LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=719)

Spanky 11-15-2005 08:03 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
According to the Insight article, W speaks daily with only four people - his mother, Barbara Bush; his wife, Laura Bush; Karen Hughes, and Condi Rice.

I note, although I don't know if it means anything at all, that all four are women.
I think the article is exaggerating. I think he has a lot of contact with different people. The only thing I have heard is that he and his father don't see eye to eye on many things.

ltl/fb 11-15-2005 08:07 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I think the article is exaggerating. I think he has a lot of contact with different people. The only thing I have heard is that he and his father don't see eye to eye on many things.
Yes, but this is *daily* contact. I'd think he'd have normally (previously) have had daily contact with Scott McClelland/Cheney/Rove?

sebastian_dangerfield 11-15-2005 08:17 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
"The sources said Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes."

Because women are nurturing?

ETA damn panda for beating me to it.
This is total horseshit. If it were true, Harriet would've hanged herself from the White House facade like the babysiter in The Omen during one of Bush's speeches from the lawn months ago.

sebastian_dangerfield 11-15-2005 08:20 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yes, but this is *daily* contact. I'd think he'd have normally (previously) have had daily contact with Scott McClelland/Cheney/Rove?
Everybody has daily "contact" with McClellan. He's the soft young court boy in this perverted Greek tragedy.

ltl/fb 11-15-2005 08:28 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This is total horseshit. If it were true, Harriet would've hanged herself from the White House facade like the babysiter in The Omen during one of Bush's speeches from the lawn months ago.
There's a funny bit in the New Yorker about Harriet and her cat playacting a wedding to George.

Tyrone Slothrop 11-15-2005 08:35 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
From what I heard this is true.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
This is the weird sentence:
  • The sources said Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes.

Four women. Hmm. Interpretation, anyone?

Forgive me if this has been covered extensively in the last two months.

eta: I hope y'all understood that last sentence as a STP disclaimer.

Hank Chinaski 11-15-2005 08:39 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is the weird sentence:
  • The sources said Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes.

Four women. Hmm. Interpretation, anyone?

Forgive me if this has been covered extensively in the last two months.
Do you think he is getting blow jobs in the Oval Office?

Tyrone Slothrop 11-15-2005 08:40 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you think he is getting blow jobs in the Oval Office?
I think he has a very stressful job, and I hope it hasn't been too hard on his marriage, if that's what you're asking.

Ty@50 11-15-2005 08:47 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think he has a very stressful job, and I hope it hasn't been too hard on his marriage, if that's what you're asking.
In the interest of candor, let me admit that Hank was right. I was trying to imply he was no better than Clinton. But it turned out he trusted women, and minorities, for advice, not just photo ops. I regret the quoted post.

Tyrone Slothrop 11-15-2005 08:52 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Ty@50
In the interest of candor, let me admit that Hank was right. I was trying to imply he was no better than Clinton. But it turned out he trusted women, and minorities, for advice, not just photo ops. I regret the quoted post.
Things I have not missed over the last six to eight weeks: Hank's socks.

Hank Chinaski 11-15-2005 09:26 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Things I have not missed over the last six to eight weeks: Hank's socks.
sockS ? Cite please!


Edit: does your rant have something to do with tonights Pistons/Celtics game?

Tyrone Slothrop 11-15-2005 09:41 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
sockS ? Cite please!
I assume that you have at least one other sock that I haven't missed. If I was missing one of your socks, I apologize and retract my statement.

Hank Chinaski 11-15-2005 10:32 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I assume that you have at least one other sock that I haven't missed. If I was missing one of your socks, I apologize and retract my statement.
My Spanky sock and my Fringey sock are all I have besides the obvious ones.

Tyrone Slothrop 11-15-2005 11:42 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My Spanky sock and my Fringey sock are all I have besides the obvious ones.
I missed Spanky tons. So I apologize: It's only your Elderly Ty sock that blows chunks.

Secret_Agent_Man 11-15-2005 11:45 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
All 4 of them has the nice big boobies. That can be a real comfort at times.
Check your eyes, Alfred E.

While Babs and Laura are stacked, Condi and Karen Hughes are no better than borderline B/C on their best days.

[eta: I have done Hank a disservice, upon further reflection, b/c k
Karen Hughes is probably a solid D. Hank's point stands -- Bush likes boobies.]

S_A_M

The article must mean personal contact, because the President has daily contact with various Secret Service agents and other staff.

Did you just call me Coltrane? 11-16-2005 10:07 AM

Big oil met with Cheney task force
 
Industry officials denied meetings as recently as last week

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10045043/

What are they hiding? Now I know why Ted Stevens was vehemently against them being under oath.

Sen. Stevens (R-Alaska): I shall not administer an oath today--

Sen. Cantwell (D-Washington): Mr. Chairman.

Stevens: --and we look forward to questions...Senator Cantwell?

Cantwell: Mr. Chairman, I did send you a letter signed by eight of my colleagues asking that the witnesses be placed under oath. This rare joint hearing--

Stevens: I did not yield for you to make a statement. We're ready to go. We have a statement process--

Cantwell: Mr. Chairman, I would like the committee to vote on whether we swear--

Stevens: There will be no vote. That's not in order at all. It's not part of the rules that any vote can be taken to administer an oath. It is the decision of the Chairman, and I have made that decision.

Cantwell: Mr. Chairman, I move that we swear in the witnesses.

Stevens: And I rule that out of order.

Sen. Boxer (D-California): I second the motion.

Stevens: Thank you very much. That's that last we're going to hear about that, because it's out of order.


Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 11-16-2005 10:52 AM

Big oil met with Cheney task force
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Industry officials denied meetings as recently as last week

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10045043/

What are they hiding? Now I know why Ted Stevens was vehemently against them being under oath.
The reason he didn't put them under oath is because the mere act turns things into a circus. Remember the tobacco execs' oath? It's a photo-op for grandstanding. If they want a sworn statement, they can get that by ordering it. And false statements to Congress are still felonious.

As for their answers, the people who may have met with Cheney's task force are not these execs, but people below them. So you'd have to do a lot more digging to determine actual knowledge.

Did you just call me Coltrane? 11-16-2005 10:59 AM

Big oil met with Cheney task force
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The reason he didn't put them under oath is because the mere act turns things into a circus. Remember the tobacco execs' oath? It's a photo-op for grandstanding. If they want a sworn statement, they can get that by ordering it. And false statements to Congress are still felonious.

As for their answers, the people who may have met with Cheney's task force are not these execs, but people below them. So you'd have to do a lot more digging to determine actual knowledge.
Ah, I see.

Why wouldn't these guys meet with the task force?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 11-16-2005 11:03 AM

Big oil met with Cheney task force
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Ah, I see.

Why wouldn't these guys meet with the task force?
All part of their evil plan.

I frankly don't get the outrage here, and never did. The administration was formulating policy. One formulates policy in part by asking affected parties. Of course, it's generally wise to try to talk to all affected parties, but we all know that doesn't happen for both political and practical reasons.

But those who don't get talked to have 535 other people, or at least 245 or so, to talk to once a proposal is put up. And they have the talking point that they weren't consulted on forumlation of the initial policy.

I don't see anyone clamoring to open up to public scrutiny who's coming into the senators' and reps' offices to lobby from other angles.

eta: BTW, having the CEO go in probably isn't sensible when you're talking about specifics. The WH knows the big picture stuff, like open up ANWR--Lee Raymond doesn't need to tell them that. What they need info on is better presented by the hands-on guy who can talk about the costs of pollution control at refineries, or actual practical drilling opportunities and such.

Did you just call me Coltrane? 11-16-2005 11:19 AM

Big oil met with Cheney task force
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
All part of their evil plan.

I frankly don't get the outrage here, and never did. The administration was formulating policy. One formulates policy in part by asking affected parties. Of course, it's generally wise to try to talk to all affected parties, but we all know that doesn't happen for both political and practical reasons.

But those who don't get talked to have 535 other people, or at least 245 or so, to talk to once a proposal is put up. And they have the talking point that they weren't consulted on forumlation of the initial policy.

I don't see anyone clamoring to open up to public scrutiny who's coming into the senators' and reps' offices to lobby from other angles.

eta: BTW, having the CEO go in probably isn't sensible when you're talking about specifics. The WH knows the big picture stuff, like open up ANWR--Lee Raymond doesn't need to tell them that. What they need info on is better presented by the hands-on guy who can talk about the costs of pollution control at refineries, or actual practical drilling opportunities and such.
I agree with you. They SHOULD have met with the oil companies. They are an integral part of developing energy policy.

But why all of the secrecy?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 11-16-2005 11:26 AM

Big oil met with Cheney task force
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

But why all of the secrecy?
I think it's defending executive privilege to formulate policy as they see fit.

Say they take the other view--who they're talking to, who they're not. Talk about a constant, massive distraction. And it will stifle their ability to get views, because then companies won't want to come talk because people will complain about Exxon (or BP, or Microsoft) having back channels to the white house.

Secret_Agent_Man 11-16-2005 11:48 AM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you think he is getting blow jobs in the Oval Office?
Somehow, I don't see Laura honking on Bobo on top of the Presidential Seal.

Now Harriet might have been willing . . .

S_A_M

Captain 11-16-2005 11:50 AM

Big oil met with Cheney task force
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think it's defending executive privilege to formulate policy as they see fit.

Say they take the other view--who they're talking to, who they're not. Talk about a constant, massive distraction. And it will stifle their ability to get views, because then companies won't want to come talk because people will complain about Exxon (or BP, or Microsoft) having back channels to the white house.
Isn't the open approach what most Presidents and Vice-Presidents have followed? It does mean that after meeting with Exxon, your scheduler has to make sure the Siera Club is also on your calendar, but I am not sure what is wrong with that.

I think you are right, and they are making a point about executive privilege. Now the question is, Why is Executive Privilege worth making a point about?

I am not a fan of executive privilege; in many cases, I would suggest that the best regulations have been ones that require disclosure, while regulations that also mandate specific actions often do more harm than good.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 11-16-2005 11:55 AM

Big oil met with Cheney task force
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
Isn't the open approach what most Presidents and Vice-Presidents have followed? It does mean that after meeting with Exxon, your scheduler has to make sure the Siera Club is also on your calendar, but I am not sure what is wrong with that.

Because there are 400 organizations that think of themselves as, or more, worthy than the Sierra Club.

As for other presidents' practice, I know there were a bunch of thin, hot chicks who resented not being invited to "deliver pizza" to the president.

Secret_Agent_Man 11-16-2005 01:54 PM

Big oil met with Cheney task force
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
As for other presidents' practice, I know there were a bunch of thin, hot chicks who resented not being invited to "deliver pizza" to the president.
What does this have to do with anything Burger? Trying to get back on Penske's good side?

S_A_M

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 11-16-2005 02:09 PM

Big oil met with Cheney task force
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
What does this have to do with anything Burger? Trying to get back on Penske's good side?

S_A_M
apparently something, to get this response.

Should I have referenced the Lincoln Bedroom instead? All I'm saying is that visitors to the white house have never had their names immediately posted on whitehouse.gov

Spanky 11-16-2005 04:32 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I missed Spanky tons.
Ok. It is these sock exchanges I find rather creepy. They make me feel like a hologram on the holodeck who has just figured out he does not exist.

As far as I know I really exist. Of course how can one really ever know that they are just not the creation of someones imagination (or a replicant with imbedded memories) but as I have only been in the airport in Detroit, if I am the creation of someone's imagination, it is probably not Hank.

Shape Shifter 11-16-2005 04:38 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Ok. It is these sock exchanges I find rather creepy. They make me feel like a hologram on the holodeck who has just figured out he does not exist.

As far as I know I really exist. Of course how can one really ever know that they are just not the creation of someones imagination (or a replicant with imbedded memories) but as I have only been in the airport in Detroit, if I am the creation of someone's imagination, it is probably not Hank.
The spirit of democracy is really spreading in Egypt right now, huh?

Spanky 11-16-2005 04:46 PM

Masturbation: looking better and better.
 
Oral sex linked to mouth cancer: Swedish study
Nov 16 4:38 PM US/Eastern
Email this story

Certain cases of mouth cancer appear to be caused by a virus that can be contracted during oral sex, media reported, quoting a new Swedish study.

People who contract a high-risk variety of the human papilloma virus, HPV, during oral sex are more likely to fall ill with mouth cancer, according to a study conducted at the Malmo University Faculty of Odontology in southern Sweden.

"You should avoid having oral sex," dentist and researcher Kerstin Rosenquist, who headed the study, told Swedish news agency TT.

HPV is a wart virus that causes many cervical cancers, including endometrial cancer (in the uterus).

Comparing 132 patients with mouth cancer with a control group of 320 healthy people, Rosenquist found that 36 percent of the cancer patients were carriers of HPV while only one percent of the control group had the virus.

The main factors that contribute to mouth cancer, most commonly contracted by middle aged and older men, are smoking and drinking alcohol, scientists agree.

"But in recent years the illness has been on the rise among young individuals and we don't know why. But one could speculate that this virus (HPV) is one of the factors," Rosenquist said.

Her findings confirm other international studies in recent years.

Spanky 11-16-2005 04:51 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The spirit of democracy is really spreading in Egypt right now, huh?
Now that you mention it: yes.

Shape Shifter 11-16-2005 04:53 PM

Masturbation: looking better and better.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
[total bullshit]
I hereby request a Mod/Admin to delete this dangerous and incendiary propaganda immediately.

baltassoc 11-16-2005 06:08 PM

Interesting
 
According to a new Gallup poll, 48 percent of Americans think Bush is less trustworthy than Clinton, while 36 percent think he's more trustworthy. (See question 14).

Probably because he's responsible for the propaganda that blow jobs cause cancer. You never heard anything about stuff like that when Clinton was in office.

Hank Chinaski 11-16-2005 08:23 PM

Masturbation: looking better and better.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I hereby request a Mod/Admin to delete this dangerous and incendiary propaganda immediately.
Do you really think Slave cares for you so much he won't let you blow him any more? Get real. The article isn't going to hurt YOUR chances.

Tyrone Slothrop 11-16-2005 10:41 PM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
It is these sock exchanges I find rather creepy. They make me feel like a hologram on the holodeck who has just figured out he does not exist.

As far as I know I really exist. Of course how can one really ever know that they are just not the creation of someones imagination (or a replicant with imbedded memories) but as I have only been in the airport in Detroit, if I am the creation of someone's imagination, it is probably not Hank.
OK. I was just trying to be nice.

Hank Chinaski 11-17-2005 08:29 AM

W. and HW not speaking
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. I was just trying to be nice.
I suppose this is of some value as a data point for comparision purposes.

Spanky 11-17-2005 02:57 PM

Interesting
 
Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
According to a new Gallup poll, 48 percent of Americans think Bush is less trustworthy than Clinton, while 36 percent think he's more trustworthy. (See question 14).
Polls are only relevent at election time.

Spanky 11-17-2005 03:02 PM

Republican Civil War - Trancredo Bucks the Establishment
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Tim Bueler, Media Relations
(949) 588-8683

Press Release

Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo breaks party ranks to endorse Gilchrist


Rep. Tom Tancredo

September 27, 2005

Lake Forest, CA — 48th District congressional candidate Jim Gilchrist has received a major boost for his campaign in the special election to be held on October 4, 2005. He has been endorsed by prominent Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo.

Tancredo, of Colorado, who is the chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus and the acknowledged leader in the United States Congress on the issues of immigration reform and border security, stated, "I need Jim Gilchrist with me in Congress. Together, Jim and I can fight to stop illegal immigration. The voters of the 48th Congressional District will be well represented by Jim Gilchrist—he's the real deal, he's a real leader." To underscore Tancredo's commitment to the Gilchrist campaign, he and Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project, have spent substantial time together in recent days mapping strategy designed to help halt illegal immigration and enhance border security.

In acknowledging the Tancredo endorsement, Gilchrist stated, "I am heartened and most appreciative to receive the endorsement of Congressman Tancredo. He is an outstanding leader in Congress and a great American. I look forward to working with him in Congress on issues of importance to Americans such as border security, immigration reform, and tax reduction. Working together to provide effective leadership, we can and will make a difference."

The special election became necessary due to the appointment of the district's former representative, Christopher Cox, to chair the Securities and Exchange Commission. Gilchrist, who won wide acclaim for founding and directing the Minuteman Project border watch over the past year, is running as an Independent. The race has attracted 17 candidates from various parties. If no candidate wins over 50% of the vote, there will be a runoff election on December 6, 2005, which will include the candidates of each ballot-qualified party who receive the highest vote. In that eventuality, Gilchrist, the only Independent in the race, is guaranteed to be in the run-off.



http://www.jimgilchrist.com/article.php?id=41

bilmore 11-17-2005 03:03 PM

Interesting
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Polls are only relevent at election time.
There's a Monica joke in there, (get it? "poles"?) but I'll leave it alone, and simply go to my point that those polls mostly just prove that most of the media has willingly and competently sold the American public the Kennedy/Dean "Bush lied!!" horseshit.

A poll setting out the percentage of people who believe in Intelligent Design is not normally read as revealing what percentage of the ID theory is correct, but rather how many people are . . . . um . . . less than educated. Likewise, a poll measuring how many people believe that "Bush lied" is merely a measure of gullibility.

Did you just call me Coltrane? 11-17-2005 03:10 PM

Interesting
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
There's a Monica joke in there, (get it? "poles"?) but I'll leave it alone, and simply go to my point that those polls mostly just prove that most of the media has willingly and competently sold the American public the Kennedy/Dean "Bush lied!!" horseshit.

A poll setting out the percentage of people who believe in Intelligent Design is not normally read as revealing what percentage of the ID theory is correct, but rather how many people are . . . . um . . . less than educated. Likewise, a poll measuring how many people believe that "Bush lied" is merely a measure of gullibility.
How many people believed that Saddam was connected with 9/11?

Payback, baby. It's a motherfucker.

Shape Shifter 11-17-2005 03:10 PM

Interesting
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
There's a Monica joke in there, (get it? "poles"?) but I'll leave it alone, and simply go to my point that those polls mostly just prove that most of the media has willingly and competently sold the American public the Kennedy/Dean "Bush lied!!" horseshit.

A poll setting out the percentage of people who believe in Intelligent Design is not normally read as revealing what percentage of the ID theory is correct, but rather how many people are . . . . um . . . less than educated. Likewise, a poll measuring how many people believe that "Bush lied" is merely a measure of gullibility.
Right. Bush didn't lie. From the same guy who argues that Dan Quayle is smart.

"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:34 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com