My God, you are an idiot.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Of course, because secret trials aren't "hostile." Passive-aggressive, maybe, but not "hostile."

If the one guy finds Osama's body maybe Obama can have a raffle for his contributors to see the corpse? Or would that violate his rights?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Of course, because secret trials aren't "hostile." Passive-aggressive, maybe, but not "hostile."

I have a skewed concept of hostility due to accusations from a professor after class freshman year. Napping during class can, apparently, come across as a hostile act.

Did the Nixon Congress do a better job of defining "hostilities" or "war" (or whatever the phrase that pays in the WPA is) than the Starr team did defining "sexual relations"? Or, heaven forfend, worse?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If the one guy finds Osama's body maybe Obama can have a raffle for his contributors to see the corpse? Or would that violate his rights?

Obama's going to have a raffle for Osama's contributors? Or are you worried about violating Obama's rights?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Nobody talks about politics in Japan.

Also, it is Thursday.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Nobody talks about politics in Japan.

Also, it is Thursday.

Really? They are silent about Naoto Kan or the new stimulus?

There is nothing new about you posting from the future.

[Fugee]

There are so many sex scandals involving politicians, I'm pretty much numb to anything that doesn't involve minors, paying massive $$ to hookers, or cheating on your dying spouse.

Maybe because of that, I'm surprised at the ganging up on Weiner, especially by his own party. His tweets and emails are kind of creepy but people have done much worse. So it must be about the lying -- but they all lie (or so many of them as to seem like it is all of them).

I don't care at all about Weiner -- just curious whether there is some clear line the pols are drawing where they will push someone to resign on one side and defend if on the other side. Or is it all random?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Fugee

There are so many sex scandals involving politicians, I'm pretty much numb to anything that doesn't involve minors, paying massive $$ to hookers, or cheating on your dying spouse.

Maybe because of that, I'm surprised at the ganging up on Weiner, especially by his own party. His tweets and emails are kind of creepy but people have done much worse. So it must be about the lying -- but they all lie (or so many of them as to seem like it is all of them).

I don't care at all about Weiner -- just curious whether there is some clear line the pols are drawing where they will push someone to resign on one side and defend if on the other side. Or is it all random?

It's not random, it's strategic. His colleagues clearly see greater value in pushing him to resign than in keeping him around. Part of that is because he will be replaced by a Dem anyway.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Fugee

There are so many sex scandals involving politicians, I'm pretty much numb to anything that doesn't involve minors, paying massive $$ to hookers, or cheating on your dying spouse.

Maybe because of that, I'm surprised at the ganging up on Weiner, especially by his own party. His tweets and emails are kind of creepy but people have done much worse. So it must be about the lying -- but they all lie (or so many of them as to seem like it is all of them).

I don't care at all about Weiner -- just curious whether there is some clear line the pols are drawing where they will push someone to resign on one side and defend if on the other side. Or is it all random?

Dems beat up harder on dems on Rs, to show they're not hypocrits like the Rs. Rs beat up harder on dems than on Rs, because they consider it fun and amusing, where beating up on nice Rs who hate muslims and taxes isn't any fun. So all this sex is really just about family values.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Fugee

There are so many sex scandals involving politicians, I'm pretty much numb to anything that doesn't involve minors, paying massive $$ to hookers, or cheating on your dying spouse.

Maybe because of that, I'm surprised at the ganging up on Weiner, especially by his own party. His tweets and emails are kind of creepy but people have done much worse. So it must be about the lying -- but they all lie (or so many of them as to seem like it is all of them).

I don't care at all about Weiner -- just curious whether there is some clear line the pols are drawing where they will push someone to resign on one side and defend if on the other side. Or is it all random?

If I'm honest I dislike him because his penis seems much larger than mine
Maybe that explains some of the hate?

[Adder]

So I'm not loving the administrations attempts to explain away the requirements of the War Powers Act and Constitution. Yet another way they seem to be a disappointing continuation of Bush, I guess.

But even if they don't think it's necessary, I guess I'd like to see them seek congressional approval. Of course, there is the risk that Congress will say no, but maybe that means something.

[Adder]

For Sebby again:

Originally Posted by Adder

So I'm not loving the administrations attempts to explain away the requirements of the War Powers Act and Constitution. Yet another way they seem to be a disappointing continuation of Bush, I guess.

But even if they don't think it's necessary, I guess I'd like to see them seek congressional approval. Of course, there is the risk that Congress will say no, but maybe that means something.

The rationalizations are beyond laughable and utterly indefensible. We should not be spending another cent on that war without congressional authorization, which of course Obama would never get from the newly-hatched doves in the Republican caucus. But they should try, because at least then the Administration would have played by the rules (quaint, I know) and the blood of the children that Quaddafi slaughters when he finally crushes the unsupported rebellion would be on the hands of the fiscally-responsible members of both parties who would smugly vote it down to gain a little traction in their respective primary races.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ironweed

The rationalizations are beyond laughable and utterly indefensible. We should not be spending another cent on that war without congressional authorization, which of course Obama would never get from the newly-hatched doves in the Republican caucus. But they should try, because at least then the Administration would have played by the rules (quaint, I know) and the blood of the children that Quaddafi slaughters when he finally crushes the unsupported rebellion would be on the hands of the fiscally-responsible members of both parties who would smugly vote it down to gain a little traction in their respective primary races.

given how much you were against the Iraq war it is bizarre you could craft these words. Or maybe I'm whiffing?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ironweed

The rationalizations are beyond laughable and utterly indefensible. We should not be spending another cent on that war without congressional authorization, which of course Obama would never get from the newly-hatched doves in the Republican caucus. But they should try, because at least then the Administration would have played by the rules (quaint, I know) and the blood of the children that Quaddafi slaughters when he finally crushes the unsupported rebellion would be on the hands of the fiscally-responsible members of both parties who would smugly vote it down to gain a little traction in their respective primary races.

It would actually be an interesting vote, putting in tension assertive foreign policy and fiscal discipline in ways that seem likely to even have some political upside for Ds.

But I assume that the congressional Ds are again to chicken to take any risks on any vote and therefore don't want the question to be asked.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

given how much you were against the Iraq war it is bizarre you could craft these words. Or maybe I'm whiffing?

You are inferring that he also would have been against the Iraq war if it was in support of a spontaneous indigenous uprising against Saddam? Why?