[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
You mean like interviews and reporting? Got that.
And that’s what defines our knowledge of pretty much everything these days. That’s as good as it gets.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure Richard Jewell appreciates the speed at which we can reach our confident conclusions.
A baldly false analogy. Mr. Jewell immediately and consistently proclaimed his innocence. He was more the victim of inept investigatory agencies. Neither of these conditions applies in the instance of the Dishon. Mr. Foley.
It remains possible, I suppose, that the Dishon. Mr. Foley might be as utterly exonerated as the unfortunate(!) Mr. Jewell. I think that exceedingly unlikely, and would be very surprised to hear you disagree.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
To deter others from doing so. It seems to me that your cousin is making a relatively rational risk-based decision. If she were caught, she’d receive a slap on the wrist. So she weighs the unlikeliness of getting caught and the small penalty if she did and continues to buy pot. Which continues to feed the demand for it. Your cousin alone does not create a huge demand, of course. But in the aggregate, plenty of people like her do. If your cousin were guaranteed being locked up for a long period of time… would she really risk smoking it just to relax?
[/QUOTE]
If I could prove to you that the damage caused to society by imprisoning people to “set an example” is greater than the harm that would be caused by the drug by itself were it legalized (not saying I can definitively do that, but hypothetically), would you admit that imprisoning people for smoking pot is immoral?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
A baldly false analogy. Mr. Jewell immediately and consistently proclaimed his innocence. He was more the victim of inept investigatory agencies. Neither of these conditions applies in the instance of the Dishon. Mr. Foley.
It remains possible, I suppose, that the Dishon. Mr. Foley might be as utterly exonerated as the unfortunate(!) Mr. Jewell. I think that exceedingly unlikely, and would be very surprised to hear you disagree.
[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. Foley is unquestionably guilty. His lack of denial seals the deal for me.
My analogy was Jewell to Hastert et al.
[QUOTE=Blalron]
If I could prove to you that the damage caused to society by imprisoning people to “set an example” is greater than the harm that would be caused by the drug by itself were it legalized (not saying I can definitively do that, but hypothetically), would you admit that imprisoning people for smoking pot is immoral?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I’d be well along the road to such an admission.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Like what other issues?
I should suddenly decide that I don’t want texualist judges appointed to the Supreme Court? Nope - I still do. And Bush has reliably appointed them and the Senate has reliably confirmed them. If the Dems were in power, I doubt I’d get that. So I still support the Republicans.
I should suddenly decide that I don’t want pro-life policies advanced to the extent possible under current law? Nope - I still do. And the GOP has, in general, reliably done that. If the Dems were in power, I doubt I’d get that. So I still support the Republicans.
I should suddenly decide that I don’t want US troops in Iraq? Nope - I still do. And the GOP has, in general, reliably supported that. If the Dems were in power, I doubt I’d get that. So I still support the Republicans.
I should suddenly decide that I don’t want obscentity prosecutions for obscene material? Nope - I still do. And the Republican administrayion has, in general, reliably done that. If the Dems were in power, I doubt I’d get that. So I still support the Republicans.
I should suddenly decide that I don’t want stern sentences for drug users and sellers, to include pot? Nope - I still do. And the GOP has, in general, reliably supported and enforced such sentences. If the Dems were in power, I doubt I’d get that. So I still support the Republicans.
I should suddenly decide that I don’t want vouchers for education choice? Nope - I still do. And the GOP has, in general, reliably pushed that issue, although not as strongly as I’d like. If the Dems were in power, I doubt I’d get any traction there. So I still support the Republicans.
Shall I go on?
The reasons I support the Republicans are because the Republicans advance positions I think are wise for the country. In this Foley scandal, they have departed from that role, and I am criticizing those responsible. But that doesn’t change my support for the positions I hold.
[/QUOTE]
Damn, that is what your version of the Republican party stands for?
What happen to Fiscal conservatism, small efficient government, Pro-Small Business Legislation and action, A Strong Military and smart foreign policy?
As the current Republican party does match what you described and does not match what I described, I am apparently a man without a party.
Do you support any Republican Ideals or just the Ideals of the Religious right?
Jim
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sure.
Again, I don’t know that I’d agree with that claim. But it’s actually a very good posture for the Dems to take.
[/QUOTE]
Well, as lissener said, okay then.
Personally, as I said, I don’t see either party as representing the law more than the other party does. Democrats are not weak on laws; if anything, aren’t they the party of regulation and of lawyers?
Republicans might be the party of prisons, but that seems different.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’m sure Richard Jewell appreciates the speed at which we can reach our confident conclusions.
[/QUOTE]
WTF does Richard Jewell have to do with this?? Is this Bogus Lawyer Bullshit Day at the Dope??
We know Shimkus, Boehner, and Reynolds knew about the emails no later than last spring because they fucking said so. And Boehner and Reynolds both say they informed Hastert, whose story changes every few hours, at least when he’s not locked himself up in his house for over 24 hours so the press can’t get to him.
Just for that alone, Hastert doesn’t exactly seem to be Speaker material, two heartbeats away from the Presidency. (A matter of no trivial concern when one of those heartbeats is Cheney’s weak ticker.) We’re not talking about innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; we’re talking about does this person belong in one of the highest offices in the land, or has he demonstrated that it’s a bit too much for him??
Nobody was claiming that Richard Jewell, even if innocent, was unfit to be a security guard.
[QUOTE=hawthorne]
Way to show leadership, Bricker. You’re not stupid and you’re not implicated, so you can afford to dress up pragmatism as principle. It’s obviously sensible to stop defending the indefensible in this case. But whilst doing that might allow you to say you stand for law and morality it won’t mean that you do in any meaningful sense. And ceasing to seem like standing for weaseldom increases weaseling’s effectiveness.
I expect to see quite a lot of posts from you where you are quaintly “shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here.”
[On preview, I can’t resist playing the emphasis game again, it’s just too funny:
[/QUOTE]
Sublime. Thanks, hawthorne
Well, actually, no. I got a bad reaction because Polycarp read (AFAICT) something that Clothahump said, noticed that I had also posted in the same thread, and blamed me for saying something that I had not said. Then the rest of the Usual Suspects, who I suspect don’t read anything posted by someone with whom they disagree, simply reacted to what Polycarp claimed I had said.
One of the most unfortunate results of blind partisanship is people assuming they know what was said without reading it for comprehension, or, discovering a position they disagree with but cannot refute, simply to misrepresent the position and argue against that.
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
Of course Foley’s actions were worse than Hastert’s. If the Dems had held onto their information until it was the best time to help them get rid of Foley and anyone helping him, then yes, they’re morally culpable- just not as culpable as Hastert, and certainly not as culpable as Foley. But they didn’t.
[/quote]
I think we are in agreement, except for the part where Democrats would not be as culpable as Hastert if they covered this up.
Since we seem to be in basic agreement, certainly.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
One of the most unfortunate results of blind partisanship is people assuming they know what was said without reading it for comprehension, or, discovering a position they disagree with but cannot refute, simply to misrepresent the position and argue against that.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe I’ve been going about this all wrong. Easy question: do you see yourself as a blind partisan?
Daniel
I can certainly imagine why you would not wish to continue this thread in the “challenge Bricker’s belief’s” vein it has taken, but I just wanted to mention one other aspect I find problemmatic about your - and many Republicns’ - support for the invasion of Iraq.
You frequently express your support of Repub policies and actions in terms of respect for the rule of law, fiscal conservatism, and limited government. So I have a hard time figuring out how you can support such a costly, unpredicatble, intervention in another sovereign state’s domestic affairs. Especially in the absence of an undeniable immediate threat, without exhausting - or even apparently exploring - all other available alternatives.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
One of the most unfortunate results of blind partisanship is people assuming they know what was said without reading it for comprehension, […]
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Well, for my money, it seems to be your blind partisanship that makes it fairly easy to predict the content of just about any one of your posts. It’s why I took to calling you Shodan-bot. I assumed you didn’t mind your posts being so easily dismissed. If it troubles you, you might want to stop being blindly partisan.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
To deter others from doing so. It seems to me that your cousin is making a relatively rational risk-based decision. If she were caught, she’d receive a slap on the wrist. So she weighs the unlikeliness of getting caught and the small penalty if she did and continues to buy pot. Which continues to feed the demand for it. Your cousin alone does not create a huge demand, of course. But in the aggregate, plenty of people like her do. If your cousin were guaranteed being locked up for a long period of time… would she really risk smoking it just to relax?
[/QUOTE]
But that still doesn’t make sense-why do you want to deter people from it in the first place?
And again, what HARM is said cousin doing?
Note-I’m not necessarily pro-pot, but I do think the “evils” of it have been greatly exaggerated.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
WTF does Richard Jewell have to do with this?? Is this Bogus Lawyer Bullshit Day at the Dope??
We know Shimkus, Boehner, and Reynolds knew about the emails no later than last spring because they fucking said so. And Boehner and Reynolds both say they informed Hastert, whose story changes every few hours, at least when he’s not locked himself up in his house for over 24 hours so the press can’t get to him.
[/quote]
Sorry, I don’t agree. While this is a serious matter, it’s not necessary to reach any conclusions in 24 or even 48 hours. I don’t care what they say – I want to give Hastert a chance to speak for himself. If he denies that he was informed, why should I necessarily resolve the conflict in credibility against him?
Yeah, the point was that people were claiming Jewell was GUILTY, and thus unfit to be a security guard. Now people are claiming that Hastert is guilty. I think it’s fair to wait a few days before pronouncing sentence. Hastert was duly elected by the people of his district as a Representative and by the House as its Speaker. He’s entitled to keep that job until there’s more evidence than, “They said they told him.”
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
But that still doesn’t make sense-why do you want to deter people from it in the first place?
And again, what HARM is said cousin doing?
Note-I’m not necessarily pro-pot, but I do think the “evils” of it have been greatly exaggerated.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
I can certainly imagine why you would not wish to continue this thread in the “challenge Bricker’s belief’s” vein it has taken, but I just wanted to mention one other aspect I find problemmatic about your - and many Republicns’ - support for the invasion of Iraq.
You frequently express your support of Repub policies and actions in terms of respect for the rule of law, fiscal conservatism, and limited government. So I have a hard time figuring out how you can support such a costly, unpredicatble, intervention in another sovereign state’s domestic affairs. Especially in the absence of an undeniable immediate threat, without exhausting - or even apparently exploring - all other available alternatives.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve already been chastised for trying to deflect attention from the main issue with discussions such as these. I’d be happy to answer such questions elsewhere, but I believe answering them here leaves me open to further such criticism. For the purposes of this thread, I’ll just say that you may certainly disagree with the conclusions themselves, but I hope you don’t disagree that they are the result of an honest appraisal of the respective issues.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’ve already been chastised for trying to deflect attention from the main issue with discussions such as these. I’d be happy to answer such questions elsewhere, but I believe answering them here leaves me open to further such criticism. For the purposes of this thread, I’ll just say that you may certainly disagree with the conclusions themselves, but I hope you don’t disagree that they are the result of an honest appraisal of the respective issues.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough.
But at times I wonder at the degree of “honest appraisal” you, or I, or most anyone else brings to individual issues. Once an individual establishes belief systems of a certain strength, I think it can require an amazing effort to view new situations on their own merits, rather than figuring how to fit them into your predispositions.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Fair enough.
But at times I wonder at the degree of “honest appraisal” you, or I, or most anyone else brings to individual issues. Once an individual establishes belief systems of a certain strength, I think it can require an amazing effort to view new situations on their own merits, rather than figuring how to fit them into your predispositions.
[/QUOTE]
I think that’s true, and a part of human nature. But I believe that presented with compelling argument, I’ll change my mind on even fundamental issues – see, e.g., same-sex marriage.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sorry, I don’t agree. While this is a serious matter, it’s not necessary to reach any conclusions in 24 or even 48 hours. I don’t care what they say – I want to give Hastert a chance to speak for himself. If he denies that he was informed, why should I necessarily resolve the conflict in credibility against him?
[/QUOTE]
As I understand it, Hastert does not deny being informed about the “overly friendly” emails. Those emails describe a page who received a personal request from Foley for a photograph. They name a second page who knew about a creepy congressman who stalked pages. They name a third page who had also been pursued by this creepy congressman.
It seems to me that this evidence–three pages being creeped out by a congressman who has a reputation for pursuing pages sexually–should, absent any other evidence, have been enough to get Hastert to talk to the head of hte page program, pass it along to law enforcement, or at the very least talk to these pages to get more information. His response, which appears from his own statements to have been confronting the alleged creep and taking his explanation at face value, seems to have been woefully inadequate.
More evidence may come out about what Hastert did, but it seems to me that the evidence we currently have is enough to judge him pretty harshly.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sorry, I don’t agree. While this is a serious matter, it’s not necessary to reach any conclusions in 24 or even 48 hours. I don’t care what they say – I want to give Hastert a chance to speak for himself. If he denies that he was informed, why should I necessarily resolve the conflict in credibility against him?
[/QUOTE]
I was under the impression Hastert has spoken for himself, several times, and contradicted himself more than once. Please do correct me if I’m wrong.