Waiting for Fitzgerald

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
While I don't think they do, I do see how a reasonable person could possibly get there. I think intent plays a factor in the determination of culpability under that statute. Only based on the totality of my knowledge of you do I think the intent is missing. In the two dimensions of this board the intent of the threat could be as readily ascertained by a reasonable man as could my insanity by some of my posts. It's the risk of the two dimensional conversation. there is a lot of reality based context missing.

A reasonable person could get there because at the time I was a CIA agent who was being extorted to kill the President or my family would die, right? Oh wait, I'm sorry. That's tv. My bad.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe in Peace through superior firepower and swift retaliation.

That wasn't really relevent was it?

No, but it was clear and concise. You get points for that.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by taxwonk
He said a majority of the Iraqis support the US presence. I asked for proof. I don't think it's common knowledge that that's the case.

Anybody else care to comment on this?

I haven't seen a poll of Iraqis (at least reported widely) in quite a while. Not even on FNC, whom I would've guessed would run it on an endless ticker loop on the screen.

I was hopeful that bilmore would point us to one. After all, with published polls ostensibly out there, you would think that one could simply post a link.

But, apparently, it's common knowledge. Since I don't have the time to look to the polls that exist, review anecdotal stuff in the Iraqi press, look to Iraq blogs, and call my dozen friends working in the field, I suppose I'm just gonna have to accept it at that.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
would be offset by the sharp increase in the number of dead teenage girls in alleys, found clutching wire coathangers.

To be fair, most women who died from illegal and/or self induced abortions didn't actually die in the alleys themselves, but rather usually endured three or four days of excrutiating and building pain before finally dying. So this is a bit of an exageration.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I can see your point now. You're 100% right. Yep. I'm the one engaged in, whaqt is the term you keep using again? Oh yes, the politics of personal destruction.

I look at the eloquence and the simple persuasive power of your prose and I'm suddenly ashamed. Please, dear Penske, take my most heartfelt apology.

why would you assume that after being told I am an arsehole many multiple times by a certain minourity of posters here that I would maintain a veneer of eloquence or graciousness in perpetuity? In any real conversation in life, people vary their dialogue in levels of seriousness. Here you and a couple of other stick up the ass soggy diapered babies get all bent out of shape by certain sarcasm and humour to the point where, like most ultra-leftists, you become intransigent intolerant biased haters. In the mold of the leaders of your party who criticise. I guess the apples don't fall far from the rotten tree. Although, ironically, everyone whom I ever met and discussed politics with from Kennedy, Biden, Kerry, et al's offices were far more open minded, tolerant blessed with senses of humour people.

You guys are like the fifth column for Dean. I have honestly never met such thin skinned delicate flowers in political discourse. Ever. Congrats on that.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I already repeated exactly what I said, which was that I would rather see Bush dead than me dead.

I didn't understand that that was your exact quote. I assumed you were paraphrasing. If those were your exact words, then, no, I'm at a loss.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't have it, but it was either you or Hank who posted the case on the PB when it came out.

As far as I can tell, it's good law, although it turns on actual "intent".

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe in Peace through superior firepower and swift retaliation.

That wasn't really relevent was it?

No, but personally very satisfying.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe in Peace through superior firepower and swift retaliation.

2. Might makes right. We are the hammer of the Lourd and his son, the babyjesus.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account


You guys are like the fifth column for Dean. I have honestly never met such thin skinned delicate flowers in political discourse. Ever. Congrats on that.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
You don't understand.

We've receded from your original snark about Dems being the ones responsible . . .

you didn't used to be stupid. What happened? No, the original snark was, isn't it funny/ironic/disgusting that the D's can now have the nerve to complain about low troop levels. At some point, you lose entertainment value and just get annoying in your mindless repetition of the theme you've decided is the most profitable.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone stupid enough to avoid taking a gain or realizing income because they don't want to pay .34 of tax for .66 return should pay a higher tax. If anything, the current system is more efficient for the economy because it rewards, through the basis stepup at death, a long-term view of investing, which stabilizes capital.

And that some rationale would work if the number 34 was 49 and 66 was 51. Doesn't make it any more equitable or just. Stop my raping my pocket for amoral relativistic applications of bureaucratic inefficiency and oppression.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
At some point, you lose entertainment value and just get annoying in your mindless repetition of the theme you've decided is the most profitable.

Board. Motto.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
A reasonable person could get there because at the time I was a CIA agent who was being extorted to kill the President or my family would die, right? Oh wait, I'm sorry. That's tv. My bad.

In two dimensions, how do we do know? I know you irl, but put that aside, assume I don't. For all I know, you could be a career bureaucrat/atty at the State Department with a security clearance that could get you close enough to the President at any given time to carry out the arguable threat. If you really had intent, and again, in two dimensions I can only take the words for what they say, maybe there is a violation.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
No, but it was clear and concise. You get points for that.

Then you are not going to like this arrogant pontification.

I don't think the relevent question is whether or not they support the occupation.

My guess is almost all the Iraqi's don't like the occupation. Who would? But my guess is that the overwhelming majority prefer the occupation over Saddams Regime.

I also believe the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are glad Saddam was taken out, and want some sort of democracy and at least some civil rights.

I think many of the Iraqis hold the mistkan belief that things would be OK if the occupation forces moved out, but I think most of us know things would get much worse and the Iraqi's that hoped for a quick US exit would have buyers remorse.

I think the US should exit as soon as we get the Iraqis trained and have a government in place with a constitution. As W. says, I think it would be irresponsible for us to leave until that is the situation.

It was the right thing to go in and take out Saddam. The Iraqis are better off because of it. And we are morally obligated to stay in until a constitution is agreed upon, and enough troops are trained to protect that constitution.

Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. But as people have said, I am a simpleton.