Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Perhaps the difference here is the conviction that what Newsom did didn't harm anyone -- which (as you say) is completely tied up in one's views of the merits of the underlying issue. If gay marriage had been legal, and Newsom had decided to stop performing marriages, that seems worse because of the interests of the particular couples who couldn't wed. In your hypo, it's a little hard to imagine Joe Arpaio doing anything according to his conscience that wouldn't fall very heavily on some people, most likely including those with darker skin and/or names ending with "z".

if i still posted here I'd point out that the people of Cali apparently felt he was ruining traditional marriage. since I'm gone, i'll just thank you for proving atticus's point, and mine from before.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

if i still posted here I'd point out that the people of Cali apparently felt he was ruining traditional marriage. since I'm gone, i'll just thank you for proving atticus's point, and my from before.

Is it "proving" his point if I expressly point out that I agree with him? I guess so.

I'm at least a few people think that legalizing gay marriage somehow ruins traditional marriage, but you, I, and everyone else on this has never quite been able to figure out how this is so, and at least some of us suspect that the opposition has more to do with the icky feelings that some people have when they think about gay sex, and a view that it's OK to be judgmental about some people.

Pretty sure you don't think those icky feelings count as harm.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Is it "proving" his point if I expressly point out that I agree with him? I guess so.

I'm at least a few people think that legalizing gay marriage somehow ruins traditional marriage, but you, I, and everyone else on this has never quite been able to figure out how this is so, and at least some of us suspect that the opposition has more to do with the icky feelings that some people have when they think about gay sex, and a view that it's OK to be judgmental about some people.

Pretty sure you don't think those icky feelings count as harm.

I'm winning as you no longer proof read your posts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'm winning as you no longer proof read your posts.

If only you were still here.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

{sigh} Now I remember why I hate this place. Rosa Parks wasn't exercising government power. Neither is a county supervisor engaging in a speech act. A government official using his powers to effectuate the pure dictates of his conscience looks a particular way. You’ll probably only notice it when you disagree with it, you lucky bastard.

I get it - honest, I see your point. But if we talk about a potential senator, the guy who had some vision and will to do what was right is the guy I want.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I get it - honest, I see your point. But if we talk about a potential senator, the guy who had some vision and will to do what was right is the guy I want.

I agree. Kum-bae-ya!

I think Harris’s competition will be Tom Steyer, FWIW.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I agree. Kum-bae-ya!

I think Harris’s competition will be Tom Steyer, FWIW.

I suspect you are right. I don't see Newsom ending his career (voluntarily); perhaps his target is being Jerry Brown's successor?

[Hank Chinaski]

http://pagesix.com/2015/01/16/senato...vernment-deal/ ?explain?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://pagesix.com/2015/01/16/senato...vernment-deal/ ?explain?

Uh, spouse or family member of public official gets favored treatment. Sounds pretty similar to President about to retire, he and a bunch of his advisors get given interests in one of the most profitable PE outfits in the country. It's called corruption and it's been around forever. Vote for people who oppose it. Expose it every chance you get.

It won't stop all of it, but every once in a while you can "me-too" a successful popular effort that does prevent or correct an obvious act of political whoredom.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6492054.html

these guys are on foot, or scooter, so the car color justification is out.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6492054.html

these guys are on foot, or scooter, so the car color justification is out.

I think the Pope is cool with this, though, right?

Meanwhile, near Niger, some better news.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Uh, spouse or family member of public official gets favored treatment. Sounds pretty similar to President about to retire, he and a bunch of his advisors get given interests in one of the most profitable PE outfits in the country. It's called corruption and it's been around forever. Vote for people who oppose it. Expose it every chance you get.

It won't stop all of it, but every once in a while you can "me-too" a successful popular effort that does prevent or correct an obvious act of political whoredom.

(Step 1) Have a Senate that is a millionaire’s club.

(Step 2) Have an economy where giant transactions occur, and only rich firms can participate in them.

This isn’t corruption because the USPS choosing CBRE as a broker probably didn’t have anything to do with Feinstein. But ask yourself why the sale of 51 post offices has to be handled by a single broker instead of one broker for each property or market, and you’re getting closer. Then ask why commercial RE commissions are what they are, and why it’s useless to put commercial RE listings out to competitive bid, and you’ll see what’s really wrong with our system, and it ain’t political corruption (in this case).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

(Step 1) Have a Senate that is a millionaire’s club.

(Step 2) Have an economy where giant transactions occur, and only rich firms can participate in them.

This isn’t corruption because the USPS choosing CBRE as a broker probably didn’t have anything to do with Feinstein. But ask yourself why the sale of 51 post offices has to be handled by a single broker instead of one broker for each property or market, and you’re getting closer. Then ask why commercial RE commissions are what they are, and why it’s useless to put commercial RE listings out to competitive bid, and you’ll see what’s really wrong with our system, and it ain’t political corruption (in this case).

I think you mean it ain't "illegal" political corruption.

Back when I was a young 'un working in politics, I had an epic conversation with the chief aide to the state treasurer, who filled me in on the fine points of "honest graft" and what distinguished it from the actionable or the politically embarrassing. Yes, he used the phrase "honest graft".

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think you mean it ain't "illegal" political corruption.

Back when I was a young 'un working in politics, I had an epic conversation with the chief aide to the state treasurer, who filled me in on the fine points of "honest graft" and what distinguished it from the actionable or the politically embarrassing. Yes, he used the phrase "honest graft".

USPS bureaucrat: Hey, which national commercial RE brokerage should we pick?

Other USPS bureaucrat: Let’s definitely go with the one with the partner who is the husband of that minority party senator. We really need her support on, um, postal legislation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

USPS bureaucrat: Hey, which national commercial RE brokerage should we pick?

Other USPS bureaucrat: Let’s definitely go with the one with the partner who is the husband of that minority party senator. We really need her support on, um, postal legislation.

translation- I've always been on the outside looking in so I have no idea how it goes......