Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Michael Tee

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 841
121
3DHS / Re: Kramer has been suspended for a week
« on: November 08, 2011, 07:05:59 PM »
<<They throw the same bombs, but do it in a "legal" way. I would advise Kramer that when XO, BSB, or Tee piss him off with their insulting but I suppose more civil way, just take a deep breath and beat them at their own game.>>

The other two can speak for themselves if they want to bother, but I don't insult anybody in this forum unless they insult me first.  I'm not aware, in particular, of having recently insulted Kramer in a "more civil" or any other way and I'm not aware of him insulting me either.  I will sometimes refer to an idea as lame, pathetic, crap, nonsense, idiotic or moronic, but I hope it's understood that is the idea that I am referring to and not the person who is expressing it.

I am sorry to learn that CU4 regards me as "insulting" even in a civil way, because that is not my intention and hasn't been for quite a while now.  May I suggest that if any member feels that he has been unjustly insulted, that the matter be simply raised at the first available opportunity, so that it can be resolved then and there.  I think we'd all benefit if people spoke their minds on these matters, and spoke them early, rather than letting resentments fester under the surface.

122
3DHS / Re: Resolved: Herman Cain should withdraw from the primaries
« on: November 08, 2011, 06:51:50 PM »
Still more lunatic logic from the far-right lunatic fringe.  Herm the Perv's first response to the 4th accuser:  an all-out shitstorm of character assassination in a friendly paper (the Trib) which on closer inspection actually turns out to be one giant nothingburger.  A breathless revelation that the woman is poor; a single mother; hounded by creditors; had a tax lien (albeit a smaller one than the State of Georgia filed on Herm the Perv;) worked a total of about 8 and 1/2 years at three known jobs and an unknown period of time at two others, plus co-hosting a TV cooking show for nine years (although we don't know if this was actually a paying job) and had a university degree by the time she was about 22 years old.  So her work record may or may not have gaps in it, which for sure would make her a  certified member of the 99% and she hasn't worked for the past two years (a period of time starting about a year after the failure of capitalism crashed the fucking economy.

Oh, yeah, and they found an anonymous "friend" to call her a "gold-digger."   

WOW.  Impressive.  Not.

So in view of the failed mud-slinging attack coming (with awesome speed from the Cain camp, leading me to believe that the attack was well-prepared in advance) we have a still-credible fourth accuser, well-represented by the incomparable Gloria Allred.  How do our friends on the lunatic right react?  Easy.  In one chorus, all together, CLINTON!  CLINTON!  CLINTON!  CLINTON!  CLINTON!  I guess after the laughable failure of "Attack!  Attack!"  Attack!" then what other choice IS there but "Distract!  Distract!  Distract!"?

Nice try, guys, but may I suggest that once every news cycle you come back to planet earth briefly  enough just to get some fresh air and remind yourselves that it is HERM THE PERV who wants to be the GOP's next sacrificial lamb, and not Bill Clinton.  It might help to keep your posts a little less ludicrous.

123
3DHS / Re: Resolved: Herman Cain should withdraw from the primaries
« on: November 08, 2011, 05:06:06 PM »
Well if anyone was wondering why the first three accusers didn't want to step forward into the limelight, the Chicago Tribune's hatchet job on Sharon Bialek should answer all questions.  Complete with an unflattering close-up photo of her, showing every facial pore and pock-mark, hair and eye-glasses askew, lipsticked mouth opened like a fish or a comatose, sedated senior citizen,  we were treated to a barrage of comments by an anonymous "friend" from Chicago, from whom we "learned" that:
1.  She's a "complete gold-digger;"
2.  She's "hell-bent" on "never having to work again;"

Interesting how Cain's defenders stress the anonymity of his first three accusers, while his PR machine serves up Bialek's anonymous trash-talking "friend" as a source with absolutely NO attempt to back up the info provided through collateral research.

The most hilarious part of this trashfest had to be the tax lien registered against her.  You'd think that tax-hating Republicans would regard a tax lien as a badge of honour, but apparently not in this case; they dug out every last dollar, to wit: "nearly" (sic) $5,200 in 2009.  Way to round those numbers upwards, Tribsters!!  Of course, a quick internet search reveals that the State of Georgia filed a tax lien for $8,558.46 in 2008 against - - wait for it!!! - - Herm the Perv!!!  Yeah, actually, it was kind of fun to Google tax liens AND [name your favourite Republican sleazebag here] and see what comes out.  Republicans hate taxes so much, they don't even pay them.

Most of the rest of the article seemed hell-bent on proving that Sharon Bialek was - - hold your breath! - - a POOR PERSON.       and a SINGLE MOTHER.  OMG, can you believe it?  On the run from credit card companies, banks and lawyers.  Living beyond her means!!  (Although not, I guess, as far beyond her means as Bernie Madoff, the directors of Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers and AIG and Citigroup, or all the legislators who took their money, but still . . . )  Who can imagine such depravity in the America of the Nineteen-Nineties??

I have to admit being somewhat puzzled though by this gold-digging, work-shunning, parasite on the ass of humanity, somehow getting her diploma from Arizona State University at the age of 22. 

How in the hell did she . . . ???  Oh, OF COURSE, I forgot - - she fucked her way through to it.  Obviously.  Silly me.

And then, I need to get this straight now - - this lazy, shiftless good-for-nothing, didn't she - -
  - work a year for the NRA?  (blow-jobs on her knees in the computer room)
  - work five years at WGN Radio?  (sex with the boss and all the DJs who weren't gay)
  - work another 2 and a half years at CBS Radio?
  - co-host a cooking show on TV for nine years?
  - work as an account manager for Revlon? and
   - work in corporate development for Easter Seals Society?

Sounds like she works pretty hard to me.  With all the corporate lay-offs, she's got some gaps in the old timeline?  BFD.  Hasn't worked in two years?   Of course not, the fucking finance industry crashed the economy in the fall of 08 and millions of people haven't worked since then.  BFD.

Looks to me like old Sharon is just a regular charter member of the 99%, with all the problems that entails.  The failure of capitalism has left a lot of victims in its wake, to sink or swim as best they can.  She seems to have found a high-earning man who loves and supports her.  Great!  All the less reason she needs to capitalize on this whole sordid mess, but she came forward to stop that fucking sleazebag to stop him trashing his victims and I think most Americans (not from THIS group, that's for fucking sure) have already seen through this Perv and I've got a lot of faith in Gloria Alred - - she'll tear Herm the Perv a new asshole, and one for his shit-smearing PR gang as well.  Go, Gloria!!!




124
3DHS / Sarkozy calls Netanyahu a liar, Obama tells Sarko he can't stand him either
« on: November 08, 2011, 07:53:03 AM »
The French website ARRETESURIMAGES ("Freeze-Frame") reports on an open-mike gaffe that allowed a private conversation between Sarkozy and Obama to be played into a roomful of reporters, who then agreed amongst themselves to honour the conference's press rules and maintain silence over the incident.  The website is a continuation of a dropped TV show of the same name.  Two paragraphs from the website and my own half-assed translation follow:

Selon nos informations, les deux présidents ont laissé de côté toute retenue à propos du délicat dossier des relations israélo-palestiniennes. Obama a d'abord reproché à Sarkozy de ne pas l'avoir prévenu qu'il allait voter en faveur de l'adhésion de la Palestine à l'Unesco, alors que les Etats-Unis y étaient fermement opposés. La conversation a ensuite dérivé sur Benyamin Nétanyahou, le Premier ministre israélien. Sûrs de ne pas être entendus, les deux présidents se sont lâchés. "Je ne peux plus le voir, c'est un menteur", a lancé Sarkozy. "Tu en as marre de lui, mais moi, je dois traiter avec lui tous les jours !", a rétorqué Obama, qui a ensuite demandé à Sarkozy d'essayer de convaincre les Palestiniens de mettre la pédale douce sur leur demande d'adhésion à l'ONU.

We hear that the two presidents left aside all their entourage to discuss the sensitive matter of Israeli-Palestinian relations.  Obama first complained to Sarkozy that he had failed to warn him that he was going to vote in favour of the admission of Palestine to UNESCO, when the US was strongly opposed [to it.]  The conversation then turned to Benjamin Netanyah, the Israeli prime minister.  Believing themselves to be in a secure setting, the two Presidents let themselves go.  "I can't stand to look at him, he's a liar," Sarkozy began. "You are sick of him, but I've got to deal with him every day!" Obama replied,  and then asked Sarkozy to try to convince the Palestinians to go slow on their demand to be admitted to the UN.

. . . .

A notre connaissance, ces propos explosifs, dont l'existence ou la teneur nous ont été confirmés par plusieurs journalistes, ne sont pas parus dans la presse (mais ils ont été mentionnés en une phrase sur le blog d'Arnaud Leparmentier, du Monde). Les journalistes présents se sont en effet mis d'accord pour ne pas les exploiter : "Nous n'avons rien enregistré, et les utiliser revenait à reconnaître qu'on avait triché, explique l'un d'eux. De plus, cela aurait gravement mis en difficulté les personnes chargées de l'organisation." Un membre de la hiérarchie d'un média confirme :"Il y a eu des discussions entre les journalistes sur place, qui sont convenus de ne rien en faire. C'est un sujet un peu sensible : il est embêtant de ne pas faire état de ces informations, mais en même temps, nous sommes soumis à des règles déontologiques précises, et diffuser ces phrases revenait à les enfreindre."

As far as we know, these explosive words, which have been confirmed to us by several journalists, either literally or in substance, have not appeared in print (although they were referred to briefly in the blog of Arnaud Leparmentier, of Le Monde.)  The journalists who were present agreed amongst themselves not to take advantage [of the slip-up.]  "We didn't report any of those words and anyone who reported them [now] would be seen as cheating," explains one of them.  A media executive confirms:  "The journalists discussed this amongst themselves at the time, and agreed not to make anything out of it.  It's kind of a sensitive topic:  it sucks that we can't use the information, but at the same time, we agreed to a set of precise, if arbitrary, rules, and the publication of that conversation would amount to a breach of those rules."

125
3DHS / Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« on: November 08, 2011, 02:51:02 AM »
<<Thus we have a standard set "high crimes and misdemors" suitable for impeachment do not include purjury nor sexual harrassment.>>

Sexual harassment was never before the House or the Senate.  So it was absolutely impossible for any standard to be set on that charge.

Perjury, on the evidence before the Senate and the House, was never found to have occurred.  Hence the dismissal of the bill of impeachment in the Senate and the House's refusal to pass along the second perjury charge to the Senate.  Since there was no finding of perjury by the Senate in either of the two charges, perjury was never established in the impeachment proceedings and no standard was set for perjury.

      <<There is no question at all about "never happened", proof abounded by that time, NBD is the remainder.>>

Well, wherever "proof abounded," it sure as hell didn't "abound" in the Senate of the United States Congress during Bill's impeachment and so the Senate never found in its impeachment proceedings that Bill C. had committed perjury.  So no standard was set there for perjury, either for or against.

126
3DHS / Re: Cain on Foreign Policy cont
« on: November 08, 2011, 02:37:40 AM »
<<When some asshole from another country tells me what I care about, and what I don't care about, without kowing me, or my life, or what I see everyday, from a hole in the ground, all I can do is laugh. I'd call it arrogance but that would be a compliment.>>

You made your best case in the WOOOOOOOSH! post.  At this point, you're just starting to embarrass yourself.  And bore me.



127
3DHS / Re: Cain on Foreign Policy cont
« on: November 08, 2011, 02:31:41 AM »
<<Transfer your ire to countries of greater crime and accept the truth of Mao and Stalin, this will cure your depression over the demise of Communism.>>

Do you honestly think that by pointing your finger at two other countries that the U.S. thereby becomes absolved of all its guilt and the murders of millions, the torture, the lies, the invasions, everything is just wiped off the slate?  Even if Mao and Stalin really were guilty of all that bullshit Cold War propaganda that you've been brainwashed with since birth, how does pointing your finger at them absolve you of anything?  You'd still be just as bad.  It would be like Ted Bundy pointing at some bigger mass murderer than he as an excuse for his own crimes.

     <<The USA started out pretty good , especially in comparison with the other countries extant at that time.>>

Holy shit plane, you're talking over 200 years ago, and even then you're glossing over the genocide of the Indians and the whole era of slavery.  Who the fuck were you better than, even then?  The British?  The French?  The Belgians?  The Dutch?  How are genocide and slavery "pretty good?"  WHAT is so effing "good" about them?

      <<By dint of severe internal struggle that never really ceases the USA is better in several respects than it was in the beginning.
    << In some other respects we have lost some virtues and still need some further improvements.>>

And where in all this chest-thumping and flag-waving do the deaths of 2 million Vietnamese fit in, or the hundreds of thousands of victims of the Central American Death Squads, or the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Guatemala, Iran and Chile, followed by the torture and muurder of hundreds of thousands?  Is this what you mean by "we have lost some virtues" or "still need some further improvements?"
     
<< It is Gods business to punish us when we need it Jerimia, and not your nor mine is it to postpone by a second his reconing.>>

plane, let's figure this out for a minute - - its YOUR business to punish the Central Americans, the Chileans, the Guatemalans, the Vietnamese, the Panamanians, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Afghans, etc., but it's GOD'S business to punish the Americans?  How you figure that?
       
<<But might he not continue to use us just a little longer?>>

Yeah, but first, He's gotta make you bankrupt.

128
3DHS / Re: Resolved: Herman Cain should withdraw from the primaries
« on: November 08, 2011, 02:09:52 AM »
<<Sometimes it seems as if you have never met an American>>

It's quite possible at this point in my life that I have more American relatives than Canadian.  My American relatives now live in Detroit, Allentown, Seattle, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Dallas, Washington DC, New York, South Florida and probably other places that I have forgotten to include.

<<Bill Clinton was elected entirely on the presumption of innocence , which later turned out to be a poor presumption.>>

That's absurd.   Nobody gave a shit about Monica, Gennifer or any of the others because they were willing participants.  Paula Jones?  Who the hell knows?  She told one of the troopers that she'd like to be Bill's girlfriend.  Kathleen Willey?  After the encounter she wrote 12 letters and made 14 phone calls to the Prez, all of the letters being friendly.  Broaderick I think surfaced after Bill had won his second term of office.  Voters did not reluctantly give a presumption of innocence to Bill, they knew he was a babe magnet and that almost all his encounters had been by mutual consent.  The allegations of forcible harassment were simply unbelievable - - why on earth would this guy have to force his attention on any woman when so many others were lined up to give him anything he wanted?  A presumption of innocence is what you give a guy who you otherwise could easily believe was guilty.  People voted for Clinton because they liked him and because they just didn't believe he'd force himself on any woman and they didn't give a shit about his consensual encounters.

<<I think you are getting my drift. If the guy is a masher then he should suffer the appropriate penalty after the appropriate due process.>>

You missed the point again.  There is no "appropriate due process."  The claims were settled or never brought.  The women who didn't claim then don't want to claim now, and it's fully understandable, given the shitstorm of abuse and innuendo that every female complainant is subjected to.

<<Just saying so to derail his election is political talk and of all talk political talk is the cheapest.>>

That is totally absurd.  Was it political talk to derail his election when the first three victims surfaced and nobody knew who this guy was?  Is it the cheapest talk when a female employee comes forward to complain of sexual harassment on the job?  You obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about - - it's one of the worst ordeals any woman can face - - she's called a liar and a whore, degraded in every possible way a good lawyer can think of, her job is on the line.  That is such a line of bullshit that I can't imagine you typing it with a straight face.

<<But where is your right to complain about Herman if you can't complain of Bill?>>

Why should I complain about a guy most of whose sexual encounters were purely consensual?  Don't you understand anything of the difference between a serial sexual predator and consensual sex between adults?  And the odd woman who complained of non-consensual sex was basically non-believable, Kathleen Willey, for example, who continued to write and call Clinton after the office encounter, Paula Jones who told the trooper she'd like to be Clinton's girlfriend after coming out of his room, and Brodderick, whose ONLY sworn statement was that Clinton had NOT sexually assaulted her.  She later repudiated the first affidavit, but never in any sworn statement or sworn testimony.

129
3DHS / Re: Cain on Foreign Policy cont
« on: November 08, 2011, 01:06:09 AM »
I'm still thinking about all of this.

I want America to pay for its past crimes or at the very least acknowledge them.  You don't give a shit.  According to you I'm stuck in the rut of the past and you're moving "forward" and embracing "life" in the present.

I think that in your total disinterest in justice, you are a moral defective.  Period.  I am right and you are wrong.  Your failure is the failure of America - - a belief that life can be beautiful in a world without justice.  Sorry but you are wrong.  And even if you were "right," I wouldn't want to be "right" and I wouldn't want to be you.  Something is seriously lacking in you.  A thirst for justice and the ache that comes with its absence.

I'm sure I expressed myself in more colourful (read "offensive") language in my earlier post.  BFD - - you goaded me into it and I responded in kind.  Maybe I should have cooled the rhetoric.  The basic gulf between us is as stated above and it's unbridgeable.  I am someone who gives a shit and you are someone who doesn't. 

130
3DHS / Re: Kramer has been suspended for a week
« on: November 08, 2011, 12:32:58 AM »
<<I don't know whether we ever established a democracy or not.>>

I think not.  If you recall, BT called me out on spelling "America" with three k's.  He didn't order me not to, just suggested but I got the message.  I tried to argue with BT but he was firm.  The message I took away from this was that there's a lot of freedom in this group (even the freedom to threaten my life, apparently) but there are lines that can't be crossed, and that BT is the arbiter of those lines.  I didn't like it, but them's the house rules and not a God-damned thing that I can do about it.

<<But suppose we voted on all rules, and the result was pretty strict, would you allow for this?
<< Democracy does not ensure fairness to individuals.>>

Democracy doesn't but the Constitution does.  You posed a hypothetical situation there but the answer is the same regardless of whether the rules are made by a vote or by BT.  Everyone here has his own standard of what he'll put up with and what he won't.  I am not comfortable with any kind of restriction, top-down or democratic.  I post as long as I'm comfortable in the group and enjoy posting, and I stop when I'm not comfortable in the group and no longer enjoy posting.  In general, I found the "rules" of this forum to be pretty relaxed.

<<There seems to be a consensus we need to form and I don't know how to get there from here.>>

Well it seems to be working fairly well except for the Kramer suspension, which I regard as an injustice.  Shoulda been two-way or not at all, and of course I much prefer "not at all."

<<Of course the default is that the owner of the football calls the game over when he needs to go home with it.>>

I'd sure as hell get a lot more work done that way.

131
3DHS / Re: XO - re chickenshit vs chickenfeed
« on: November 08, 2011, 12:12:56 AM »
I read some of Trillin's stuff, mostly in the New Yorker magazine.    I thought of it as mostly easy reading, not deep, not life-changing, sort of like a long letter from a friend.  His memoirs of growing up Jewish were kind of boring to me, because they were too much like my own life.  I guess what I kept reading them for was the thrill of recognition - - oh yeah!  that's just what it was like!  or, yes!  I had an aunt and uncle who were just like that! or, but that's EXACTLY what my own mum used to say!  He had a kind of arch, detached, above-it-all style of narration that looks like it's easy to write, but is actually very difficult.  It seems to be almost a prerequisite for getting into the New Yorker, although some writers (Junot Diaz, Sapphire, et al.,) can get in without it if they have their own unique, distinctive style.

132
3DHS / Re: Resolved: Herman Cain should withdraw from the primaries
« on: November 07, 2011, 11:56:18 PM »
<< I have not said that it is impossible that this accusation is true, but the presumption of innocence applies untill proof appears.>>

NO, it does not.  The presumption of innocence is made only in criminal court and is a relic of the days when most criminal cases were capital cases. 

No criminal charges were ever brought against Cain for sexual harassment and I'm not sure that sexual harassment of an employee was ever a criminal matter; regardless, none of the women involved appear to have pressed criminal charges, and I commend them for it.  But since Cain was never faced with criminal charges, there is no reason for him to be claiming a criminal court standard of proof.  According to your logic - - and believe me, I am using the term very, very loosely - -  Cain will be forever innocent, as long as no criminal charges are brought against him - - because the presumption of innocence is only ended by a conviction.

<<    and then!

   << If the infraction is mild I will forgive it, if the infraction is serious I will not.>>

Fair enough - - so sexual harassment by a CEO of a female employee - - of at this point, FOUR employees - - could be "mild" in your opinion?  Maybe, since I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around some of your concepts, you could help me out here with a specific example - - supposing you, for example, were sexually harassed by a gay CEO: what would be an example of "mild" sexual harassment in your eyes?


     <<Where shall I draw the line?

      <<Personally,... I want a president that reapects the human dignity of every individual including women. If he is out of controll of himself I probly won't vote for him to have greater controll of me.>>

Fair enough.

     << Nationally,.... we have determined Bill Clinton to be alright, and Clinton is guilty of worse than these alligations.>>

That's more than a little bit disingenuous on your part, plane.  YOU, personally, have NEVER determined that Bill Clinton was alright, but you sure seem convinced in the face of all the existing circumstantial evidence, including allegations from four different women, that Cain is "alright."

133
3DHS / Re: XO - re chickenshit vs chickenfeed
« on: November 07, 2011, 11:34:11 PM »
I've got both of Harry Golden's books, and I loved them when they first came out, which IIRC was late Fifties or early Sixties. 

One of my favourite stories from his first book was about music.  Harry was a real lover of the Italian opera, and so in his lunch hours in Charlotte, he'd play all the great Italian operas on his record player - - Verdi, Rossini, Puccini - - and apparently at top volume, too. 

One day, one of the secretaries in an office below Harry's asked Harry's secretary - - How come your boss is always playin' that Jew music of his?

Harry, BTW, wasn't offended by the secretary's question.  He found it naive, but kind of funny.  In general, he seemed to have a pretty favourable opinion of the South and its people, but he had a sharp eye for the peculiarities of the region.

134
3DHS / Re: Kramer has been suspended for a week
« on: November 07, 2011, 11:19:13 PM »
<<How elese do we establish a floor ?>>

That was my whole point.  There isn't a floor.  It's as low as any member wants to go and if he goes too low, someone else can tell him off or he can suffer the collective scorn of the group.

I notice that you didn't hesitate to tell Kramer off when you felt he'd gone too far.  I didn't, because (a) I felt he'd had ample provocation to justify his remark and (b) it wasn't my place to tell Kramer off for expressing his annoyance the way he did.  I just told off someone else, though, for gratuitously insulting John Edwards' child.  The penalties for breach of standards is the reproof of anyone who feels that a standard has been breached.

I'm against all penalties imposed from the top down.

135
3DHS / Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« on: November 07, 2011, 11:11:42 PM »
Sexual harassment did not form part of any charges against Clinton in the impeachment proceedings.  I already posted in this thread the part of the Wikipedia article that specified all four charges.  Two perjury, one each of obstruction of justice and abuse of power.

IIRC, by dismissing the indictment, the Congress did not distinguish between "never happened" and "NBD."  Therefore, the Congress in its impeachment proceedings made no findings at all that (a) the alleged offences had occurred or (b) that the alleged offences, if committed, were not serious enough to warrant any kind of penalty.

Which is why, in the first place, I said that you could not establish standards based on what a person is not convicted of.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 841