Mickey

I only just read this and I am outraged. A game without a fried bologna sandwich is hardly worth attending. I've got 4 season tickets, anyone want to buy them?

If they were GMC's and black, they were Secret Service. At the end of his Presidency he came to Syracuse for the funeral of the father of the head of the DNC and the motorcade went right by my office window. They were all large black GMC SUV's. They were tanks. They are seen every so often on West Wing like in the episode where Donna and the JCS drove over a land mine.

Note to the mod squad: We have now seen this one about 37 times, I nominate it for immediate deletion in any future posts. I am willing to give OG a pass this time but just this once.

I believe the vehicles are Secret Service vehicles chosen by them and specially equipped with serious armor.

I think these people are politically and spiritually motivated. Labeling them as evil may satisfy a desire for an explanation that excuses us from further thought but we have no hope of defeating them if we don't figure out what makes them tick. If killing them is the only way to respond, then so be it. We still need to know them and understand them as best we can if we want to be successful in that effort. Besides, what does explaining them away simply as being "evil" get us? It is a meaningless observation.

They want independence and are willing to do anything, anything, to get it. They will kill and kill and kill until they win or are dead.

Take the trouble to read my prior posts in this thread regarding Miller's lies. Lazy. If that isn't enough for you, here is an article from Slate on Miller's lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Convention Speeches, Fred Kaplan, Slate

She is correct, the procedure is called dilation and extraction by doctors and always has been. Opponents of the procedure christened it "partial birth abortion" to more effectively rally the "Lambs of God" crowd. Renaming something using a jucier title is not exactly a brand spanking new political ploy. By the same token, pointing out the your opponents have done exactly that is also nothing new. I remember being in court once on a pretty big case (plaintiff was a quad) where we argued over whether or not a booklet handed out in a seminar was a "course notebook" or an "instruction manual". The book itself was titled, in bold letters right on the cover, "Highway Design Course Notebook" but had no blank pages for notes. After careful study and consulting a dictionary, the Judge ruled that it had been misnamed by its authors and was henceforth officially an "instruction manual". Words color perception and perception matters, especially in political struggles. She isn't crazy for fighting against the rechristening of the procedure and its opponents are smart for having done so.

First Miller lies his butt off, now you. Republican fever, catch it.

I was going to watch last night but as it turned out, my toe nails needed clipping and that task offered far more intellectual stimulation than watching the convention. I did watch the the Daily show and convention coverage late so I am up to speed on what's going on.

Wow, I thought Miller came off like a crazy man. He threatened the interviewer and babbled on about a duel for crying out loud. He totally lost it. Matthews will end up famous for this as the tape is going to be run over and over everywhere.

That cat gassed his own kittens and was worse than Hitler's cat. So that makes it okay.

Actually you are judging quite a bit. You are deciding what is normal, what is courteous, what is decorous and what is customary. As I tried to point out, it was never a matter of courtesy but tactics to keep a low profile during the other guy's convention. As for Senators resigning their Senate seat when the nomination is accepted, that is not at all the norm. Monroe became President 23 years after his Senate career ended. JQ Adams, 17 years; Jackson, 4 years; Van Buren, 9 years; W.Harrison, 13 years; Tyler, 5 years; Pierce, 9 years; Buchanan, 12 years; Johnson, 10 years; B.Harrison, 2 years; Nixon, 16 years. I don't think LBJ gave up his Senate seat as he was a Senator until 1961, even after he was VP elect. I believe Truman did the same thing as he was still a Senator in 1945 and the election was in 1944. I am not sure about JFK. Harding was a Senator until 1921 and the election was in 1920 so he apparently remained a Senator even while he was President-elect.

"Thasss be'cuz yo mahnd 'taint raght soz we gots ta git yo mahnd raht, fo yo own gid." ------Cool Hand Luke

Keeping silent during the other guy's convention only became a "tradition" with the advent of TV and it was never done out of common courtesy. The reasons for it were tactical. During the convention, the other party has the national spotlight, you do not want to focus any more attention on them than they are already getting. On top of that, every thing you say during that week will be pilloried by them during the convention. You would just be giving them fresh ammunition. While you are campaigning, you will be asked about every nasty thing they said about you the night before which basically serves as an echo chamber for their charges. Historically, candidates really were chosen at the conventions, especially the VP's. You would not want to be seen as trying to sway the other party in to picking one guy over another. This year, as in most years, there is an incumbent. Even though he might not have actively campaigned, Bush didn't stop being President during the Democratic convention. He was still in the news on a daily basis. I think Kerry's decision to keep on plugging was basically a tactical one. He is a Senator running against an incumbent in war time. The campaign may very well turn on voter turn out because it is so close. It was probably a good idea on the whole to keep going.

On the other hand, it might be that the only people watching this convention are republicans and they all watch Fox as it is the official network of the RepubliKan Kommissariat. According to your oft repeated claims, all those other networks are shills for the democrats which would mean that 16.9 million watched the democrat channels and only 5.2 million watched the RepubliKan version of TASS.

You are giving a pretty broad interpretation to the word "past". The sexual "history" that was permitted was limited to sexual encounters she had, I believe, within the 3 days or so before she was examined at the hospital. This is clearly relevant information. For example, if the prosecution claims that there is vaginal bruising and that those bruises are proof of a lack of consent, then it would be relevant to know if they could have resulted from another sexual encounter. The fact that she may have had consensual sex with another male between the encounter with Kobe and before she went to the hospital is also clearly relevant. As for leaks, these are virtually impossible to stop as long as the press can keep their sources secret. The OJ case, the Clinton-Jones case, etc. all were characterized by massive leaking.

There was an agreement that this statement not be used against him in the civil case. I don''t know for sure but I think Kobe making that statement was probably something she insisted on in exchange for refusing to testify in the criminal case.

Well now that is an insult to idiots everywhere. I always knew you were a moronophobe.

Thanks for that image. Excuse me while I purge.

I don't think Fabio or Elton are governors and neither was a featured speaker at a major party convention and lastly, I don't think they accused anyone else of being girly men. I can only guess as to whether they have, like the good governor, spent much of their life shaving their legs, oiling their bodies and prancing around in a bikini in front of other naked men or spending hours naked in front of a mirror striking fetching poses.

That won't stop the leg shaving republicans from crying their alligator tears.

I don't see a quote there where Kerry said that he would only use military force if approved by the UN, do you? I don't see those word there. I do see that he thought we should exhaust all other remedies before going it alone, a position not unlike that of the administration. I see that at present he wants more international participation and in a number of speeches he has talked about involving NATO, again, postions not unlike the administrations. I just don't see how you convert "I know there are countries prepared to help" into "we should never use force unless the UN approves" unless you are just being hysterical and willing to misrepresent your opponents views beyond reason. I don't see how "We need to internationalize this..." means to you that same as "we should only use force if approved by the UN". Do I really have to go over it word by word with a dictionary to show that they do not mean the same? Lastly, how does wanting the President to go to the UN first and make a legitimate attempt at securing their support before attacking translate into a statement by Kerry that if in the end that support was lacking, the US shouldn't act anyway? This is essentially the President's opinion as well. The only difference is in whether one believes the President made a legitimate attempt at securing their help or just went through the motions. Both sides want an alliance, as big an alliance as possible and both sides would, in general, agree that the US should go it alone if it has to. The only real difference is which man, Kerry or Bush, is more likely to be successful in securing as big an alliance as possible. We have seen what Bush was able or rather not able to achieve. As for Kerry, we can only speculate that he would have done better and will do better in the furture. That is the issue to debate, not lying or twisting Kerry's words or Bush's for that matter.

The poster quoted him and apparently approves of the quote. I have never heard Kerry say any such thing and I am not the only one who thinks so: "Kerry has never said that any other country should decide when the United States is entitled to defend itself." Imperial President, William Saletan, Slate Unfortunately, Zell doesn't post here that often so I don't expect to get the chance to call him on it. I would think that before posting a lie like that, the poster would make an effort to check its accuracy. If you think it is accurate, please post a link, and if it turns out that Kerry never did say any such thing, I am sure you too will denounce him as a liar.

If you have a link to any statement by Kerry at any time where he stated that military force could only be used if approved by the UN no matter what the circumstances were, please provide it and if you fail to find one, I hope you will report back and tell us that it turns out Miller was lying.