Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Here goes my cred, but I thought Abacab was okay.

Like much of the work from that era, it really could have benefited from more cowbell.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is statments like these that I find baffling. A complaint without a point is about as useful as pissing into the wind.

Here goes my cred, but pissing in the wind is ok if you have to piss bad enough. When ya gotta go, ya gotta go.
[QUOTE] Every policy decision has negative and positive consequences. The decision that is chosen should beone where the positives outweigh the negatives. [QUOTE]
Where were you when the decision to go to war was being debated? We really could have used this sort of insightful analysis.

Do you think the Bush administratio likes the fact that the Iraqi constitution is quasi-theocratic?

I think the Bush administratio likes that it is quasi-theocratic. How it feels about the emerging Iraq theocracy is another matter.

So what do we do, override the democratically elected assebly? Hand them a constitution?

I would have thought before we'd invaded, we'd have an out-of-the-box draft for every conceivable contingency. Too bad State was too busy making bogus WMD claims.

Do you think Iraq would be better of with Saddam in power? If you think Iraq would be better off with Saddam in power then say it.

We were certainly able to sell more plastic shredders. The oil-paying-for-reconstruction thing doesn't seem to be working out so well.

Unless you have some idea of what policy should be implemented that will make the overall situation better, what is the point of pointing out the negative aspects, as if we were not already aware of it.

You're the ones who got us there. Don't expect us to be your cheerleaders when you fuck up miserably at every step. I thought yours was the party of responsibility and personal accountability?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You're the ones who got us there. Don't expect us to be your cheerleaders when you fuck up miserably at every step. I thought yours was the party of responsibility and personal accountability?

Anyone who knows the name of an album by, was it Genesis?, has no business talking to adults about policy/politics.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

I think the Bush administratio likes that it is quasi-theocratic.

You can't really believe this. And if you do, maybe it is time to put down the bong.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
We were certainly able to sell more plastic shredders. The oil-paying-for-reconstruction thing doesn't seem to be working out so well.

The only problem with your position is that if we didn't invade Saddam would still be there opressing his people. So why don't you say that the world would be better off with Saddam opressing, torturing and killing his people. Until you can say that, you don't really believe that the invasion was a mistake.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You're the ones who got us there. Don't expect us to be your cheerleaders when you fuck up miserably at every step. I thought yours was the party of responsibility and personal accountability?

Again. As long as you are willing to say the world would be better off if we had let Saddam stay in power you can bitch all you want.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Anyone who knows the name of an album by, was it Genesis?, has no business talking to adults about policy/politics.

And Then There Were Three

Three Sides Live

Am I kicked off the board now?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is statments like these that I find baffling. A complaint without a point is about as useful as pissing into the wind.

Every policy decision has negative and positive consequences. The decision that is chosen should beone where the positives outweigh the negatives.

Do you think the Bush administratio likes the fact that the Iraqi constitution is quasi-theocratic?

So what do we do, override the democratically elected assebly? Hand them a constitution?

Do you think Iraq would be better of with Saddam in power? If you think Iraq would be better off with Saddam in power then say it.

Unless you have some idea of what policy should be implemented that will make the overall situation better, what is the point of pointing out the negative aspects, as if we were not already aware of it.

Spot on, old boy. I think that, in recognition of their stupendous errors in judgment (welcome with flowers, paid for by oil revenue, sunnis and shiites and kurds singing kumbaya, mission accomplished, doing it for democracy, etc.) Bush and Cheney should resign, and that Speaker Hastert should get a shot at figuring out what to do.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Spot on, old boy. I think that, in recognition of their stupendous errors in judgment (welcome with flowers, paid for by oil revenue, sunnis and shiites and kurds singing kumbaya, mission accomplished, doing it for democracy, etc.) Bush and Cheney should resign, and that Speaker Hastert should get a shot at figuring out what to do.

You guys just won't say it will you. Why don't you just say it "Iraq and the United States would be better off if Saddam Hussein was still in power opressing, torturing and killing his people. Therefore the invasion was a mistake."

You critisize the invasion all day, but don't have the nads to state what you really mean. Or is because you don't really now what you believe you just like to critisize Bush.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
You guys just won't say it will you. Why don't you just say it "Iraq and the United States would be better off if Saddam Hussein was still in power opressing, torturing and killing his people. Therefore the invasion was a mistake."

You critisize the invasion all day, but don't have the nads to state what you really mean. Or is because you don't really now what you believe you just like to critisize Bush.

Of course they don't know what they believe. their girl Cindy says "get out of Iraq and Afghanistan." They try and pitch it like it's just iraq but reality shows how fucked up they are. Dead political party.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
You guys just won't say it will you. Why don't you just say it "Iraq and the United States would be better off if Saddam Hussein was still in power opressing, torturing and killing his people. Therefore the invasion was a mistake."

You critisize the invasion all day, but don't have the nads to state what you really mean. Or is because you don't really now what you believe you just like to critisize Bush.

I have the nads to say it. Iraq and the United States would be better off if Saddam Hussein was still in power opressing, torturing and killing his people. Had we not wasted pissloads of money turning a secular dictatorship into a fucking theocracy in the making, we could deal with actually taking out AQ in the Pakistani provinces and laying the heat on the Saudis full bore.

And shut the fuck up about the torture and killing Hussein did, will ya? Jesus Fucking Christ. Could you pick a weaker fucking argument? We killed more Iraqis in our invasion and the subsequent insurgency our half assed reconstruction caused than Hussein would've killed in 2 more decades in power. That "We saved so many live!" argument is such a steaming pile of horseshit. We saved a whole lots people? Really? How? By killing a shitload of them? Run the numbers in any direction you can pervert them... had Hussein stayed in power, he'd have probably lived another ten or so years, and killed a fraction of what we killed "freeing people" into a new living hell of Islamic statehood.

Pick something other than a non-starter argument next time. You've been pitching that tired iron around for a long time and nobody's flagged you for it. Consider yourself flagged. Time to pick a new justification.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
You guys just won't say it will you. Why don't you just say it "Iraq and the United States would be better off if Saddam Hussein was still in power opressing, torturing and killing his people. Therefore the invasion was a mistake."

You critisize the invasion all day, but don't have the nads to state what you really mean. Or is because you don't really now what you believe you just like to critisize Bush.

I criticize people who are either incompetent or reckless with the truth. I am a litigator. If I told my client that I had a slam dunk case for a TRO to shut down a copyright infringer, and instead my case dragged on for 2 years, and cost them lots of money without getting the TRO, I would (and should) be canned.

Is America better off without Hussein? In a moral sense, maybe. From a strategic sense, I think that he was pretty well contained, and that he was no longer a threat to his neighbors. I think that the invasion has hurt the US because it diverted our attention from Afghanistan and other problems in the war on terror.

Are the Iraqi people better off? I would guess that they would be in a better position to answer that question. Most of the atrocities that you will no doubt cite occurred before, or in the immediate aftermath of, the first Gulf War. I'm not ready to say that it's a bad thing that he's gone, but I'm safe here in Podunkville. I'm not one of the people blown up by a car bomb in Baghdad, or caught in the crossfire in Fallujah.

Nonetheless, we overthrew him, and now we are stuck in Iraq, and we can't just leave the place broken. But why should we allow the people who didn't listen to the advice of those (like Powell and Franks) who may have favored overthrowing SH, but warned of the very problems that we are now seeing, get a free pass on criticism? There are *still* problems with getting plates for Kevlar vests to our troops on the ground. There are *still* problems with getting Humvees uparmored. Why doesn't this bother you?

Returning to my TRO analogy, 2 years after the suit is filed, the executives at the company -- those who agreed that filing was a good idea as well as those who disagreed -- all probably think that the legal approach I pursued was ineffective. Was I puffing my chances of getting the TRO, or was I just incompetent? Does it matter? My approach has failed, and since I don't seem to recognize this, and instead keep insisting that I'm going to win any day now without really aknowledging that I screwed up (although now I say that I'm going for long-term results, and a judgment for an injunction instead of a mere TRO), why should my clients be satisfied with an answer like "well, either you think that the infringer should have been left alone, or you should agree with me?"

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob


Returning to my TRO analogy, 2 years after the suit is filed, the executives at the company -- those who agreed that filing was a good idea as well as those who disagreed -- all probably think that the legal approach I pursued was ineffective. Was I puffing my chances of getting the TRO, or was I just incompetent? Does it matter? My approach has failed, and since I don't seem to recognize this, and instead keep insisting that I'm going to win any day now without really aknowledging that I screwed up (although now I say that I'm going for long-term results, and a judgment for an injunction instead of a mere TRO), why should my clients be satisfied with an answer like "well, either you think that the infringer should have been left alone, or you should agree with me?"

Yes, except when presented with all of the above, your client chooses, pursuant to the directions of its Shareholders, by an overwhelming vote of the shares, to continue to pursue the TRO via your legal strategy. That's the part you Dems wilfully fail to acknowledge, this was put to a vote of the Shareholders and the result was stay the course. Your poison pill play (aka Monsieur Kerry) lost.

While you are certainly left with your dissenters' rights to whine, wouldn't it be better to liquidate your shares and invest the proceeds in France?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yes, except when presented with all of the above, your client chooses, pursuant to the directions of its Shareholders, by an overwhelming vote of the shares, to continue to pursue the TRO via your legal strategy. That's the part you Dems wilfully fail to acknowledge, this was put to a vote of the Shareholders and the result was stay the course. Your poison pill play (aka Monsieur Kerry) lost.

While you are certainly left with your dissenters' rights to whine, wouldn't it be better to liquidate your shares and invest the proceeds in France?

And yet you complained about Clinton after 1992 and 1996. Shocking. And in 1998, his perfidy was an election issue, and the GOP lost seats. I guess you stopped talking about his blowjob then, eh?

Since when did we have plebicites, anyway, you Bonapartist? You may think that this Coriscan's idea is a good one, but I say don't short-sell America!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
And yet you complained about Clinton after 1992 and 1996. Shocking. And in 1998, his perfidy was an election issue, and the GOP lost seats. I guess you stopped talking about his blowjob then, eh?

If we are talking about me, nttawwt, fwiw, fyi, ftr, the period from the end of the First Gulf War through early 98 was my least political period ever (since the Summer of Love). I really didn't complain about Clinton all that much. I really didn't care. I had bigger fish to fry.


My criticisms are with 20/20 hindsight. Too bad the Dems have none etaexcept for Ty@50, much to regret, indeed)

Originally posted by Not Bob
Since when did we have plebicites, anyway, you Bonapartist? You may think that this Coriscan's idea is a good one, but I say don't short-sell America!

I am not French.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Ty, is this deletable? I don't speak Spanish so I am not sure if it is offensive.

Yeah, I don't speak Spanish either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I was at first sckeptical of Bush's not admitting any mistakes during the 2004 campaign. But after I thought about it I realized doing so would not do any good. It would not change any voter's minds. And he won pretty handily so it looks like that was the right decision.

On the other hand, it's too bad that we've never had enough troops in Iraq.