Trent Lott simply refused to hand the country over to Algor with a year to go on Slicks final term.
The system is basically broken. Granted it should not be easy to impeach and remove a president but it should not be impossible either and right now, it's politically impossible.
I mean, if we couldn't get rid of Slick Clinton, we wouldn't be able to get rid of Hitler or Stalin either.
We need, minimally, a constitutional ammendment saying that when a president is impeached and heaved, his veep goes out the door with him and the presidency is handed over to the oldest member of the US senate of the president's party on condition that he never run for the office again after the term expires. No person and no political party should be rewarded for his or its own bad conduct.
gungasnake wrote:chiczaira wrote:
The brilliant American Jurist. Richard Posner, says that Anyone who damages the mystique of the American Presidency as Clinton did, should have, of rights, lost his job.
Basically, Trent Lott simply refused to hand the country over to Algor with a year to go on Slicks final term.
The system is basically broken. Granted it should not be easy to impeach and remove a president but it should not be impossible either and right now, it's politically impossible.
I mean, if we couldn't get rid of Slick Clinton, we wouldn't be able to get rid of Hitler or Stalin either.
We need, minimally, a constitutional ammendment saying that when a president is impeached and heaved, his veep goes out the door with him and the presidency is handed over to the oldest member of the US senate of the president's party on condition that he never run for the office again after the term expires. No person and no political party should be rewarded for his or its own bad conduct.
leave the constitution alone would ya please?
gungasnake wrote:chiczaira wrote:
The brilliant American Jurist. Richard Posner, says that Anyone who damages the mystique of the American Presidency as Clinton did, should have, of rights, lost his job.
Basically, Trent Lott simply refused to hand the country over to Algor with a year to go on Slicks final term.
The system is basically broken. Granted it should not be easy to impeach and remove a president but it should not be impossible either and right now, it's politically impossible.
I mean, if we couldn't get rid of Slick Clinton, we wouldn't be able to get rid of Hitler or Stalin either.
We need, minimally, a constitutional ammendment saying that when a president is impeached and heaved, his veep goes out the door with him and the presidency is handed over to the oldest member of the US senate of the president's party on condition that he never run for the office again after the term expires. No person and no political party should be rewarded for his or its own bad conduct.
Golly gee, why don't you just go back to the Feudal System?
tico said
Quote: "tactic," Deb?
Throughout this thread I've read various liberals -- including blatham -- state that Newsweek's source for Toiletgate was credible. This, you will recall, is Newsweek's unnamed government source (whom they cited as "sources") who believes he read something about a Koran being thrown in a toilet, but he can't recall where he read it. He maintains the anonymous and unsure source is corroborated by the accounts of suspected terrorists interviewed by the Red Cross. Now, when Newsweek posts another story, this one pointing out that throwing Korans in the toilet appears to have been a tactic of certain Muslims at Gitmo, but in this story they name their source, and it is a spokeman for the Defense Department, blatham responds by indicating the source is NOT credible.
Perhaps not so much a "tactic"?
Of course a top defence department official is NOT a credible source
regarding a negative story about defence personnel. For verification of that, phone Pat Tillman's father, for christ sakes. Please stop being so damned dull tico.
The original source for the story is anonymous. The original source for his Clinton blowjob story was anonymous too. Anyone in this government of military who goes whistleblower has no more career. The anonymity of any whistleblower is understandable. Credibility does not suffer from that.
Along with this report and other reports, we know (actually we've been
told by defence department personnel who have
not produced documents to prove the claim, but I'll take them on their word here) that terrorists have been told to make accusations of Koran abuse. But this doesn't entail that all such accounts are therefore false. It makes them suspect. That the red cross finds corroboration for a number of accounts adds to the credibility. That, as I noted earlier, some large percentage of those held were not terrorists at all, then the 'terrorist training' element doesn't apply. The myriad instances - and they are myriad - of Muslim religious sensibilities being targeted makes the Koran abuse claim that much more credible. Or you might recall squinney's photo this morning, from a DOD or Marines site! which showed a proud picture of a tank in Iraq where the tank's gun was wrapped with a big sign saying "New Testament". There's sensitivity for you.
In any case, today Karzei (sp?) repeated what Gen Meyers said earlier, that the Newsweek story wasn't responsible for the uprising.
These days? How about going back to Watergate, followed by "Koreagate," etc. The divide has been growing for more than 30 years now.
I posted a quotation from Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., THE most popular Republican president in our history, based on the proportion of the popular vote he secured. In fact, if you leave aside George Washington in both his terms, and James Monroe in his second term--the instances in which someone stood for the office without opposition--then Mr. Roosevelt would be, based on that criterion, the most popular president in our nation's history.
The burden of the quote was that it is base and servile to adopt an attitude of "my president, right or wrong," and Roosevelt goes on to say that of all people, the president is he who should be most subject to criticism, if it is alleged that he has failed to live up to his duties.
Thereafer, Rayban made a post to suggest that those who criticize Bush only criticize him, and never praise him. Personally, i don't think anyone merits praise simply for doing their job--they do merit criticism for doing it badly or failing to do it. But i understood what Rayban was getting at, so i made my post about the Shrub always screwing up, and added a remark that i had done it just for Rayban.
So, along you come, with nasty remarks to me based on that post, without having established the context from which it arose. You then lash out at Clinton, in a childish display of "see, your guy's a bad guy, too."
But that's silly, because Clinton is not, and never was, anyone whom i admired or have praised. I lived in southern Illinois in the mid- and late 1980's, and one of the "big three" network television stations we got there was in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. So i was already familiar with Clinton when he appeared on the national stage, running for president. I mistrusted him as "all show and no go" based on what i had learned about him in his days as governor. I did not vote for him in 1992--i made them give me a paper ballot, and i wrote in my own name, which is what i do when i want to vote, but don't intend to vote for either of the "major party" candidates. I did the same thing in 1996.
Mr. Posner's contention is meaningless to me. There have been many men in the office as bad as or worse than Clinton. In the twentieth century, Warren Harding and Richard Nixon immediately come to mind as having seriously damaged the office of President.
But i've known the Roosevelt quotation for far longer than i have been eligible to vote. Whether it is a political office, or a business position, or an academic position, or a religious position--i have not ever in my adult life been a respecter of mere office holding. If the president is a jerk, holding the office doesn't entitle him to any "benefit of the doubt." By the same token, if the president is a brilliant, honorable man, then credit is reflected upon the entire society as a result.
Partisan sniping is just that--the figurative hiding behind a tree, and taking a pot shot at someone whose opinions you do not care for.
I am not aware of any Clinton "Blow Job" story referred to on this thread. If Blatham is thinking of the Broadderick/Clinton affair, it was NO BLOW JOB.
It was a RAPE AND IT WAS REPORTED ON A MAJOR TV STATION.
chiczaira wrote:I am not aware of any Clinton "Blow Job" story referred to on this thread. If Blatham is thinking of the Broadderick/Clinton affair, it was NO BLOW JOB.
It was a RAPE AND IT WAS REPORTED ON A MAJOR TV STATION.
Get your blood pressure under control there fella. You should really start reading the thread before you go all ape sh*t. Blathan was responding to Tico and I doubt that he would find your posts worthy of response since it is outside the original conversation.
blatham wrote:tico said
Quote: "tactic," Deb?
Throughout this thread I've read various liberals -- including blatham -- state that Newsweek's source for Toiletgate was credible. This, you will recall, is Newsweek's unnamed government source (whom they cited as "sources") who believes he read something about a Koran being thrown in a toilet, but he can't recall where he read it. He maintains the anonymous and unsure source is corroborated by the accounts of suspected terrorists interviewed by the Red Cross. Now, when Newsweek posts another story, this one pointing out that throwing Korans in the toilet appears to have been a tactic of certain Muslims at Gitmo, but in this story they name their source, and it is a spokeman for the Defense Department, blatham responds by indicating the source is NOT credible.
Perhaps not so much a "tactic"?
Of course a top defence department official is NOT a credible source
regarding a negative story about defence personnel. For verification of that, phone Pat Tillman's father, for christ sakes. Please stop being so damned dull tico.
...
Okay ... just answer me this:
Everything else being equal, which would you find more credible ... a Defense Department spokesperson, or a suspected terrorist?
Now there is a question begging an answer. You frame it such that only one answer makes any sense tico. But nothing like that framework exists in this instance. I might just as well ask you...all else being equal, would you consider an Abu Ghraib guard more credible than a priest? The answer one gets is useless.
Or are you just checking to see if I hate American military/government people so enthusiastically that I think Osama ought to run Alabama?
blatham wrote:Now there is a question begging an answer. You frame it such that only one answer makes any sense tico. But nothing like that framework exists in this instance. I might just as well ask you...all else being equal, would you consider an Abu Ghraib guard more credible than a priest? The answer one gets is useless.
Or are you just checking to see if I hate American military/government people so enthusiastically that I think Osama ought to run Alabama?
I'd still like to know what your answer is.
In my estimation, a minority of Abu Ghraib guards are dishonorable, and a minority of priests are dishonorable. There are obviously bad apples in every barrel. But as a general statement, I can tell you that in answer to your question, I would find a priest to be more credible. I think most priests heed a calling to serve a higher power, and live honorable lives to a high moral standard. I think most prison guards are basically good people as well, but all other things being equal, I would trust the priest over the prison guard. But I acknowledge it was a fairly tough call.
On the other hand, it isn't even close when I try to answer the question I posed to you. Are you still having difficulty deciding your answer?
Ticomaya wrote:dlowan wrote:Ticomaya wrote:blatham wrote:Thanks tico. For a good objective source of information on government and military the exact person one wants to turn to is Di Rita. That will get right to the truth of things.
Hey, that's your darling Newsweek's source, not mine. Are you suggesting their source is not credible?
Ticomaya wrote:Or does he work for the US military, and therefore you suspect his veracity? Perhaps if Newsweek would interview a top terrorist leader you would find someone who's opinion you valued?
Lol! There is that tactic again.
Challenge me and mine - and you are pro-terrorist.
An intellectually bankrupt tactic.
A "tactic," Deb?
Throughout this thread I've read various liberals -- including blatham -- state that Newsweek's source for Toiletgate was credible. This, you will recall, is Newsweek's unnamed government source (whom they cited as "sources") who believes he read something about a Koran being thrown in a toilet, but he can't recall where he read it. He maintains the anonymous and unsure source is corroborated by the accounts of suspected terrorists interviewed by the Red Cross. Now, when Newsweek posts another story, this one pointing out that throwing Korans in the toilet appears to have been a tactic of certain Muslims at Gitmo, but in this story they name their source, and it is a spokeman for the Defense Department, blatham responds by indicating the source is NOT credible.
Perhaps not so much a "tactic"?
Yes, a tactic - and a disgusting one, in my view.
Were it true that there had been ONE source for the story - that might be one thing. Though calling Blatham a terrorist sympathiser would still not be that thing, methinks.
However, if you have not chosen to read the copious information about numerous other sources presented wherever this particular argument rages, I believe that has to be a wilful decision to shut yourself off from other evidence.
Arguing that there is reasonable evidence to support the story - whether one chooses to believe it is true, or not - and accusing anyone who points out that there is a great deal of evidence to suggest there has been desecration of bloody korans - of being a terrorist supporter is an intellectually bankrupt tactic. As well as totally logically specious.
Had you simply criticized Blatham without the gratuitous "perhaps you would believe a top terrorist leader" it would be more reasonable.
I'm very happy and feeling excellent this morning since obviously we'll get again lot's of quotation by the greatest jurist of all times, Posner.
Ticomaya wrote:blatham wrote:tico said
Quote: "tactic," Deb?
Throughout this thread I've read various liberals -- including blatham -- state that Newsweek's source for Toiletgate was credible. This, you will recall, is Newsweek's unnamed government source (whom they cited as "sources") who believes he read something about a Koran being thrown in a toilet, but he can't recall where he read it. He maintains the anonymous and unsure source is corroborated by the accounts of suspected terrorists interviewed by the Red Cross. Now, when Newsweek posts another story, this one pointing out that throwing Korans in the toilet appears to have been a tactic of certain Muslims at Gitmo, but in this story they name their source, and it is a spokeman for the Defense Department, blatham responds by indicating the source is NOT credible.
Perhaps not so much a "tactic"?
Of course a top defence department official is NOT a credible source
regarding a negative story about defence personnel. For verification of that, phone Pat Tillman's father, for christ sakes. Please stop being so damned dull tico.
...
Okay ... just answer me this:
Everything else being equal, which would you find more credible ... a Defense Department spokesperson, or a suspected terrorist?
No need to shout dearie, I can read quiet voices.
Generally, a defense dept spokesperson - depending on the country for whom they were speaking and a whole range of other things. Eg - I might well have regarded a defense spokesperson during, for instance, the military junta in Argentina, when the troops were torturing and killing god knows how many people, as far less reliable a source than those those same people labelled terrorists.
Get it?
In this situation, it is many people making accusations - ok, they have a stake in them - just as the defense dept. has a stake in denying them.
The military also tried to hide Abu Ghraib, and the atrocities in Afghanistan.
I do not know which is true.
I currently inclined to believe the many accusers rather than the denials. The accusations have been made over a long enough period, there appears likely to have been a military response to deal with the issue, the behaviour seems likely enough in a situation where people are being subjected to treatment to try and make them talk.
I do not claim to know.
I also do not make baseless claims about you based on your support for the military's story.
Walter Hinteler wrote:I'm very happy and feeling excellent this morning since obviously we'll get again lot's of quotation by the greatest jurist of all times, Posner.
Mornin' Walter. I shall sit with you, if you don't mind, and await the great quotes.
chiczaira wrote:I am very much afraid that the assumption that there is an assumption that anyone who is Anti-Bush is also Pro-Clinton would not wash. However, anyone who is so dense that he believes that Presidents like Clinton do not change the very essence of the office with their behavior is naive indeed.
The brilliant American Jurist. Richard Posner, says that Anyone who damages the mystique of the American Presidency as Clinton did, should have, of rights, lost his job.
Any critique of President Bush must take into account the changed aspect of the presidency--changed by Bill Clinton.
Or has no one noticed the almost complete lack of civility in politics these days?
Hitler worked very hard at creating a "mystique" around the position of Chancellor/ Fuehrer, too.
I think I prefer Pres Roosevelt's clear-sighted and hard-headed approach to the relationship between people and president. The Pres should not be thought to be untouchable, nor his actions divinely inspired and infallible.
dlowan wrote:]Though calling Blatham a terrorist sympathiser would still not be that thing, methinks.
Did I do that?
It strikes me that you are making quite a leap from my simple observation that blatham is at a place in his life where he chooses to believe a terrorist over a US military spokesperson. I didn't say it, I didn't imply it, and if you have inferred it from my posts thus far, I suggest the cause of your faulty deduction is your own reading into my postings, and not my argument. I certainly did not say that blatham is a terrorist sympathizer. He merely finds terrorists more credible than the US military. At least he does in this particular instance.
dlowan wrote:However, if you have not chosen to read the copious information about numerous other sources presented wherever this particular argument rages, I believe that has to be a wilful decision to shut yourself off from other evidence.
Then perhaps Newsweek ought to have cited those many credible sources in support of it spurious news item.
dlowan wrote:Had you simply criticized Blatham without the gratuitous "perhaps you would believe a top terrorist leader" it would be more reasonable.
See above.
dlowan wrote:Ticomaya wrote:blatham wrote:tico said
Quote: "tactic," Deb?
Throughout this thread I've read various liberals -- including blatham -- state that Newsweek's source for Toiletgate was credible. This, you will recall, is Newsweek's unnamed government source (whom they cited as "sources") who believes he read something about a Koran being thrown in a toilet, but he can't recall where he read it. He maintains the anonymous and unsure source is corroborated by the accounts of suspected terrorists interviewed by the Red Cross. Now, when Newsweek posts another story, this one pointing out that throwing Korans in the toilet appears to have been a tactic of certain Muslims at Gitmo, but in this story they name their source, and it is a spokeman for the Defense Department, blatham responds by indicating the source is NOT credible.
Perhaps not so much a "tactic"?
Of course a top defence department official is NOT a credible source
regarding a negative story about defence personnel. For verification of that, phone Pat Tillman's father, for christ sakes. Please stop being so damned dull tico.
...
Okay ... just answer me this:
Everything else being equal, which would you find more credible ... a Defense Department spokesperson, or a suspected terrorist?
No need to shout dearie, I can read quiet voices.
Two things: (1) I addressed this question to blatham, so if I was shouting it wasn't at you, and (2) shouting is using all caps .... bolding is mere emphasis and highlighting.
[And perhaps you forgot that it's "dear" that I find appealing. "Dearie" sounds a bit too matronly.]
dlowan wrote:Generally, a defense dept spokesperson - depending on the country for whom they were speaking and a whole range of other things. Eg - I might well have regarded a defense spokesperson during, for instance, the military junta in Argentina, when the troops were torturing and killing god knows how many people, as far less reliable a source than those those same people labelled terrorists.
Thank you. Now let's see what blatham comes up with.
dlowan wrote:I also do not make baseless claims about you based on your support for the military's story.
Thank you for that ... I try to do the same. Now, perhaps you'll elucidate what "baseless claims" you are referring to?
Assuming I'm right, I suppose the similar claim you could make about me is that I choose to believe the US military spokesperson over the suspected terrorists. Go ahead ... make that claim. Then watch how quickly I confirm your suspicions.
Deny your nonsense all you wish, equivicator.
Nah - if I were into spurious nonsensical associations, I would make the same leap you made - but shirk now - about Blatham - but the opposite.
You know, like atrocity sympathiser - supporter of murderers of helpless prisoners - stuff like that.
Edit: I was gonna call you a lawyer, not an equivocator - but mebbe such a mean ad hom would get me banned - deariest.
Quote:It strikes me that you are making quite a leap from my simple observation that blatham is at a place in his life where he chooses to believe a terrorist over a US military spokesperson.
Well, here's an interesting thing: the terrorist is far more reliable than the military spokesperson.
I can't recall ever having been lied to by a terrorist, personally; they are usually pretty straight-forward about why they are blowing you up. What's the point of lying about why they are blowing you up?
On the contrast, our military is completely unreliable these days when it comes to self-examination; just look at the fact that noone got punished for AG at all, or the myriad lies our military has been wrapped up in over the years.
It is somewhat bizzare, isn't it?
Cycloptichorn
