Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, May 03, 2014

[OTP - May 2014] House stadium funding package advances with Cuban baseball player provision

A bill that would enable professional sports franchises to compete for sales tax subsidies cleared a major hurdle Friday, winning overwhelming support in the Florida House.

The tax breaks would be available to professional football, basketball, hockey and soccer teams, as well as professional rodeos and NASCAR-sponsored events.

But baseball teams would have to stay on the bench — unless Major League Baseball changes its rules about Cuban baseball players.

Lawmakers added the stipulation in response to media reports that Cuban outfielder Yasiel Puig had been held hostage by human traffickers while trying to establish residency in Mexico in 2012.

Under Major League Baseball rules, players from Cuba must live in another country before they can become free agents. Cuban players who come directly to the United States are forced into the amateur draft, which limits their salaries.

“Major League Baseball [has] inadvertently created a market for human smuggling and the unequal treatment of Cuban baseball players,” said Rep. José Félix Díaz, R-Miami, who introduced the provision with Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach. “We’re not going to give away our taxpayer dollars until this ill is corrected.”

In response, the MLB issued the following statement: “While the sponsors of the bill in Florida blame MLB policies for the role of human smugglers, they do not provide any support for their premise that Cuban players must rely on traffickers to defect to countries other than the U.S. such as Mexico or the Dominican Republic, but would not need the assistance of traffickers to reach U.S. soil.”

 

Tripon Posted: May 03, 2014 at 09:38 AM | 4455 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 6 of 45 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›
   501. zonk Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4701472)
I don't think Iran-Contra can really be discussed without someone linking to the American Dad musical compendium on it...
   502. bunyon Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:28 PM (#4701474)
BM, the woman is running for president. I get to make up my mind about her in all sorts of ways just as I do with all the other candidates. I think it is plainly true that gaining and holding political power is more important to her than pretty much anything else. Just as it is/was for Bill and for most of the posse that was after them in the 90s. I think it also plain that there was essentially no one around with any real power who that wasn't true of. I don't, strictly speaking, care about her marriage or who sleeps with who. But once it's all out in public, it's out in public and part of the discussion. I'd think more of her as a person if she admitted what your friend admitted: that she doesn't care. But she still plays the charming wife when it suits her.

   503. Publius Publicola Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:29 PM (#4701475)
Thanks for the link in #487, BTW, Face. I put it on my wish list. Looks like I'd be prejudiced against it, but I like to consider arguments on all sides.


Seconded.

BTW, I'm reading a spellbinding book right now: Empire of the Southern Moon- Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches,the most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History.

If you want a though provoking book about race, culture and adaptation to the modern world, this is definitely it.
   504. Publius Publicola Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4701482)
Reagan's actions in Iran-Contra were far more impeachable than Clinton's assumed perjury in Monica-gate.


Beautiful takedown of Reagan by Hunter Thompson in Generation of Swine on page 275: "Blame it on Dead Bill".

I thought Thompson's rhetoric at the time was a little over the top but, as events played out, he probably understated it all.
   505. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4701487)
A few pages back, I linked & excerpted an article suggesting that polling data indicated that the 2014 mid-term election was looking worse for Democrats than even 2010. This received some pushback, a fair amount of which focused on my motivation rather than the substance. Now FiveThirtyEight.com has weighed in on the issue - Are Democrats In Worse Shape Than They Were In 2010?
But even a virtual tie for Republicans on the generic ballot — probably the best measure of the national political environment — puts them in better shape than they were in at this time in 2010, a banner year for the GOP. A RealClearPolitics-style average of nonpartisan live telephone polls from this time four years ago gave Democrats a one percentage-point advantage. Include polls from YouGov (which interviews respondents via the Web and was among the most accurate pollsters in 2010), and Democrats had a 1.7-point edge.

Perhaps what’s most interesting is that Republicans don’t seem to be fading, even as President Obama’s approval rating has ticked up by a point or two. Last month, the GOP was down by 0.8 percentage points in an average of registered voter polls for the generic ballot. In other words, Republicans gained a point over the past month at the same time Obama was gaining.

Democrats were almost certainly never going to win the House. But as I’ve discussed, the generic ballot is a good way to judge the national environment. Incumbent Democratic senators in Southern states such as Arkansas and Louisiana are having to run away from the national environment. The generic ballot is suggesting that they may need to do that even more so than in 2010.[emphasis added]

Seems like the 2010 comparison is being made more frequently of late. We'll see if the data continues trending that way.
   506. Ron J2 Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:43 PM (#4701489)
If he was never charged or convicted, is it really perjury?


Sure. Unless you'd care to argue that he didn't lie in his deposition.

And that he accepted the $250K fine fine and 5 year ban on practicing law for some other reason.

Or just a demonstration of sophistry?


No. That'd be the argument that you (and Morty) advance. The mistake being made by those who advance this argument was that the question being asked was not, "Did Clinton commit perjury", but rather "Should Clinton be removed from office"

I'm quite fine with admitting he perjured himself and with the way his impeachment trial played out. It seems to me that the formulation of the impeachment statutes allows for partisan calculation. It seems to me that the penalties that Clinton did eventually pay are perfectly reasonable for the actions he committed and that his actions in no way demonstrated that he was unfit to be president.
   507. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4701492)
Reagan's actions in Iran-Contra were far more impeachable than Clinton's assumed perjury in Monica-gate.

Those charged with making that determination, the members of the House of Representatives, strongly disagreed. The House - controlled by the Democrats by a large margin - not only never held a floor vote on impeachment, or even a committee vote, they never even convened an impeachment hearing.
   508. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:49 PM (#4701493)
Clinton perjured himself. No question. But it was -- and still is -- laughable to argue that lying under oath about an affair is grounds for impeachment or that it makes him a terrible person. People lie in court every freaking day; that's the nature of litigation. I just can't get too worked up about Clinton's perjury.
   509. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:53 PM (#4701497)
Unless you'd care to argue that he didn't lie in his deposition.


As noted in #421, perjury is "(1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the Specific Intent to deceive."

So establishing that he lied isn't enough to establish that he committed perjury. That's why I'm willing to acknowledge that he was a liar (at least by omission), but not a perjurer.
   510. Mefisto Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:53 PM (#4701498)
And that he accepted the $250K fine fine and 5 year ban on practicing law for some other reason.


Well, in a literal sense it WAS for some other reason. The fine and the ban were a result of the contempt finding. That, of course, arose out of his failure to tell the truth, but as others have pointed out, failing to tell the truth, even under oath, isn't always perjury.
   511. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4701501)
It boggles my mind, truly... It wasn't even Mess-o-potamia incompetence where lots of money goes missing and weapons end up in the hands of bad guys -- it was actual and intended effort to specifically sell illegal arms shipments to a foreign nation that was at the very TOP of the US naughty list in order to funnel money to people blowing up cafes and nuns, pushing a little blow on the side that Congress had specifically outlawed funding.


Except no one really sees it this way, then or now. Why? Well, the answer is pretty obvious. Nicaragua was deemed an important battleground in the late Cold War. It was so deemed by a President that, by 1986, had accomplished great things in said war, had plainly built up an excellent personal rapport with Gorbachev, and was negotiating potentially very deep nuclear and other arms cuts. Thus, given his accomplishments and future aims, Reagan was rightly cut some slack in figuring out ways to accomplish his objectives in Nicaragua and eventually the Cold War itself.

Those phenomenal results came to pass a mere three years later. It was a masterful, world-historical-caliber job of foreign policy from beginning to end, and the nation rightly rejected the gnat stings, flea bites, and heel nippings of a handful of overselling whiners -- who'd tried to sell things like the nuclear freeze and other pointless nonsense. The idea that the architect of that mastery would be impeached for merely pursuing his foreign policy objectives was comical then, and comical now.


   512. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4701505)
I'll add St. Ronnie Slobberknobbing to SBB's list of accomplishments.
   513. zenbitz Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4701506)
/slow clap.

That, SBB is some world class liberal trolling. I hope you bag your limit.
   514. zonk Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4701507)

Except no one really sees it this way, then or now. Why? Well, the answer is pretty obvious. Nicaragua was deemed an important battleground in the late Cold War. It was so deemed by a President that, by 1986, had accomplished great things in said war, had plainly built up an excellent personal rapport with Gorbachev, and was negotiating potentially very deep nuclear and other arms cuts. Thus, given his accomplishments and future aims, Reagan was rightly cut some slack in figuring out ways to accomplish his objectives in Nicaragua and eventually the Cold War itself.

Those phenomenal results came to pass a mere three years later. It was a masterful, world-historical-caliber job of foreign policy from beginning to end, and the nation rightly rejected the gnat stings, flea bites, and heel-nippings of a handful of overselling whiners -- who'd tried to sell things like the nuclear freeze and other pointless nonsense. The idea that the architect of that mastery would be impeached for merely pursuing his foreign policy objectives was comical then, and comical now.


So Clinton lying in a deposition about an affair = OMG!

Selling weapons - including agents banned by US and international law to an unfriendly Iran in order to then also illegally funnel money to drug runners and murderers = gnats

This might just be one of the strangest moral compasses I've ever seen...
   515. Publius Publicola Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:08 PM (#4701508)
Those charged with making that determination, the members of the House of Representatives, strongly disagreed.


It didn't matter. The curtain had been pulled back on his true character and now the entire country had to accept what those without blinders on always knew- that Reagan was a vapid swine who sold out the country.
   516. SteveF Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:08 PM (#4701511)
This might just be one of the strangest moral compasses I've ever seen...

It's about results, man. If Lewinsky had been an 8 or a 9, it'd be a different conversation.
   517. Lassus Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:08 PM (#4701512)
The House - controlled by the Democrats by a large margin - not only never held a floor vote on impeachment, or even a committee vote, they never even convened an impeachment hearing.

Proving themselves infinitely less stupid than the Republican-controlled 105th Congress.
   518. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:12 PM (#4701515)
It didn't matter.

Of course not. We know this already -- what happens in the actual world doesn't matter. Only what happens in fantasyland.
   519. Shredder Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:15 PM (#4701516)
#511 is parody, right?
   520. zonk Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:16 PM (#4701518)

Proving themselves infinitely less stupid than the Republican-controlled 105th Congress.


Politically
less stupid... but by all means, let's continue to swap reality and principle whenever it suits the point.
   521. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:17 PM (#4701521)
Those charged with making that determination, the members of the House of Representatives, strongly disagreed.

It didn't matter. The curtain had been pulled back on his true character and now the entire country had to accept what those without blinders on always knew- that Reagan was a vapid swine who sold out the country.

I remember the country being far more favorably inclined toward Reagan, throughout both terms, than Kevin 2.0 suggests. That the country elected Reagan's Vice President to succeed him - by a wide margin - strongly suggests my interpretation is the correct one.
   522. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:25 PM (#4701528)
#511 is parody, right?

Nope -- accurate summary of history. Lefties have deluded themselves about Reagan, which might make it seem like parody.

Now, it is true that as noted herein, Reaganism has taken too deep a hold in the business and broader culture, but for its time, it was clearly the right prescription.
   523. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:25 PM (#4701529)
Those charged with making that determination, the members of the House of Representatives, strongly disagreed.


And those charged with making the determination, the Senate, found the 1998 House's ########### about Clinton laughable.

It didn't matter. The curtain had been pulled back on his true character and now the entire country had to accept what those without blinders on always knew- that Reagan was a vapid swine who sold out the country.


This is false reading of history. The reason Reagan wasn't impeached was because he was an obviously popular President, twice elected by the people, and the House Dems didn't want to take the political hit of going against the nation's "Uncle Ron" even if he had subverted the Constitution in order to fund his moral crusades in South America.

The 1998 House GOP on the other hand believed they were God's right hand and put their moral outrage and echo chamber driven faith that Clinton was an illegitimate POTUS despite his second election* above the good of the nation.

*The fact that the guy they so viscerally hated beat them again in 1996 cemented the GOP's insane drive to find any means necessary to remove him from office. If democracy said Bill Clinton was to be president again, then democracy itself had to be subverted in the name of Bob Barr's righteous indignation.
   524. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:27 PM (#4701530)
Nope -- accurate summary of history.


You forgot the part where Ronnie rode a stallion made of pure light into the heavens and beat Satan and Galactus in hand to hand combat, by himself.
   525. Greg K Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4701535)
The Clinton impeachment always interests me, because a great deal of my research over the past 5-6 years or so has focused on impeachment as a political instrument in the 17th century. It's more or less defunct in the parliamentary tradition now, because people like ease and simplicity of the "no confidence" vote to remove politicians. Though it's a little unclear whether it's technically obsolete, or just unfashionable. Every now and then something comes up and someone asks whether they can still impeach people, and the query is met with a stirringly definitive "maybe, sort of, but probably not?"

Impeachment actually went through similar cycles of fashionable/unfashionable in the past (and in fact in the 1620s it had been dead as a political instrument for almost 300 years until some enterprising MPs decided to resurrect it). Inbetween the Bill of Attainder had become more popular. The main difference being a Bill of Attainder was a bill, so it required the assent of the King to be passed. The key difference of an impeachment is that a charges are laid by the commons, who then present the case to the Lords, who sit in judgement. The King could pardon the defendant after the verdict and punishment is in, though he could not retain him in the office he had been serving, and he could not pardon him before the trial (ie. he couldn't stop a trial from happening). Though this is only technically true, Charles I did make an end-run around this rule by dissolving parliament before the Lords could come to a decision on the impeachment of the Duke of Buckingham - thus saving him. But the King paid a massive political price for using that loop-hole. This points to why impeachment became popular again at the time though, more so than a Bill of Attainder, it limited the King's ability to participate in the process.

Although ironically, perhaps the greatest use of impeachment in the crown/parliament friction leading up to the Civil War involved the Earl of Strafford. As the King's right hand man Strafford was impeached, but the Commons, fearing they hadn't made a convincing case and would lose the decision, withdrew the impeachment at the last moment and switched to a bill of attainder (which the King had the power to refuse). It's unclear exactly what happened, there was an angry mob in London calling for Strafford's head which tried to intimidate the Lords. This probably influenced the votes, but so too did the assumption that the King would "veto" the bill. So more than a few Lords voted for the bill in order to placate the crowd, knowing that it wouldn't get royal assent. Charles (as ever) seemed to have some sort of communication malfunction where he gave out ambiguous signals as to what he would do. In the end he gave royal assent and Strafford was executed as a traitor. I suppose I've gone on longer than I intended here...I said it was ironic because impeachment was dusted off after centuries of misuse because it gave the Commons a bit more leverage in relation to the King, but really the only time in this period that the King was forced to remove (and even allow to be killed) a trusted advisor was when impeachment as abandoned in favour of the system that had been used for the last couple centuries over which the King had a degree of control.

I get the sense impeachment is seen as obsolete now because of "responsible government" (ie. if a Prime Minister is awful enough the House of Commons will just withdraw support for him and force an election). I actually did hear, last year, a call to implement impeachment in the Canadian senate scandals. Not directly, but a leading senator referenced the precedent of 1641 (which is Strafford's impeachment) as a legitimate response. It would be interesting if impeachment made another come back.
   526. Mefisto Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:35 PM (#4701539)
That the country elected Reagan's Vice President to succeed him - by a wide margin - strongly suggests my interpretation is the correct one.


The country voted for Clinton's VP to succeed him too.
   527. bunyon Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:35 PM (#4701540)
The other reasons that Iran-contra passed without impeachment is a) many/most in Congress thought helping out in Central America a worthy mission and were as in favor of it as it is possible to be so long as they didn't have to vote for it on the record and b) there were some fall guys.

Now, had Bill arranged hummers for more congressmen or figured out a way to have some of his aides do some short jail time, he'd have been fine.
   528. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:37 PM (#4701542)
And those charged with making the determination, the Senate, found the 1998 House's ########### about Clinton laughable.

Sure thing, Sam. 55-45 on perjury, 50-50 on obstruction.

"Laughable."

You forgot the part where Ronnie rode a stallion made of pure light into the heavens and beat Satan and Galactus in hand to hand combat, by himself.

I neither said nor think anything of the sort.
   529. zonk Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:37 PM (#4701543)
This is false reading of history. The reason Reagan wasn't impeached was because he was an obviously popular President, twice elected by the people, and the House Dems didn't want to take the political hit of going against the nation's "Uncle Ron" even if he had subverted the Constitution in order to fund his moral crusades in South America.


Precisely.

Back in my teens before I knew better, I was an Alex Keaton sort that also worshiped at the altar of St. Ronnie... and I was also politically precocious, at least, in so far as I enjoyed learning about government, was a student of history, etc. As the details of Iran-Contra spilled out -- I actually bought the Tower Commission report when it published as a book, somewhat whitewash that it was -- I was earnestly afraid and thought there was no possible way the Reagan administration survived.... Pleasantly -- at the time -- I got my first lesson in the reality of American politics: you can pretty much do whatever you want, no matter how immoral or how illegal, so long as enough people "like" you.

Iran-contra and the aftermath was pretty much the turning point in my own political views... I didn't run headlong into the Democratic party's arms -- hell, in the aftermath of Ollie's acquittal, I actually had a poster of Oliver North with a BAR spitting out shredded documents hanging on my wall, I'm ashamed to say -- but it was the first time I began to question ideas that I had previously considered ironclad principles with some serious self-reflection.
   530. Greg K Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:39 PM (#4701544)
It should also be noted that almost every impeachment in 17th century England was about power struggles (either crown and parliament, but more usually factional power struggles between groups seeking to advance themselves within the existent political system).

The system of patronage by which government ran and corruption were probably impossible to differentiate. I suspect the material was there for any political figure to have been impeached, provided you had someone willing to look, and enough people in parliament happy to see any given man go down. I'm less familiar with modern American politics, but #523 sounds right to me about the reason Reagan wasn't impeached. In my reading, impeachment is almost always about who is politically vulnerable enough (whether it be unpopularity, or political isolation, or what have you) to be attacked, and almost never about the actual crimes alleged.
   531. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:39 PM (#4701546)
The country voted for Clinton's VP to succeed him too.

Wherein the secession from reality theory is further reinforced ....
   532. Srul Itza Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:41 PM (#4701547)
Accurate statement of history: Democrats and Republicans together followed a policy of containing the Soviet Union, sold to the American public in part by mis-portraying and/or misunderstanding the Soviet Military as being an nigh unstoppable force and the Soviet Union as being a new form of economic powerhouse, until reality intervened and the whole rotten house of cards finally collapsed because the system did not work. One is hard put to say who made the greater miscalculation, since the Soviets in turn were over-awed by a SDI (Star Wars), a concept which, after 30 years of continuing advances in science and engineering is STILL technologically unfeasible, except on a scale so small as to be of tactical, but not strategic, moment.

And we are now apparently doing the " "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce" thing, with Putin's oil-supported kleptocracy playing the role of the monolithic Soviet juggernaut.

Perhaps the most amazing thing about the past 65+ years is that, given our "leaders'" and "statesmens'" inability to perceive reality and general tendency to screw things, they someone managed to NOT blow the whole thing up by accident.
   533. SteveF Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:50 PM (#4701551)
Accurate statement of history: Democrats and Republicans together followed a policy of containing the Soviet Union, sold to the American public in part by mis-portraying and/or misunderstanding the Soviet Military as being an nigh unstoppable force and the Soviet Union as being a new form of economic powerhouse, until reality intervened and the whole rotten house of cards finally collapsed because the system did not work. One is hard put to say who made the greater miscalculation, since the Soviets in turn were over-awed by a SDI (Star Wars), a concept which, after 30 years of continuing advances in science and engineering is STILL technologically unfeasible, except on a scale so small as to be of tactical, but not strategic, moment.

One theory I've heard is that the US and Soviets really didn't have a good grasp on the economic costs each bore. The Soviets overestimated the cost of US technology (because technology in the Soviet Union was much more expensive), and the US overestimated the cost of Soviet labor (since labor was so much more expensive in the US.) Neither side really had an accurate understanding of the amount of resources being allocated to the military by the other.
   534. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 05:55 PM (#4701554)
Nicaragua was deemed an important battleground in the late Cold War.


it wasn't, no even close, but yes some in Government thought it was, so sure...

It was so deemed by a President that, by 1986, had accomplished great things in said war

like what? killing nuns? I mean seriously WTF is wrong with you?

had plainly built up an excellent personal rapport with Gorbachev

I think you are confusing Reagan with Thatcher. Gorby thought Reagan was senile and pitied him.

and was negotiating potentially very deep nuclear and other arms cuts.
Yes he did eventually advance nuclear arms control some after having been an anti-arms control hawk previously, and doing objectively stupid stuff like resurrecting the B-1 Bomber program, which wasted an absolute shitload of money and whose greatest legacy would be later that we built only 2 far superior B-2 Bombers rather than 40+ (and the B-52 will outlast the B-1 in service)
Those phenomenal results came to pass a mere three years later.

The Soviet Union collapsed because neither its economy nor political system WORKED, it would have collapsed even if the utterly feckless Jimmy Carter was still US President. (Ok te collapse may have taken a year or two longer because a Carter admin would not have effed with the Soviets as much or as effectively as Reagan did in Afghanistan. (Of course that had it's own unforeseen consequences now didn't it?)

Reagan's admin financed MURDERERS in Nicaragua by selling weapons to anti-American fanatics in Iran- and by the way- Mr Sandinista himself, Daniel Ortega, the man Reagan sought to overthrow throughout the 80s was elected President of Nicaragua in 2006 and remains President today)
   535. CrosbyBird Posted: May 06, 2014 at 06:05 PM (#4701561)
The American legal system disagrees with you.

I don't get this whole line of argument, which seems extraordinarily petty. Did Clinton lie under oath? If he did, then he perjured himself. Courts don't create or reject guilt. They affirm it or fail to affirm it beyond a reasonable doubt. All we can conclude from the result of the court cases is that the legal system did not confirm's Clinton legal guilt for perjury.

Courts are neither perfect nor are they arbiters of fact in reality; a verdict is nothing more than an opinion about facts and law with legal force. It seems so disingenuous to reject what people really mean when they say Clinton perjured himself ("he lied in a formal proceeding concerning a matter that was material to the question at hand"). Frankly, I'm not really sure how someone could make a good faith argument that Clinton was honest in saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or that an extramarital affair with a subordinate could possibly be considered non-material in questioning whether a person engaged in sexual harassment of a subordinate.

I found the entire Clinton impeachment to be profoundly embarrassing, but it seemed to me to be a perfect example of poor exercise of prosecutorial discretion, not outright falsehood.
   536. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 06:06 PM (#4701562)
I neither said nor think anything of the sort.


Your lionization of Reagan is one step removed from putting on purple Nikes and waiting for him to come out from behind the comet, son.
   537. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4701567)
I don't get this whole line of argument, which seems extraordinarily petty. Did Clinton lie under oath? If he did, then he perjured himself. Courts don't create or reject guilt. They affirm it or fail to affirm it beyond a reasonable doubt. All we can conclude from the result of the court cases is that the legal system did not confirm's Clinton legal guilt for perjury.


True. But absent the conditions by which Clinton was brought to perjure himself; absent consideration of the deep level to which a "vast right wing conspiracy" was in point of fact hounding the Clintons mercilessly from 1992 all the way through the impeachment hearings; it is impossible to understand the actuality of the event. So sure, by your standards there, which are reasonable, Clinton perjured himself. And in so doing, was still the least worst party involved in the sordid affair. Bill Clinton was Bill Clinton, through and through, and part of that are unsavory right to the edge of disgusting. The Arkansas Project was worse.
   538. Lassus Posted: May 06, 2014 at 06:12 PM (#4701569)
I remember the country being far more favorably inclined toward Reagan, throughout both terms, than Kevin 2.0 suggests.

Yes, and another reason the Congress you referred to didn't go after him. Again, not as stupid.
   539. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 06:13 PM (#4701572)
Your lionization of Reagan is one step removed from putting on purple Nikes and waiting for him to come out from behind the comet, son.

There is no "lionization." I do, however, give him credit for his actual Cold War victory. He did a masterful job in foreign policy and I'm not going to sit here and pretend that actual victory is the same as someone else's modeled, pythag-type, imagined victory.

Particularly because it isn't the truth that the Democrats went along with everything Reagan wanted in the foreign arena of the 1980s. They did pretty much exactly the opposite -- with some exceptions. They were wrong, Reagan was right. Reagan was particularly right in his ultimate objective, which wasn't detente or co-existence, but the end of Soviet communism. Being able to both imagine that objective, when few others did, and actually achieve it was a masterful achievement, by any reasonable measurement.
   540. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 06:14 PM (#4701573)
One theory I've heard is that the US and Soviets really didn't have a good grasp on the economic costs each bore... Neither side really had an accurate understanding of the amount of resources being allocated to the military by the other.


This is likely true- also there's a ton of evidence that both sides had a habit of falling for the others' deceptions:
The Soviets had all sorts of problems developing a true intercontinental bomber, not getting one that could actually feasibly perform the mission until the Blackjack entered service in 1987. Prior to that the Bear was the only plane they had with range- and also zero survivability in defended airspace, but back in 1954 the impressive looking Myasishchev M-4 (but not performing) made 28 flybys over Red Square on May Day- the Soviets claimed to have hundreds, they had 10, they had literally flown thr ten, landed, hurriedly changed the tail numbers, re-flew over Red Square, landed, re-fueled, and had 8 (2 apparently broke down) fly back over Red Square. It's top speed was some 50 mph slower than the B-52, had half the range and half the ordinance load. Khrushchev publicly claimed that they were producing ICBMs like "sausages," in fact they had a world of trouble mass producing those suckers- in fact when Kennedy was running against Nixon and complaining that the US had allowed a missile gap to develop- the Soviets in fact had no functioning and deployed ICBM force (yet)- it was all bluff, but those in the US military and defense establishment basically fell for it.

   541. Mefisto Posted: May 06, 2014 at 06:14 PM (#4701574)
Did Clinton lie under oath? If he did, then he perjured himself.


Strictly speaking, this is wrong. I'll say it again: not all lies under oath are perjury. Only SOME lies under oath are perjury.

If people would distinguish which statements by Clinton they had in mind, then there could be a more focused discussion.
   542. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 06:21 PM (#4701577)
and I'm not going to sit here and pretend that actual victory is the same as someone else's modeled, pythag-type, imagined victory.


It really kills you that Morris didn't get in, doesn't it?

Well if you want to be consistent in how you assign wins, you're assigning it to the wrong man- G.H.W. Bush got the coveted "W" not Reagan.

Who should get credit for "winning" the Cold War?
Truman damn near lost it in the first inning, but he did did stand up to Stalin over Berlin and later did a 180 and decided to fight in Korea after essentially writing off both China and Korea.

Ike?
Kennedy?
LBJ?
Nixon?
   543. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 06:42 PM (#4701589)
At the end of the day, what this boils down to is that few people here -- myself excepted as well as some others on these pages -- are capable of objectively analyzing an ideological or political issue and rendering a judgment on said issue that isn't simply rooting for their home team. The perjury issue is a great example. Even among the liberals that can concede that Clinton perjured himself, a follow up excuse is nevertheless made. But at least the follow up excuse is more honest than this tap dance some are engaging in, of concluding that he didn't perjure himself because no court convicted him of it. And then there's Mefisto, who resorts to his typical tactic of taking every discussion back to the time of the wheel and demanding that people re-invent it, as if challenging obvious factual premises is a clever debating tactic rather than just another form of issue avoidance.

This is intellectual dishonesty at its core.
   544. CrosbyBird Posted: May 06, 2014 at 06:51 PM (#4701592)
So sure, by your standards there, which are reasonable, Clinton perjured himself. And in so doing, was still the least worst party involved in the sordid affair.

I think Lewinsky is probably the least-worst, but Clinton's moral evil here is pretty minute.

Strictly speaking, this is wrong. I'll say it again: not all lies under oath are perjury. Only SOME lies under oath are perjury.

Read my whole post. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." A lie, under oath, material to the process. That's perjury.

Of all the lines to stand on with this affair (as opposed to "Americans have provincial attitudes toward sex" or "it was a political witch hunt for a crime that would typically be ignored" or "it was a giant embarrassment" or "it wasted a ton of time and money"), this one seems really, really silly.
   545. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: May 06, 2014 at 06:56 PM (#4701594)
Well obviously you get to decide how you feel about people, but you also have to recognize they don't have to go along with your book. And to follow your metaphor, you lost respect for HRC for being beaten and not leaving. Which is fine, but there are people that don't mind their spouse sleeping around. A good friend of mine just last weekend was mentioning how his wife requested they have an open marriage and now both are (openly, honestly) "dating" other people. Different things bother different people.


I gotta say, BM, there's a hell of a lot more sexual and gender deviancy in your social circles than I see in mine. Gender reassignments? Open marriages? I live in Manhattan and your life is outrageous even by NY standards . . .
   546. Mefisto Posted: May 06, 2014 at 07:04 PM (#4701599)
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." A lie, under oath, material to the process. That's perjury.


Clinton made that particular statement at a press conference, not under oath. He also made a similar statement in his deposition in the Paula Jones case, which formed a basis for the contempt charge. The House voted not to charge him with perjury for that statement.
   547. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 06, 2014 at 08:06 PM (#4701638)
We've had several posters here suggest that as time goes by ObamaCare will become more popular, thereby improving the Democrats 2014 election prospects. This Washington Post article suggests that isn't likely - Why ObamaCare Isn't Getting More Popular - And Probably Won't:
A new high of 55 percent disapproves of the law in a Pew Research Center/USA Today poll. And the Kaiser Family Foundation's tracking poll, a Post-ABC poll and a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last week all found little lasting changes from earlier this year -- when the law was at the heart of its implementation struggles.
. . .
The stark numbers are bad news for Democrats, but they also shouldn't be surprising. Attitudes on the law have not fluctuated much since its passage in 2010 and are deeply entwined with long-held partisan loyalties, helped along by a highly political public debate.

What's more, Americans' biggest complaints about the health law are pretty well etched in stone. They existed well before the Web site's troubles, and the number of Americans who sign up for the law was never the root of the opposition. This was laid out clearly in the new Pew poll.

The rest of the article explores why the specific reason for disapproving ObamaCare are unlikely to change by the mid-term election.
   548. Srul Itza Posted: May 06, 2014 at 08:06 PM (#4701639)
"material to the process?" That is a meaningless statement.

It has to be material to the issues under litigation, to be perjury.
   549. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 08:15 PM (#4701643)
No. That'd be the argument that you (and Morty) advance. The mistake being made by those who advance this argument was that the question being asked was not, "Did Clinton commit perjury", but rather "Should Clinton be removed from office"

No, it was not. The question was, "Should Clinton be removed from office because he committed perjury and/or reason X?" And the answer was no. The question wasn't just "Should he be impeached/removed." Jeez, you can't really believe impeachment and removals should be so open-ended. That would be like saying someone can be criminally prosecuted on general character grounds. That's crazy. It's the very epitome of that which leads to abuses in power and processes. A person is prosecuted in a criminal action in a case in controversy involving a specific statutory violation based on a real factual scenario presented and proven. I would hope that you would think that's what has to be for an impeachment and removal also.
   550. zonk Posted: May 06, 2014 at 08:30 PM (#4701648)
Who should get credit for "winning" the Cold War?
Truman damn near lost it in the first inning, but he did did stand up to Stalin over Berlin and later did a 180 and decided to fight in Korea after essentially writing off both China and Korea.

Ike?
Kennedy?
LBJ?
Nixon?


Well, it was JFK that ran on the 'missile gap' originally.... and made it a national priority to dump billions into a program to beat the Soviets to the moon -- so if you want to credit Reagan for spending to the win, you should probably credit JFK for modeling the method.
   551. zonk Posted: May 06, 2014 at 08:31 PM (#4701649)
At the end of the day, what this boils down to is that few people here -- myself excepted as well as some others on these pages -- are capable of objectively analyzing an ideological or political issue and rendering a judgment on said issue that isn't simply rooting for their home team.


So you're "objectively" saying that you're capable of being objective?
   552. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 08:31 PM (#4701650)
And our argument doesn't rest on sophistry at all. It rests on the law and the legal system embedded in the political process.

Look,

You can believe that Clinton committed perjury; that doesn't mean he did. Your view of the matter is not what legally defines someone as guilty of perjury. You can even believe if you had been that the court in the Paula Jones case, you would have found him guilty of perjury, or if a Senator, you would have voted to remove him from office. Fine. But, in either case, it was not your call. So, your call doesn't define him. Why is that so hard to understand?

If you are talking about him being guilty of perjury in some informal sense (hah, Slick Willie skated, but he's really guilty)--or in some formal metaphysical/moral/ethical sense--again, fine. But that wasn't the call that had to be made, or that was made. And if you are going to talk in that sort of nebulous terms, you need to own to the fact that that is what you are doing, and not do what SBB and Ray do--which is confound that with what is the law and its determinative proceedings. That argumentative sleight of hand really calls into question their good faith and good intentions.

   553. Steve Treder Posted: May 06, 2014 at 08:33 PM (#4701651)
So you're "objectively" saying that you're capable of being objective?

We're through the looking glass here, people.
   554. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 08:58 PM (#4701665)
It wasn't just that Reagan was popular. It was that there hadn't been an impeachment crisis since Nixon (who also had won in a landslide), and that there weren't the rabid partisans that Clinton was faced with. Clinton, too, was popular. His approval ratings stayed high even during the impeachment mess. What Clinton had against him were rich elitists who figured they could use their resources to game the system (hey, what did they have to lose?) And these people had media organs to aid and abet them.

Did you notice how despite the foraging through every facet of Clinton's life, the only thing they could up with was sex. No Swiss bank accounts, no financial sanctuaries in the Caribbean, no connections to huge rich and powerful corporations. Yet, the ethical scheme of things, SBB finds Clinton beyond the pale, while Reagan (and Bush II) skate.

He equates legality with his morality for Clinton; for Reagan, though, it's the exact opposite. He doesn't question the ethics, morality, or constitutionality. It suddenly becomes all about political expediency with him. Reagan was too loved and too popular. What a political world view.
   555. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 09:21 PM (#4701680)
Trumping legality with your sense of morality is not being objective.
   556. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 06, 2014 at 09:58 PM (#4701712)
Thom Tillis, widely viewed as the strongest GOP Senate candidate in North Carolina, has won his primary by enough to avoid a run-off. Democrats had taken the unusual step of running ads against him in the primary, hoping to boost a weaker candidate or at least force him to spend more resources in a run-off. Didn't work.
   557. Lassus Posted: May 06, 2014 at 10:10 PM (#4701723)
At the end of the day, what this boils down to is that few people here -- myself excepted as well as some others on these pages -- are capable of objectively analyzing an ideological or political issue and rendering a judgment on said issue that isn't simply rooting for their home team.

If only there were more special snowflakes like yourself.
   558. BDC Posted: May 06, 2014 at 10:14 PM (#4701729)
As I recall Iran-Contra, two things stand out: Reagan's support among Republicans never eroded as Nixon's had; and the question "What did the President know and when did he know it?" which had been asked devastatingly by a Republican (Howard Baker) about Nixon, was easily answered wrt Reagan: nothing, never. There were Republicans who thought the whole affair was indeed masterful (Henry Hyde was a terrible apologist), but others (Dick Lugar) who were much less impressed by Ollie North et al. Yet few people pinned much blame on Reagan personally.

As for winning the Cold War, I think people like Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel deserve about 100 times more credit than Ronald Reagan. I think Reagan deserves credit for restraint and a willingness to talk disarmament that belied his early hawkishness. But his rhetoric - and his hawkishness - were a continuation of every President's since Truman.
   559. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 10:21 PM (#4701733)
So you're "objectively" saying that you're capable of being objective?


Yes. There's no logic fail there.
   560. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 10:25 PM (#4701735)
(544) Cheating on your wife is a "pretty minute" moral evil?

I can't buy that. To paraphrase the old saw, there are men that need killing, there are no wives that need cheating on.

Ross Perot got this one right; if a man's wife can't trust him, nobody else ever should.
   561. rr Posted: May 06, 2014 at 10:27 PM (#4701737)
myself excepted as well as some others on these pages


Who else makes the cut?
   562. Greg K Posted: May 06, 2014 at 10:28 PM (#4701738)
On a related note, Tywin Lannister:
You don't make formal alliances with men you trust.
   563. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 10:38 PM (#4701741)
Ross Perot got this one right; if a man's wife can't trust him, nobody else ever should.

If you haven't read any history, you should start with Will Durant's wonderfully readable and comprehensive The Story of Civilization. At every time, in every place, with every people, and with rare exception among leaders and alphas, you will find much to enlighten you on that score. Many are even religious leaders. The weight of the evidence is simply overwhelming.
   564. tshipman Posted: May 06, 2014 at 10:57 PM (#4701751)
(544) Cheating on your wife is a "pretty minute" moral evil?

I can't buy that. To paraphrase the old saw, there are men that need killing, there are no wives that need cheating on.


Edit: removed because probably not appropriate.
I strongly disagree with this statement and find it morally repugnant.
   565. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 10:59 PM (#4701752)
(563) What's your point? Most powerful men are miserable human beings?

Everyone who's paying attention knows that. Most of them are thieves and murderers too. Immortality is how most of them gain power in the first place.

In a democracy, though, we actually have a choice. We don't have to be ruled by scumbags, we just choose to be.

I stand by my statement; I don't trust anyone who is cheating on his/her spouse.
   566. Lassus Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:02 PM (#4701754)
I stand by my statement; I don't trust anyone who is cheating on his/her spouse.

I can agree with this; but there are plenty of times trust isn't required, unfortunately.
   567. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:04 PM (#4701759)
(564) You should get out more.

Killing can be justified, even if it is immoral. Adultery, like rape is never justified.
   568. BDC Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:22 PM (#4701768)
Adultery ... is never justified

Aside from a basic don't-cast-stones objection to this sentiment, I'd say that the circumstances of marriage are unbelievably various. There are all kinds of situations in which adultery might preserve someone's sanity, to say nothing of their happiness.

   569. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:22 PM (#4701769)
I'll just leave this here.

Heh. The WSJ's review was written by Charles Murray.

I'm sure it's be a fair and even-handed treatment of the mat... sorry, couldn't keep a straight face there.


The author of that book is Nicholas Wade--of The New York Times (gasp). And Murray's review is quite judicious, replete with repeating the caveats of the author.

Here's a detailed review of the book and its subject. From it:

Wade belongs to the older tradition of science writer. Before joining the Times he worked for Nature, the most prestigious British general-science journal (Wade is British-born), and for Science, the U.S. equivalent. ****

In his articles on genetics he has distinguished himself for at least the past dozen years by writing frankly about biological race differences—for example Race Is Seen as Real Guide to Track Roots of Disease, NYT, July 30, 2002. ****

All journalists in the West—including all the conservative commentators you have ever heard of—and most other educated people cleave to the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) of human nature, which declares race to be a “social construct,” a sort of figment of our collective imagination.

There has, says the SSSM, been no significant evolutionary change in Homo sapiens since one group of us left Africa to begin the colonization of Eurasia and the Americas 50,000 years ago.


Wade in his book:attacks the SSSM head on:

New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional.


Whether or not a thesis might be politically incendiary should have no bearing on the estimate of its scientific validity…


But if you don't like that review, you can read some nice comments on Amazon.com.

And you could always actually google and read.

I've only been making this argument here for about five years.
   570. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:25 PM (#4701772)
Snapper, I've never been married and have never cheated on a girlfriend and I don't expect I ever would. That said, would the following argument carry any weight with you:

1. A man is married to his wife. But he is not getting what he wants sexually - and his sexual desires are within reasonable bounds. He's discussed this with his wife but the situation never changes. They've even been in therapy, but the situation never changes.

2. He considers divorcing her. But he loves her and enjoys being with her and he knows she feels the same way about him.

3. So he considers cheating on her, by going to an escort (and using protection), and she would never know.

4. Now his choice is: divorce her, or cheat on her (safely) with an escort. Divorcing her would destroy her and it's not what he wants. But he can't continue in the marriage like this; he's not happy. And they have kids, and a divorce would break up the family.

Q1: Would the husband be justified in cheating on his spouse with an escort, let's say, three times a year, and she will never know but now they can stay married?

Q2: Since I assume your answer to Q1 is hell no, does the above argument carry the slightest amount of weight with you? If not, can you at least understand the dilemma? What would you do about it? Should the husband stay in an unfulfilling marriage even when trying to fix it hasn't helped, or should he divorce his wife when doing so will harm both of them and their children?

Q3: I presume you think monogamy is a natural human emotion. Do you give ANY consideration to the notion that perhaps it's not so natural?

Q4: If premarital sex is not allowed, and someone knows that he is not a candidate for marriage since he has no desire to be monogamous, should he never have sex in his life?
   571. Howie Menckel Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:02 AM (#4701789)
"Pre-decline: "Perjuring oneself in a depostion and to a grand jury is an extremely serious matter, and unthinkable in a sitting President. Everybody knows that."
Post-decline: "Of course he perjured himself in a deposition and to a grand jury; the Republicans were being mean to him. What else would he do?""

.........

I will say, to that point, that while obviously I understand the pushback by Democrats (and, importantly, independents) back then from the ham-handedness of Republicans re impeachment, I always did find it a little weird that the party that went after Sen Packwood for playing grabass with the secretaries and that sought to define sexual harassment in terms of an inequality of power - well, all of a sudden it was, 'c'mon, powerful men like to get some on the side. why be so naive?'

Was/is there a pathway there to address the issues of power and sex in the workforce to help women get an even shake - and also to put the Clinton-Lewinsky issue in a different (gift) basket, as it were? I thought at the time that the Democrats were making a lot of progress on improving the lot of women in the workforce, but then the big kahuna got to let aides smear one of his conquests in the press ("STALKER!") and the outrage about that seemed to be .... missing.

I guess I'm wondering if there was an inconsistency there; I thought the argument of "c'mon, everyone lies about sex," had some holes giving the whole "oath" thing and all, but it had a chance to resonate with a lot of people.

Still, how to reconcile the "reality" play with the "time to change the good ol' boy' way of things" approach?

I realize I may be missing a legitimate pathway, but if I am so are a lot of people, I suspect....

update: ah. Iran-contra. the guy's speeches you really want to find are NH R Sen Warren Rudman. just spectacular back-and-forth with Ollie North. both were fervent anti-communist supporters, but Rudman would get red-faced: "Colonel North, the American people have a right to be wrong!"

North and Rudman arguably were both wrong in retrospect, but what mattered in the Jimmy Stewart-esque exchanges were Rudman not willing to let the end justify the means - not even an end he agreed with.
   572. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:03 AM (#4701790)
As for winning the Cold War, I think people like Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel deserve about 100 times more credit than Ronald Reagan. I think Reagan deserves credit for restraint and a willingness to talk disarmament that belied his early hawkishness. But his rhetoric - and his hawkishness - were a continuation of every President's since Truman.

Thank you.

---------------------------------------------------

Ross Perot got this one right; if a man's wife can't trust him, nobody else ever should.

So being conservative, in the past 80 years that lets out Roosevelt, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Reagan and Clinton, and very likely Bush I as well. Leaving you and Ross with Truman, Nixon, Ford (maybe), Carter, Bush II and Obama. And in 2016, Hillary probably would be your best best for trustworthiness.
   573. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:05 AM (#4701791)
So you're "objectively" saying that you're capable of being objective?

We're through the looking glass here, people.


Objectivism in mirror may be closer than it appears.
   574. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:08 AM (#4701792)
I strongly disagree with this statement and find it morally repugnant.

I know you're anti-death penalty, but which part of this:

I can't buy that. To paraphrase the old saw, there are men that need killing, there are no wives that need cheating on.

... do you find "morally repugnant"? Death penalty aside, are you claiming there are no men that need killing?
   575. Lassus Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:11 AM (#4701793)
Killing can be justified, even if it is immoral. Adultery, like rape is never justified.

Well, I was on your side for at least 20 minutes or so.
   576. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:14 AM (#4701794)
I will say, to that point, that while obviously I understand the pushback by Democrats (and, importantly, independents) back then from the ham-handedness of Republicans re impeachment, I always did find it a little weird that the party that went after Sen Packwood for playing grabass with the secretaries and that sought to define sexual harassment in terms of an inequality of power - well, all of a sudden it was, 'c'mon, powerful men like to get some on the side. why be so naive?'

If you can believe Monica Lewinsky's new book, she says that her relationship with Clinton was completely mutual and not forced upon her.** That doesn't remove the fact that Clinton acted like a dirtball towards both her and Hillary, but it does distinguish their "relationship" from those of Packwood and the women who came forth against him..

**“Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position,”
   577. tshipman Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:16 AM (#4701796)
Death penalty aside, are you claiming there are no men that need killing?


There are no humans that I would trust my judgment on being worth killing. If someone were attacking me, and I had to defend my life, I would do so, but if I were to kill someone in that process I would find it deeply, deeply disturbing.
   578. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:19 AM (#4701797)
There are no humans that I would trust my judgment on being worth killing.

Not even the world's worst despots — people known, to 100 percent certainty, to be responsible for hundreds/thousands/millions of deaths?

If someone were attacking me, and I had to defend my life, I would do so, but if I were to kill someone in that process I would find it deeply, deeply disturbing.

Wow, it would bother you to kill someone who was trying to kill you?
   579. Morty Causa Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:23 AM (#4701798)
Bush II faithful? I doubt it. No alcoholic/drug addict for a long period of drinking and using is likely to have stayed faithful. Especially if he has money, and saw himself as the alpha sort, like W. did.
   580. tshipman Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:25 AM (#4701799)
Not even the world's worst despots — people known, to 100 percent certainty, to be responsible for hundreds/thousands/millions of deaths?


Correct.

Wow, it would bother you to kill someone who was trying to kill you?


Also correct.
   581. Morty Causa Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:26 AM (#4701800)
I can't buy that. To paraphrase the old saw, there are men that need killing, there are no wives that need cheating on.

How about wives killing or cheating?
   582. Morty Causa Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:30 AM (#4701801)
Wow, it would bother you to kill someone who was trying to kill you?

Why is that so hard to believe? If the testimony of soldiers and their doctors can be believed, It seems to bother them, and they were trained to kill, and many have experience in doing that.
   583. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:30 AM (#4701802)

Well, Shipman, I don't want you anywhere near our system of crime and punishment, but I guess I admire your consistency.

Personally, I find it morally repugnant to allow violent criminals to live.

***
Why is that so hard to believe. If the testimony of soldiers and their doctors can be believed, It seems to bother them, and they were trained to kill, and many have experience in doing that.

It's a big leap from PTSD to wishing you didn't fight back and got killed yourself, or even to feeling guilty for killing someone who tried to kill you.

I'm not suggesting Shipman should be able to kill someone in self-defense and then go get ice cream two minutes later, like nothing had happened. But finding it "deeply, deeply disturbing," perhaps even to the point of regret? No, I don't understand that.
   584. Howie Menckel Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:32 AM (#4701803)

"If you can believe Monica Lewinsky's new book, she says that her relationship with Clinton was completely mutual and not forced upon her."

Yes, I believe that, but the climate on the left at the time was that even in those cases, it was immoral - partly because it created a world (ironically a bit like the steroid era) where one needed to 'cheat' to get ahead. and that was unfair to those who didn't cheat.

I may have muddied the point by mentioning Packwood, which indeed was unwanted advances - but parallel in that, no doubt, some who were more 'cooperative' in that environment benefited financially over those who were not. That's really the point - did a party that was aggressively and admirably seeking to level the playing field for women in the workplace abandon ship once they needed to protect their lothario President?

I'm not sure if that's the case, which is why I'd be very interested in anyone filling in the blanks...

   585. Morty Causa Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:37 AM (#4701804)
It's a big leap from PTSD to wishing you didn't fight back and got killed yourself, or even to feeling guilty for killing someone who tried to kill you.

I don't think so. I think, PTSD or no PTSD, many, if not most people, are "bothered," if only subconsciously and to some degree.
   586. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:44 AM (#4701808)
Bush II faithful? I doubt it. No alcoholic/drug addict for a long period of drinking and using is likely to have stayed faithful. Especially if he has money, and saw himself as the alpha sort, like W. did.

You're probably right, but as I said, I was trying to be conservative in making that list, and I've never heard of any specific accusations against Bush II.

--------------------------------------------

I may have muddied the point by mentioning Packwood, which indeed was unwanted advances - but parallel in that, no doubt, some who were more 'cooperative' in that environment benefited financially over those who were not. That's really the point - did a party that was aggressively and admirably seeking to level the playing field for women in the workplace abandon ship once they needed to protect their lothario President?

I don't think anyone was trying to protect Clinton per se, since nobody was defending his adultery. But rather they saw the Republican motivation for what it clearly was, a move to overturn the election by any means available, which in this case was at bottom something that should have been the exclusive concern of the parties directly involved. If the thought was the potential for blackmail, that was negated the minute the news of the affair came out.
   587. greenback calls it soccer Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:50 AM (#4701809)
Bush II faithful? I doubt it. No alcoholic/drug addict for a long period of drinking and using is likely to have stayed faithful. Especially if he has money, and saw himself as the alpha sort, like W. did.

I don't know. Unlike Hillary, Laura Bush actually killed a guy.
   588. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:54 AM (#4701811)

I don't think anyone was trying to protect Clinton per se, since nobody was defending his adultery. But rather they saw the Republican motivation for what it clearly was, a move to overturn the election by any means available, which in this case was at bottom something that should have been the exclusive concern of the parties directly involved.


What does "the exclusive concern of the parties directly involved" mean? Is it your view that women who feel they have been sexually harassed should deal only with their harasser and should not seek redress through the courts?
   589. Morty Causa Posted: May 07, 2014 at 12:59 AM (#4701813)
I don't know. Unlike Hillary, Laura Bush actually killed a guy.

Just to watch him die.

Didn't "bother" her A-tall.
   590. greenback calls it soccer Posted: May 07, 2014 at 01:14 AM (#4701817)
Just to watch him die.

No, that's Janet Reno who did that.

   591. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: May 07, 2014 at 01:25 AM (#4701819)
   592. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 07, 2014 at 01:47 AM (#4701824)

The military angle is interesting but I don't see it as analogous to the scenario I discussed with Shipman. It's not hard to imagine grunts in the army sympathizing to a certain extent with the grunts on the other side, as they're all just following orders in a battle none of them started. Killing a rapist or murderer who comes in your bedroom window is another story entirely.
   593. JE (Jason) Posted: May 07, 2014 at 06:47 AM (#4701843)
Even David Ignatius isn't impressed with Obama foreign policy:
It’s painful watching the YouTube video of President Obama in Manila last week, talking about hitting singles and doubles in foreign policy. Everything he says is measured, and most of it is correct. But he acts as if he’s talking to a rational world, as opposed to one inhabited by leaders such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

In the realm of power politics, U.S. presidents get points not for being right but for being (or appearing) strong. Presidents either say they’re going to knock the ball out of the park, or they say nothing. The intangible factors of strength and credibility (so easy to mock) are, in fact, the glue of a rules-based international system.

Under Obama, the United States has suffered some real reputational damage. I say that as someone who sympathizes with many of Obama’s foreign policy goals. This damage, unfortunately, has largely been self-inflicted by an administration that focuses too much on short-term messaging. At key turning points — in Egypt and Libya during the Arab Spring, in Syria, in Ukraine and, yes, in Benghazi — the administration was driven by messaging priorities rather than sound, interests-based policy. ...

You can sympathize with Obama in Manila, when he hectored those who advocate tougher policy: “What do you mean? . . . What else are you talking about?” Some of his critics’ proposals are half-baked or downright dangerous. But Obama is right only up to a point. Nearly two years ago his own advisers recommended covert support for the Syrian opposition; Obama should have said yes. His critics didn’t make him draw a “red line” on Syrian chemical weapons; that was self-inflicted. Obama didn’t need to delay so long to move more military assets to the Baltic states and Poland to signal decisive protection for NATO members.

   594. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 07, 2014 at 07:04 AM (#4701845)
I don't think anyone was trying to protect Clinton per se, since nobody was defending his adultery. But rather they saw the Republican motivation for what it clearly was, a move to overturn the election by any means available, which in this case was at bottom something that should have been the exclusive concern of the parties directly involved.

What does "the exclusive concern of the parties directly involved" mean? Is it your view that women who feel they have been sexually harassed should deal only with their harasser and should not seek redress through the courts?


Of course not, but please spare us the idea that the Republicans' drive to overturn the election was motivated by any concern over the fate of Paula Jones, not to mention over any concern for the Constitution. Thank God the country saw through all that BS.
   595. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 07, 2014 at 07:09 AM (#4701846)
Re: #593--

Oh no! Even CIA mouthpiece David Ignatius!
   596. JE (Jason) Posted: May 07, 2014 at 07:37 AM (#4701852)
Oh no! Even CIA mouthpiece David Ignatius!

LOL, Gonfalon. Ignatius had been watching Obama's back during the first five years of his presidency.
   597. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 07, 2014 at 07:48 AM (#4701853)
Of course not, but please spare us the idea that the Republicans' drive to overturn the election was motivated by any concern over the fate of Paula Jones, not to mention over any concern for the Constitution. Thank God the country saw through all that BS.

Then why do you continue to persist with the delusional meme that perjury before a grand jury and in a depo is the "exclusive concern" of Hillary?
   598. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 07, 2014 at 07:58 AM (#4701861)
I don't think anyone was trying to protect Clinton per se, since nobody was defending his adultery. But rather they saw the Republican motivation for what it clearly was, a move to overturn the election by any means available, which in this case was at bottom something that should have been the exclusive concern of the parties directly involved.

What does "the exclusive concern of the parties directly involved" mean? Is it your view that women who feel they have been sexually harassed should deal only with their harasser and should not seek redress through the courts?


Of course not,


"Of course not?" That's what your "advice" for Paula Jones was, right above. If you cared about the plight of women who suffered sexual harassment in the workplace you wouldn't have said that. But of course, as per usual, your core bedrock "principles" in this regard give way to whimsy as soon as your principles become inconvenient for Team Blue.

but please spare us the idea that the Republicans' drive to overturn the election was motivated by any concern over the fate of Paula Jones, not to mention over any concern for the Constitution. Thank God the country saw through all that BS.


You and Sam keep repeating this, but whether Clinton perjured himself is utterly irrelevant to what the Republicans' true motivations were.


   599. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 07, 2014 at 08:09 AM (#4701863)
I gotta say, BM, there's a hell of a lot more sexual and gender deviancy in your social circles than I see in mine. Gender reassignments? Open marriages? I live in Manhattan and your life is outrageous even by NY standards . . .


Heh. Well people make fun of flyover country, but in my experience people are people (plus the Twin Cities are fairly ... um .. eclectic when compared to the rest of the midwest). I know of several open marriages, trios, and so on. The ex and I had an semi-open marriage. I had no interest in other partners, but they had permission to venture if they wanted - I missed out on the jealousy gene. As far as I know they never did. I never cheated, though I was dating (openly) during the separation.

But yeah I have many friends engaged in alternate lifestyles. Part of it is that geeks are actually much more willing to experiment in that direction than most (not sure why, but I bet I could come up with some pop psych reasons), and part of it is I am really non-judgemental, so people tell me stuff*. So I find out things. There is probably more going on in your circle than you know.

The interesting thing is in my experience is that pretty much anything works if done openly, honestly and with intention. People get in trouble when they feel guilty, hide stuff, sneak around, fall victim to peer (or other) pressure and so on. That said monogamous pairings certainly seem to be the most stable of relationships, and if you are happy there, then stay in there.

* EDIT: People like to talk and I never gossip, this forum doesn't really count, and I support them as adults making choices. So people feel safe telling me stuff.
   600. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 07, 2014 at 08:13 AM (#4701864)
whether Clinton perjured himself is utterly irrelevant


Select excerpt allows Ray to say something very true (if only by accident). Well done Ray.
Page 6 of 45 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Chicago Joe
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 1 OMNICHATTER
(320 - 9:41pm, Oct 21)
Last: Snowboy

NewsblogRoyals’ James Shields passed kidney stone during ALCS but is ready for World Series | The Kansas City Star
(39 - 9:32pm, Oct 21)
Last: rlc

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(314 - 8:51pm, Oct 21)
Last: steagles

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(852 - 8:40pm, Oct 21)
Last: Biff, highly-regarded young guy

NewsblogMike Scioscia, Matt Williams voted top managers
(1 - 8:25pm, Oct 21)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(10 - 8:02pm, Oct 21)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogDombrowski told that Iglesias 'will be fine' for 2015
(20 - 7:58pm, Oct 21)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(104 - 7:25pm, Oct 21)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(107 - 7:04pm, Oct 21)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(55 - 6:26pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2891 - 6:24pm, Oct 21)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogBaseball Prospectus | Pebble Hunting: An Illustrated Guide to the People of Kauffman Stadium
(10 - 6:00pm, Oct 21)
Last: Perry

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(58 - 5:44pm, Oct 21)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(173 - 4:45pm, Oct 21)
Last: Squash

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(446 - 3:37pm, Oct 21)
Last: AuntBea

Page rendered in 1.2281 seconds
52 querie(s) executed