PDA

View Full Version : Rejected with Extreme Prejudice


Mike
January 9th, 2009, 04:05 AM
An envelope in today's mail proclaimed:

The ACLU has finally met its match!
Open now to discover why Christians are cheering...

I was mystified at first, but then I realized it had been sent to my father (mail sent to either of my parents is getting forwarded to my house).

I opened the envelope to learn it was a solicitation from the Alliance Defense Fund, another one of those organizations that thinks the U.S.A. has strayed too far from its "Christian roots."

My parents may have been die-hard, registered Repuglicans, but they never contributed to any organization that doesn't understand that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

Thus, I wrote "deceased" next to my father's name on the contribution stub, along with "do not send any further mail from your bigoted organization." Then I put all the collateral into the postage-paid return envelope and sealed it. It goes into tomorrow's mail.

If only I'd had a brick to tape to it. <sigh>

Judy G. Russell
January 9th, 2009, 10:29 AM
My parents may have been die-hard, registered Repuglicans, but they never contributed to any organization that doesn't understand that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.Good for your parents!

Thus, I wrote "deceased" next to my father's name on the contribution stub, along with "do not send any further mail from your bigoted organization." Then I put all the collateral into the postage-paid return envelope and sealed it. It goes into tomorrow's mail. If only I'd had a brick to tape to it. <sigh>GOOD FOR YOU!!!

ktinkel
January 9th, 2009, 11:22 AM
You don’t need a brick, literally — Jack usually stuffs in all the junk mail he can find, special sections from the newspaper, blow-in cards from magazines, etc.

Anything over 1 ounce (I believe; maybe it is .5 ounce) is charged for.

MollyM/CA
January 9th, 2009, 11:41 PM
Richard Feynman and his wife Arlene had a sort of system of escalating aggravation worked out to annoy the Los Alamos censors when they annoyed them too much or as they felt too unreasonably (as when the censors decided the list of things Arlene asked RF to get and bring to the hospital was a code). The one they didn't get to use was to fill the envelope with an appropriate powder with the note "Here's the Pepto-Bismol you asked for." The censors weren't supposed to disturb anything in the envelopes.

White powder's out these days but I had a thought about Jello -- right out of the box-- (or in the box but 'accidentally' opened -- an entirely believable accident in a system which delivers at least half of our 'flats' covered with tire tracks--).

Mike
January 10th, 2009, 01:30 AM
You don’t need a brick, literally...
Oh, I filled the envelope. I just wish I could have made it even heavier!

Mike
January 10th, 2009, 01:35 AM
I'm reluctant, these days, to do anything that might cast any sort of suspicion on me. Besides, the people who are responsible for pissing me off don't even see the envelope.

...in a system which delivers at least half of our 'flats' covered with tire tracks
I received a check a couple of weeks ago that looked like the entire envelope had been submerged in water for several days. It was dry when I received it, but all the ink had bled, and since it was in a security envelope, the blue pattern on the inside of the envelope also had bled onto the check.

I won't even get started with describing the crap our local carriers do, in full view.

rlohmann
February 3rd, 2009, 05:25 PM
I'm reluctant, these days, to do anything that might cast any sort of suspicion on me.

Why?

I voted--probably to no one's surprise--for McCain, but Obama's election appears to indicate a rejection by the electorate of the wacko-fundamentalist approach (which McCain didn't support, either, BTW).

(Of course, we here at the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy will continue to monitor your subversive political views, but that's another matter.) :->

Judy G. Russell
February 3rd, 2009, 07:27 PM
I voted--probably to no one's surprise--for McCainI'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

rlohmann
February 4th, 2009, 05:19 PM
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

:)

Well, yeah.

But....

Like many of us here at the VRWC who found some value in a candidate who could write and speak in complete sentences (and who had had enough of Bush2, the Texas frat boy), I wasn't that disappointed when Obama won.

I liked McCain. For my particular demographic, service as a military officer increases credibility. However, I think he made a horrendous decision in choosing Sarah Palin for his VP candidate.

However--and this had bothered me long before election day--Obama appears to have blundered badly in promising unlimited "change." He did so while at the same time being sufficiently perceptive to understand that the federal government is a ponderous beast. However, that very understanding led him to cut corners, documented in the news media in the past few days, in his attempts to secure Congressional approval for nominees who knew government, but had some skeletons in their closets.

I still wish Obama well, but I'm becoming increasingly concerned.

Judy G. Russell
February 4th, 2009, 09:55 PM
Like many of us here at the VRWC who found some value in a candidate who could write and speak in complete sentences (and who had had enough of Bush2, the Texas frat boy), I wasn't that disappointed when Obama won.It just took you guys a lot longer than the rest of us to have "enough" of the frat boy.

Mike
February 5th, 2009, 03:38 AM
Why?
I should be a bit clearer.~

I'm reluctant to have suspicion that leads to "knock-the-door-down raids in the wee hours" cast upon me. VRWC monitoring, OTOH, means I still don't need a burglar alarm.

So, what have you been up to?

ndebord
February 5th, 2009, 09:52 AM
:)

Well, yeah.

But....

Like many of us here at the VRWC who found some value in a candidate who could write and speak in complete sentences (and who had had enough of Bush2, the Texas frat boy), I wasn't that disappointed when Obama won.

I liked McCain. For my particular demographic, service as a military officer increases credibility. However, I think he made a horrendous decision in choosing Sarah Palin for his VP candidate.

However--and this had bothered me long before election day--Obama appears to have blundered badly in promising unlimited "change." He did so while at the same time being sufficiently perceptive to understand that the federal government is a ponderous beast. However, that very understanding led him to cut corners, documented in the news media in the past few days, in his attempts to secure Congressional approval for nominees who knew government, but had some skeletons in their closets.

I still wish Obama well, but I'm becoming increasingly concerned.

Ralph,

Me too. Obama came out of Chicago and I knew that town all too well.

As for the Congress. I'm not sure either of them (along with this Administration) are willing to stop posturing long enough to do what is needed to get us out of this recession which is bad enough to start using the D word.

As for Bush... if you like 100 year wars, he has managed to turn Bin Laden into the Mahdi of myth and his movement into a role model for young, disaffected Muslims who are trapped by a disfunctional world view. (I just reread Terrorist by John Updike. I was amazed that a 70+ year-old Protestant could do as well as he did with an 18 year-old character. Put brainwashing into a modern Islamist perspective that would make the Catholics, Fascists and Marxists proud.)

rlohmann
February 5th, 2009, 04:24 PM
It just took you guys a lot longer than the rest of us to have "enough" of the frat boy.We did so because his conduct was better, particularly with respect to 18 USC § 1621 (Perjury generally) than that of OPaLotFW.

W was an obnoxious jerk. Clinton appears to have committed perjury.

Which is worse?

rlohmann
February 5th, 2009, 04:39 PM
Me too. Obama came out of Chicago and I knew that town all too well.

I came out of Baltimore, and that town isn't doing so well, either.

As for the Congress. I'm not sure either of them (along with this Administration) are willing to stop posturing long enough to do what is needed to get us out of this recession which is bad enough to start using the D word.

The word "posturing" strikes me as unfortunately accurate.

As for Bush... if you like 100 year wars, he has managed to turn Bin Laden into the Mahdi of myth and his movement into a role model for young, disaffected Muslims who are trapped by a disfunctional world view. (I just reread Terrorist by John Updike. I was amazed that a 70+ year-old Protestant could do as well as he did with an 18 year-old character. Put brainwashing into a modern Islamist perspective that would make the Catholics, Fascists and Marxists proud.)

You may have given Bush too much credit.

It's clear that the young, disaffected Muslims are disaffected, but you might want to consider the possibility that their present outrage is caused as much by the extreme fundamentalism of their religious beliefs as by Bush's missteps. The essence of that belief is that Allah, the all-powerful, is unable to kill unbelievers himself, so he has to get self-appointed surrogates to do it.

(Also, of course, Allah hates the Jews also, but he's not able to kill them, either, so he wants illiterate thugs to do the job.)

Again, I'm disgusted with Bush, but your attribution of all of this fanatacism to him is misplaced.

rlohmann
February 5th, 2009, 04:54 PM
I should be a bit clearer.~

I'm reluctant to have suspicion that leads to "knock-the-door-down raids in the wee hours" cast upon me. VRWC monitoring, OTOH, means I still don't need a burglar alarm.

We here at the VRWC do not knock down doors in the wee hours unless there are Communists behind them.

<sneering graciously>

So, what have you been up to?

Practicing law in the Maryland provinces in an office about 200 meters from the Great World Ocean, watching keenly for Communist U-boats. :-)

ndebord
February 5th, 2009, 08:18 PM
I came out of Baltimore, and that town isn't doing so well, either.



The word "posturing" strikes me as unfortunately accurate.



You may have given Bush too much credit.

It's clear that the young, disaffected Muslims are disaffected, but you might want to consider the possibility that their present outrage is caused as much by the extreme fundamentalism of their religious beliefs as by Bush's missteps. The essence of that belief is that Allah, the all-powerful, is unable to kill unbelievers himself, so he has to get self-appointed surrogates to do it.

(Also, of course, Allah hates the Jews also, but he's not able to kill them, either, so he wants illiterate thugs to do the job.)

Again, I'm disgusted with Bush, but your attribution of all of this fanatacism to him is misplaced.

Ralph,

I didn't say, nor do I mean that Bush is the root cause of our time's war with Islamic radicals, but I most definitely do mean to say that he made it worse. Far worse. It wasn't just Democrats who went nuts with the concept of exceptionalism, but it took ex-Leninists (aka NeoCons) to take it to a new level of absurdity and incompetence.

On another note, now we find ourselves in the highest mountains of the world, shooting uphill with beefed up .22s at enemies using Ak47s. Let's see: we went from a mighty fine Springfield (OK... Mauser) to Gerard/M-14 and on to the M-16 popgun. It is time for this Pentagon to cancel a couple of big ticket failures and buy the troops a new rifle. And it would be a miracle if we can do what neither Alexandar the Great, the Brits, the Ruskies and who knows who else could NOT do, which is conquer the Pushtans.

Judy G. Russell
February 5th, 2009, 08:40 PM
W was an obnoxious jerk. Clinton appears to have committed perjury. Which is worse?Let's see... one turned the Justice Department into a political agency, ran roughshod over the constitution, waged a horrendously expensive and destructive war based on evidence that was largely manufactured to support it, squandered the budget surplus and ran up the biggest deficit in history, presided over the dismantling of oversight of the financial industry that resulted in the nearest thing to a depression in our lifetimes, and the other had sex. Gee... which one do YOU think was worse?

Mike
February 6th, 2009, 02:36 AM
Practicing law...
One of these days you will have developed expertise, and no longer will need to practice.

<gdr>

rlohmann
February 6th, 2009, 06:10 PM
Let's see... one turned the Justice Department into a political agency, ran roughshod over the constitution, waged a horrendously expensive and destructive war based on evidence that was largely manufactured to support it, squandered the budget surplus and ran up the biggest deficit in history, presided over the dismantling of oversight of the financial industry that resulted in the nearest thing to a depression in our lifetimes, and the other had sex. Gee... which one do YOU think was worse?

Clinton.

Bush made political judgments that many disagreed with. The foregoing, however, recites a series of political value judgments unsupported by any evidence of criminal misconduct.

By contrast, 16 USC § 1621, Perjury generally, recites that

"Whoever—
"(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in "any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be "administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that "any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him "subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes "any material matter which he does not believe to be true; [...]is guilty of "perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined "under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

The judge's instructions in the Paula Jones trial were extraordinarily complicated of necessity. However, a careful reading of those instructions, together with Clinton's public responses, makes out a clear instance of perjury.

A court would have convicted him. A Democrat-controlled Senate did not.

rlohmann
February 6th, 2009, 06:13 PM
It just took you guys a lot longer than the rest of us to have "enough" of the frat boy.

We saw him as the living incarnation of Kaiser Wilhelm I, the "wise Kaiser."

We were wrong, unfortunately.

rlohmann
February 6th, 2009, 06:23 PM
I didn't say, nor do I mean that Bush is the root cause of our time's war with Islamic radicals, but I most definitely do mean to say that he made it worse. Far worse.

You may be right.

It wasn't just Democrats who went nuts with the concept of exceptionalism, but it took ex-Leninists (aka NeoCons) to take it to a new level of absurdity and incompetence.

I'm not sure that many Democrats were thinking in tems of "exceptionalism," (I assume you're using the term in deToqueville's formulation), and it seems difficult to comprehend the equation of ex-Leninists and NeoCons. If nothing else, the former were rapidly shot by Lenin and his group.

rlohmann
February 6th, 2009, 06:28 PM
One of these days you will have developed expertise, and no longer will need to practice.

I have already developed expertise.

Your spiked helmet awaits you on your assurance that you have accepted the ideals of Truth, Justice, the American Way, and the revival of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

You may rise.


--
My Grace

ndebord
February 6th, 2009, 08:37 PM
You may be right.



I'm not sure that many Democrats were thinking in tems of "exceptionalism," (I assume you're using the term in deToqueville's formulation), and it seems difficult to comprehend the equation of ex-Leninists and NeoCons. If nothing else, the former were rapidly shot by Lenin and his group.

Ralph,

Think of the origin of the Neo-Cons. My college, Shepherd Hall... Trots, Lenninsts... those that abandoned the orthodoxy of Marxism-Lenninism, turned right and eventually found themselves a new nich as Neo-Cons. (I didn't mean de Toqueville, rather Woodrow Wilson and his naive belief that he could reform the world, post WWI. A dangerous man and his followers and descendents reconfigured with the oddest of bedfellows.) Kristol, Strauss...

ndebord
February 6th, 2009, 08:39 PM
We saw him as the living incarnation of Kaiser Wilhelm I, the "wise Kaiser."

We were wrong, unfortunately.

Ralph,

I would say he's much more akin to the "dog" found in a Kaiser roll...

;-)

Judy G. Russell
February 7th, 2009, 08:33 AM
Clinton.What you fail to acknowledge, even now, is that what Clinton did had very little to do with his performance as President. Even you can't say that about Bush.

earler
February 7th, 2009, 11:16 AM
But, clinton's perjury was an offense punishable under federal law. Even a president of the united states is subject to federal law.

ndebord
February 7th, 2009, 12:17 PM
But, clinton's perjury was an offense punishable under federal law. Even a president of the united states is subject to federal law.

Earle,

Exactly and if perjury for covering up adultery was prosecuted we'd have 50 million in jail instead of just 2 million.

And what is that federal law? This one? "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," in which case you should weight the offenses of the Presidents. I would go for "treason" for GWB, if not for the sneaky thought that the frat boy wasn't up to the intellectual challenges of being President of the United States and allowed himself to be hijaacked by the pretexts proferred by a deranged ideological cult.*


*This falls under the first law of the Republic. Never elect a President from Texas. (Or, in folkspeak: Fool me once, shame on you (LBJ), fool me twice, shame on me (GWB).

Judy G. Russell
February 7th, 2009, 03:36 PM
But, clinton's perjury was an offense punishable under federal law. Even a president of the united states is subject to federal law.Yep, so he should have joined all the other federal defendants ever prosecuted for lying about having an affair. Oh, wait. There aren't any other federal defendants ever prosecuted for lying about having an affair. My bad.

earler
February 7th, 2009, 05:06 PM
Judy, there is a distinct difference between someone lying, e.g. clinton saying he had never had sexual relations with that woman, and perjury. As you a lawyer you know that very well. Most federal defendents, if they are smart, avoid perjury in their testimony, since they might get a few more years in prison if convicted of that offense, too.

Federal defendents are prosecuted for one or more reasons. I rather doubt that perjury is among the most frequent of them. Clinton was never indicted for lying about his relationship with miss lewinsky. I know of no one who has been indicted, much less convicted, for lying, unless it under oath.

rlohmann
February 7th, 2009, 05:06 PM
What you fail to acknowledge, even now, is that what Clinton did had very little to do with his performance as President. Even you can't say that about Bush.
This is undeniable. However, does not that "performance as President" include his actions in his capacity as Chief Magistrate of the United States.

Put another way, is not an act of perjury part and parcel of his performance as President?

Give reasons for your answer.

earler
February 7th, 2009, 05:43 PM
Perjury, "for covering up adultery", is always punished, if indicted and convicted, but usually by a state or local court. Clinton's perjury was a federal offense.

Judy G. Russell
February 7th, 2009, 10:47 PM
Perjury, "for covering up adultery", is always punished, if indicted and convicted, but usually by a state or local court. Clinton's perjury was a federal offense.The operative words here are "if indicted and convicted." Ralph and I went round and round on this back when, and I did a fair amount of research and found that the vast majority of cases that had resulted in indictments and convictions for perjury were from perjury in criminal cases. I couldn't find any that had resulting from lying about sex in a civil case.

Judy G. Russell
February 7th, 2009, 10:52 PM
his capacity as Chief Magistrate of the United StatesSay what? A magistrate is a judicial officer, not an executive officer. If you mean "chief law enforcer," that's another kettle of fish. However, I still would treat the president, and any other official, by the same standards every other American is treated by, and as you well know (since we went round and round about this back then and I did the research), we simply do not prosecute people for perjury for lying about sex in a civil case.

Mike
February 10th, 2009, 02:30 AM
:cool:

Lindsey
February 11th, 2009, 12:21 AM
The operative words here are "if indicted and convicted." Ralph and I went round and round on this back when, and I did a fair amount of research and found that the vast majority of cases that had resulted in indictments and convictions for perjury were from perjury in criminal cases. I couldn't find any that had resulting from lying about sex in a civil case.

It is interesting to me that that although sanctioning torture is a federal crime (a far more heinous one, to my mind, than being overly clever with word parsing related to a civil case in a way that was not material to its outcome anyway), I don't hear any calls here for anyone in the Bush administration to be prosecuted for it...

Lindsey
February 11th, 2009, 12:25 AM
I voted--probably to no one's surprise--for McCain, but Obama's election appears to indicate a rejection by the electorate of the wacko-fundamentalist approach (which McCain didn't support, either, BTW).


Ralph! I was afraid you had gotten lost somewhere in the marshes along the Chesapeake Bay!

(Why am I not suprised that you were not especially enamored of Gov. Mooseburger? I don't guess you were too thrilled with Joe the Plumber--uh, Country Singer--uh, War Correspondant--uh, Political Consultant, either, huh?)

Judy G. Russell
February 11th, 2009, 10:22 AM
It is interesting to me that that although sanctioning torture is a federal crime (a far more heinous one, to my mind, than being overly clever with word parsing related to a civil case in a way that was not material to its outcome anyway), I don't hear any calls here for anyone in the Bush administration to be prosecuted for it...Hey, gutting the Constitution and killing off thousands of Americans (and God only knows how many Iraqis) in an unjust war... that's just politics. But lying about sex! Omigod! The Republic is in danger of collapse!

rlohmann
February 11th, 2009, 04:05 PM
Say what? A magistrate is a judicial officer, not an executive officer.
That usage dates from the first quarter of the 20th Century, if not earlier. Before that, a "magistrate" had, in western societies, a mixture of executive and judicial powers. The usage persisted well into the 20th Century. The best evidence of that is the publication in 1916 of the book by former President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft entitled "Our Chief Magistrate and His Powers."
If you mean "chief law enforcer," that's another kettle of fish. See above.
However, I still would treat the president, and any other official, by the same standards every other American is treated by, and as you well know (since we went round and round about this back then and I did the research), we simply do not prosecute people for perjury for lying about sex in a civil case.Caveant omnes!

We do not prosecute people for perjury for lying about sex in a civil case for reasons of judicial economy. The judges of the realm simply have too heavy a workload to deal with pecadillos.

The offense here, however--and the effort to obscure it must have cost the taxpayers gazillions of dollars--was not adultery, or sexual battery, or extortion, but common-law perjury.

Please explain why it was not?

rlohmann
February 11th, 2009, 04:33 PM
Ralph! I was afraid you had gotten lost somewhere in the marshes along the Chesapeake Bay!
Wrong side of the Delmarva Peninsula. <sneering amiably> My greatest fear is of sea monsters from the Atlantic, from which my office is about 200 meters. :)
(Why am I not suprised that you were not especially enamored of Gov. Mooseburger? I don't guess you were too thrilled with Joe the Plumber--uh, Country Singer--uh, War Correspondant--uh, Political Consultant, either, huh?)That is true, to some extent, but I am even more delighted by President Obama's designation of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of state. See http://thehill.com/dick-morris/hillarys-incredible-shrinking-role-2009-02-09.html

I also think--quite seriously--that those who were out of power for eight years are now confronted with the reality of exercising it. In that context, their manichean perceptions of Bush as the embodiment of evil and his policies as quasi-fascist are being mugged by reality.

Judy G. Russell
February 11th, 2009, 04:52 PM
The best evidence of that is the publication in 1916 of the book Even you weren't around in 1916.

We do not prosecute people for perjury for lying about sex in a civil case The reasons don't matter: you've finally finally admitted it -- "We do not prosecute people for perjury for lying about sex in a civil case". Yet it appears to drive you wild, even now, all these years later, that Clinton was treated exactly as we treat all other folks.

Dan in Saint Louis
February 11th, 2009, 05:18 PM
the effort to obscure it must have cost the taxpayers gazillions of dollars
Or was it the effort to PROSECUTE it that cost gazillions?

Lindsey
February 11th, 2009, 10:35 PM
Wrong side of the Delmarva Peninsula. <sneering amiably> My greatest fear is of sea monsters from the Atlantic, from which my office is about 200 meters. :)

Oh, my! If I had realized that, I'd have been even more concerned, but then I imagine the sea monsters aren't exactly eager to take on the Marchgrave. ;)

See http://thehill.com/dick-morris/hillarys-incredible-shrinking-role-2009-02-09.html

Forgive me, I do occasionally read articles from The Hill, but I'm really not interested in anything Dick Morris has to say.

I also think--quite seriously--that those who were out of power for eight years are now confronted with the reality of exercising it. In that context, their manichean perceptions of Bush as the embodiment of evil and his policies as quasi-fascist are being mugged by reality.

I see it as a problem of unringing the bell as much as anything else. Once a thing is done, it is often not possible to completely undo it, or even to undo very much of it at all, even though it would have been perfectly possible not to have done it in the first place without suffering any adverse effects, or at least not any worse ones than the original action did.

Judy G. Russell
February 11th, 2009, 11:58 PM
Or was it the effort to PROSECUTE it that cost gazillions?Considering that he paid for his own defense, it sure as heck didn't cost the taxpayers anything to DEFEND it.

earler
February 12th, 2009, 01:26 PM
On the contrary, judy, see the following:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFDC143FF93BA25751C0A96E9582 60

and

http://www.slate.com/id/1001966/

There are many other instances of perjury being prosecuted in civil cases.

rlohmann
February 12th, 2009, 04:18 PM
Even you weren't around in 1916. Yeah, well, but I was in spirit.
The reasons don't matter: you've finally finally admitted it -- "We do not prosecute people for perjury for lying about sex in a civil case". Yet it appears to drive you wild, even now, all these years later, that Clinton was treated exactly as we treat all other folks.
And you, in equating the substance of an offense with the practical realities of judicial economy, have conclusively admitted that OFPaLotFW did, in fact and in law, commit perjury.

The prosecution rests.

rlohmann
February 12th, 2009, 04:21 PM
Or was it the effort to PROSECUTE it that cost gazillions?Good question. See my response to Judy, who has finally conceded that he did the deed. The gazillions were spent to overcome the Clintonian attempts to conceal the corpus delicti.

sidney
February 12th, 2009, 04:35 PM
On the contrary, judy, see the following:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFDC143FF93BA25751C0A96E9582 60

and

http://www.slate.com/id/1001966/

There are many other instances of perjury being prosecuted in civil cases.

Aside from "eight" out of tens of thousands (or even the unlisted 25 out of possibly hundreds of thousands in the sloppier Washington Post reference) not being "many", I find the second link (in Slate) particularly convincing. The author in the Slate article does a good job in the third paragraph of totally dismantling the arguments in the NYT piece. He then goes on in the last paragraph to demonstrate just how far you have to reach and how specious an argument you need if you want to present an implication that Clinton should have been prosecuted for perjury. After presenting solid reasons to dismiss all the other cases as not being analogous to the Clinton case, he describes one final case, then dismissively ascribes to "Clinton supporters" the reasonable arguments as to why it also is not analogous. His closing logical falacies are not ones that would have to be believed by all except "Clinton supporters". Presumably were at least a few people who would not call themselves supporters of Clinton who are capable of logical deduction. In case the falacies at the end are not clear:

One reply is that, even if prosecutions for lying in a civil case are rare and somewhat random, it's not up to the liars to decide what lies are prosecuted

When did this question have anything to do with "the liar" deciding what should be prosecuted? This was about other people criticizing the prosecutors for taking an unusual and unjustifiable action that would not normally be done in an ordinary case, for purely political reasons. Changing the subject does not address the question.

Another reply is that it's not unreasonable to hold the president of the United States to a higher standard than the ordinary citizen.

It's interesting trying to express the logical fallacy here. Obviously it is reasonable to hold the President of the United States to a higher standard than we hold the ordinary citizen. (Although where was that sentiment amongst the Bush supporters who voted for him because he was the kind of guy you would have a beer with and not one of those elite intellectuals who believe in thinking about things?). I think the key to the fallacy is that the statement provides no guidance as to what is and what is not justifiable as a higher standard to which a President should be held.

rlohmann
February 12th, 2009, 04:35 PM
Oh, my! If I had realized that, I'd have been even more concerned, but then I imagine the sea monsters aren't exactly eager to take on the Marchgrave. ;)They aren't. They know better.
Forgive me, I do occasionally read articles from The Hill, but I'm really not interested in anything Dick Morris has to say.Perhaps, but can you dispute the reality of what he describes? Hillary has truly been sidetracked. Whether this is for good or for ill is obviously disputable, but sidetracked she has been.

My perception is that this has been to the benefit of the Republic.

YMMV. :->

rlohmann
February 12th, 2009, 04:40 PM
On the contrary, judy, see the following:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFDC143FF93BA25751C0A96E9582 60

and

http://www.slate.com/id/1001966/

Interesting references. However, as I pointed out in my note to Judy, she conceded--perhaps unwittingly--his perjury.

Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

Judy G. Russell
February 12th, 2009, 05:30 PM
And you, in equating the substance of an offense with the practical realities of judicial economy, have conclusively admitted that OFPaLotFW did, in fact and in law, commit perjury.Nope. Just making the point arguendo that even if it was perjury so what? I didn't think the lie was all that material then, I certainly don't now. Especially now, all these years later, just who the hell cares? Besides you and Earle and Rush Limbaugh, that is.

Judy G. Russell
February 12th, 2009, 05:38 PM
There are many other instances of perjury being prosecuted in civil cases.Sure there are some (not many, but some) other instances of perjury being prosecuted in civil cases.

My point was that we do not prosecute people for lying about sex in civil cases. You came up with -- count 'em -- exactly ONE case, where the lie was specifically and precisely as to the single issue in the civil case -- whether a psychiatrist had had sex with the patient who was suing her. There are so many distinctions between that one case and Clinton's case and the way we treat lying about sex in civil cases generally that I'm not even going to bother to list them.

rlohmann
February 12th, 2009, 06:58 PM
even if it was perjury so what?The prosecution rests, once again sneering amiably in the process.

The locution "so what" appears to acknowledge the concept of "perjury lite," the legal ramifications of which have yet to be explored.

We here at the Legal Department of the VRWC caution the citizens to await judicial construction of the expression "so what" in conjunction with perjury lite.

We ourselves, perhaps out of an excess of vast right-wing caution, urge those selfsame citizens not to commit perjury until the courts of the realm clarify the concept.

Our breath is baited.

Dan in Saint Louis
February 12th, 2009, 08:12 PM
Good question. See my response to Judy, who has finally conceded that he did the deed. The gazillions were spent to overcome the Clintonian attempts to conceal the corpus delicti.
And would gazillions be spent if it were you, or me, or the president of France, or the Prime Minister of Israel, or ..... ?

Mike
February 13th, 2009, 02:04 AM
Our breath is baited.
With what?

ndebord
February 13th, 2009, 10:02 AM
And would gazillions be spent if it were you, or me, or the president of France, or the Prime Minister of Israel, or ..... ?

Dan,

Clinton 'spent' gadzillions? At his age, I'd be very much surprised!


<g,d&r>

Judy G. Russell
February 13th, 2009, 12:50 PM
Our breath is baited.With worms, I assume?

rlohmann
February 13th, 2009, 03:03 PM
With what?
Vast Right-Wing garlic. :->

rlohmann
February 13th, 2009, 03:17 PM
With worms, I assume?

See my response to Nancy Pelosi's next-door neighbor <sneering appropriately>

rlohmann
February 13th, 2009, 07:16 PM
:cool:
You may rise

--
My Grace

Mike
February 13th, 2009, 10:11 PM
Vast Right-Wing garlic. :->
Sounds good, especially when sauteed in a little butter.

Mike
February 13th, 2009, 10:13 PM
See my response to Nancy Pelosi's next-door neighbor <sneering appropriately>
I did not vote for that woman.

You, OTOH, went to high school with her.

Judy G. Russell
February 13th, 2009, 10:14 PM
Sounds good, especially when sauteed in a little butter.Ooooh... or roasted and spread on toast.

Mike
February 13th, 2009, 10:14 PM
You may rise
Consider me arisen.

Mike
February 13th, 2009, 10:16 PM
Ooooh... or roasted and spread on toast.
I could go for that!

rlohmann
February 16th, 2009, 06:11 PM
I did not vote for that woman.Good. We the representatives of Truth, Justice, and the American Way appreciate your wise choice.

You, OTOH, went to high school with her.Did not.

In the Baltimore, Maryland (pronounced then, as now, "Ball'mur Murrl'n") of the 1950s, the Catholic high schools--like many of the public high schools--were segregated by sex. Her school was about two miles away from mine. I assume that her thought processes then, as now, were light-years away from mine.

rlohmann
February 16th, 2009, 06:21 PM
Ralph,

I would say he's much more akin to the "dog" found in a Kaiser roll...

;-)

Maybe, maybe not.

I maintain my personal dislike, but the Obama administration, which during the election campaign highlighted the general aversion to Bush, now seems to be somewhat bogged down in the process of translating that dislike into an active reorientation.

All of a sudden, it doesn't seem possible to close Gitmo Bay by next Thursday.

Imagine my surprise.

rlohmann
February 16th, 2009, 06:28 PM
Ralph,

Think of the origin of the Neo-Cons. My college, Shepherd Hall... Trots, Lenninsts... those that abandoned the orthodoxy of Marxism-Lenninism, turned right and eventually found themselves a new nich as Neo-Cons. (I didn't mean de Toqueville, rather Woodrow Wilson and his naive belief that he could reform the world, post WWI. A dangerous man and his followers and descendents reconfigured with the oddest of bedfellows.) Kristol, Strauss...I'm not sure I understand that.

ndebord
February 16th, 2009, 11:43 PM
I'm not sure I understand that.

Ralph,

C'mon, you never heard of the gang that hung out in Alcove 6 at CCNY?

(Hint... the son of one of them just got fired as a columnist at the NY TImes.)

When I attended CCNY and had to take courses in addition to doing 'Nam veteran stuff, the profs were a fountain of gossip about the good old days in the 30s before WWII and the origins of modern day political cults, like the Neo-Cons and their roots at various physical locaitons where they hung out in Shepherd Hall. Trots, Lenninsts, SDs... etc.

Lindsey
February 17th, 2009, 01:46 AM
Obviously it is reasonable to hold the President of the United States to a higher standard than we hold the ordinary citizen.

Well, I don't know. I suppose it is reasonable to expect a higher standard of behavior from elected officials than from the average guy on the street (thought I suppose one could question why this expectation is reasonable, given that it is so often disappointed), but when they fail to meet that expectation, I don't see any reason they should have to meet a higher standard of law than anyone else. Their position should not entitle them to special favors from the law, but neither should it subject them to any greater disfavor. The law is the law, and it should work the same for everyone.

Lindsey
February 17th, 2009, 01:54 AM
Perhaps, but can you dispute the reality of what he describes? Hillary has truly been sidetracked. Whether this is for good or for ill is obviously disputable, but sidetracked she has been.

I haven't read the article, and I don't intend to. Dick Morris is not a reliable source when it comes to the Clintons; I'm not sure he is reliable on anything else, either.

But if he's saying that Hillary Clinton has been sidetracked by being made Secretary of State -- well, that is certainly a form of sidetracking that many can only dream of reaching!

I dunno; I would have liked her to remain in the Senate, because I think she would have been able to have had a career there for as long as she wanted, and I think she could well have filled Ted Kennedy's shoes as the Lion of the Senate. OTOH, the atmosphere on Capitol Hill has become toxic over the last couple of decades. Could be that's not a place that promises to be an enjoyable place to spend a long career any more, and maybe she felt she'd be better able to leave her mark on the world in the State Department.

Mike
February 17th, 2009, 02:33 AM
Did not. ... Her school was about two miles away from mine.
How did you know her in the 1950s?

earler
February 17th, 2009, 10:37 AM
Hillary was sidetracked in the sense she has grand, glorious post as secretary of state while foreign policy is set at the white house and someone else was sent to the middle east and yet another to europe. Hillary won't be the first to occupy that post and be frustrated by the fact she has little real power. Her frustration, our relief.

ndebord
February 17th, 2009, 05:09 PM
Hillary was sidetracked in the sense she has grand, glorious post as secretary of state while foreign policy is set at the white house and someone else was sent to the middle east and yet another to europe. Hillary won't be the first to occupy that post and be frustrated by the fact she has little real power. Her frustration, our relief.

Earle,

You mistake the office. You send envoys (or consuls if you prefer the reference) to trouble spots like the Middle East, so if things go soft you can always blame it on them and not be beholden or hostage to a policy that didn't work or never was expected to. You send the Secretary of State to your primary trade partner first: (this time, for the first time, Asia, not Europe).

rlohmann
February 17th, 2009, 05:51 PM
Ralph,

C'mon, you never heard of the gang that hung out in Alcove 6 at CCNY?
(Hint... the son of one of them just got fired as a columnist at the NY TImes.)
Wasn't CCNY where Bella Abzug went? Several of us from Johns Hopkins would occasionally hang out at the Washington Square/NYU milieu, but my only recollections of CCNY are a vaguely flamboyant-gothic building way uptown and, I believe, some connection with Bella Abzug, beside whom even Lindsey comes across as a VRW Conspiratress.
When I attended CCNY and had to take courses in addition to doing 'Nam veteran stuff, the profs were a fountain of gossip about the good old days in the 30s before WWII and the origins of modern day political cults, like the Neo-Cons and their roots at various physical locations where they hung out in Shepherd Hall. Trots, Lenninsts, SDs... etc.Le plus ça change....

<sneering complacently>

rlohmann
February 17th, 2009, 05:54 PM
See Earle's comment, to which I have nothing to add.

ndebord
February 18th, 2009, 10:01 AM
Wasn't CCNY where Bella Abzug went? Several of us from Johns Hopkins would occasionally hang out at the Washington Square/NYU milieu, but my only recollections of CCNY are a vaguely flamboyant-gothic building way uptown and, I believe, some connection with Bella Abzug, beside whom even Lindsey comes across as a VRW Conspiratress.
Le plus ça change....

<sneering complacently>

Ralph,

Since the last 8 years were orchestrated by those youngsters who evolved out of Alcove 6, I would think that most conservatives would be familiar with the origins of the Neo-Con cult which has managed in a few short years to reduce the Republican Party to its new place in the political landscape as a rump party located regionally somewhat south of the Mason-Dixon line.

I vaguely recall that John Hopkins is located somewhat west of Fells Point, where the mussels are great at Bertha's, no?

Le plus elles restent les mêmes

earler
February 18th, 2009, 10:40 AM
True enough, but the sec'y of state can be neutralized, as was the case with many in the past when the white house pulls the strings. Those envoys I mentioned, by the way, were sent by the white house, not by the department of state. Hillary knows nothing about foreign policy, just as she knew nothing about medical care systems when she undertook that ridiculous plan she tried to foist on the public early on during her husband's first term.

ndebord
February 18th, 2009, 05:54 PM
True enough, but the sec'y of state can be neutralized, as was the case with many in the past when the white house pulls the strings. Those envoys I mentioned, by the way, were sent by the white house, not by the department of state. Hillary knows nothing about foreign policy, just as she knew nothing about medical care systems when she undertook that ridiculous plan she tried to foist on the public early on during her husband's first term.

Earle,

Those envoys ARE always sent by the White House, not the State Department precisely to insulate policy: I know it sounds ass backwards, but the theory goes that envoys can easily be disavowed while State has cachet and you don't want your official policy to be subject to intolerable or perhaps unwinnable positions. You can always disavow an envoy!

(Another way to say this, is to simply point out that not everything in the world is about the CLINTONS. This has nothing to do with her abilities or lack therein. The envoys are ENSIGNS: eminently disposable.)

rlohmann
February 18th, 2009, 06:30 PM
Since the last 8 years were orchestrated by those youngsters who evolved out of Alcove 6

Please excuse my failure to recognize the reference to "Alcove 6." I take it to be a location--physical or imaginary--at CCNY, but as I noted earlier, CCNY was not one of my watering holes.
I vaguely recall that John Hopkins is located somewhat west of Fells Point, where the mussels are great at Bertha's, no? It's Johns Hopkins.

Le plus elles restent les mêmes Um... les mêmes et ...? (On faire attendre.)

--
Mon Seigneur

sidney
February 18th, 2009, 06:41 PM
It's Johns Hopkins

My son and daughter have been taking remote learning math and science courses from Johns Hopkins through their Center for Talented Youth program. I've never visited the campus, but my interaction with those people does leave me with warm fuzzies for the school.

-- sidney

ndebord
February 19th, 2009, 12:31 AM
Please excuse my failure to recognize the reference to "Alcove 6." I take it to be a location--physical or imaginary--at CCNY, but as I noted earlier, CCNY was not one of my watering holes.
It's Johns Hopkins.

Um... les mêmes et ...? (On faire attendre.)

--
Mon Seigneur

Pardon my French, not so good I'm afraid.

John... Johns..., whatever. As today's "conservatives" lurched overseas in expansionary fantasies under the influence of neo-cons who were launched in Alcove 6, some small awareness of CCNY and Alcove 6 might come in handy.

earler
February 19th, 2009, 06:09 AM
Yes, the white house sends them, but sometimes the dept. of state isn't even consulted. One example of that in recent history was kissinger under nixon. He called the shots while national security adviser, only later becoming sec'y of state.

ndebord
February 19th, 2009, 09:35 AM
Yes, the white house sends them, but sometimes the dept. of state isn't even consulted. One example of that in recent history was kissinger under nixon. He called the shots while national security adviser, only later becoming sec'y of state.

earle,

Well, Kissinger was a different story being the NSA guy. Much closer to the Prez and less deniability: which is what you want when you send an envoy: "I'm so sorry, my envoy was an idiot. Let me send someone else over to fix...." <g>

rlohmann
February 21st, 2009, 05:34 PM
My son and daughter have been taking remote learning math and science courses from Johns Hopkins through their Center for Talented Youth program. I've never visited the campus, but my interaction with those people does leave me with warm fuzzies for the school.You may rise. :)

--
My Grace

rlohmann
February 21st, 2009, 05:49 PM
Pardon my French, not so good I'm afraid.Not to worry. Kaiser Wilhelm I and Bismarck both spoke French, but they didn't speak it very well. In the end--in 1871--it didn't matter. Truth, Justice, and the American way triumphed at Sedan.

John... Johns..., whatever.Your indifference to the correct usage has been noted in your dossier, which, as you undoubtedly know, is already bulging with compromising information.

As today's "conservatives" lurched overseas in expansionary fantasies under the influence of neo-cons who were launched in Alcove 6, some small awareness of CCNY and Alcove 6 might come in handy.The reference to "Alcove 6" remains obscure. Does "The DaVinci Code" offer a clue?

You may rise.

--
My Grace

earler
February 22nd, 2009, 11:54 AM
I realize that you'd like for sedantag to continue to be celebrated, but this was abandoned in 1917. Anyway, it was a sad day. Truth, justice and the american way didn't prevail. By the way, what did the american way have to do with the battle of sedan? Oh yes, the battle took place in 1870, not 1871.

rlohmann
February 22nd, 2009, 04:31 PM
I realize that you'd like for sedantag to continue to be celebrated, but this was abandoned in 1917. Alas.
Anyway, it was a sad day. Well, that depends on which side of the Rhein you're standing on. :-)
Truth, justice and the american way didn't prevail. By the way, what did the american way have to do with the battle of sedan? Quest-ce qu'on va dire? Truth, Justice, and the American Way did indeed prevail in Central Europe at all times material from the Maas to the Memel, and from the South Tirol to the Baltic Sea, until the succession to the throne of Wilhelm II (Wilhelm the Idiot), when Germany went down the toilet.
Oh yes, the battle took place in 1870, not 1871.
You're correct, of course. I had been thinking of the events of 1871 in the galerie des glaces.

earler
February 22nd, 2009, 04:46 PM
Bear in mind that serfdom existed in much of central europe, even through much of the 19th century. And, it was great britain that was the most advanced country in europe.

The real problem was the massacre of king louis xvi, who inherited the disasters that louis xiv had inflicted. Alas, his great grandson, louis xv was not enough better, so poor louis paid the price.

Finally, if the french had respected the treaty of troyes (1422), all those problems wouldn't have occurred and Elizabeth Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg Saxe Coburg und Gotha would be reigning in paris.

rlohmann
March 11th, 2009, 07:02 PM
What you fail to acknowledge, even now, is that what Clinton did had very little to do with his performance as President. Even you can't say that about Bush.(I missed this one and offer a belated response.)

Um... what about the part of the oath of office that ends up with "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States"? Assuming that perjury violates the Constitution (and if you think it doesn't, give extensively documented reasons for your answer), what is the basis for your assertion that "what Clinton did had very little to do with his performance as President"?

The world wonders.

Judy G. Russell
March 11th, 2009, 10:57 PM
Assuming that perjury violates the Constitution...Huh? Oh my gosh! It's unconstitutional to commit a crime! It's unconstitutional to spit on the sidewalk! Oh please... gimme a break. You persist in dredging up ancient history and you simply will not focus on the nature of the lie here. Frankly, you'd be on far stronger ground if he'd lied about his taxes, or about your taxes. But as a married man he lied about having an affair! Oh my gosh! A huge percentage of the male population of the country has violated the constitution! Call out the National Guard, but not, of course, any married male member of the Guard who has ever lied about having an affair...

earler
March 12th, 2009, 06:47 PM
Judy, it wasn't just a lie but a lie under oath, i.e. perjury a criminal offense. Not a few people do time for such a felony.

Judy G. Russell
March 12th, 2009, 11:49 PM
Judy, it wasn't just a lie but a lie under oath, i.e. perjury a criminal offense. Not a few people do time for such a felony.Rarely, very very very rarely, when the lie is under oath in a civil proceeding involving purely civil allegations. It's essentially unheard of, except in very unusual cases. This was pure garden variety civil perjury, which is dealt with in the civil case itself (plus he did lose his law license, so he hardly got off scot free).

earler
March 13th, 2009, 07:57 AM
Point taken. But, when the president of the usa commits perjury the garden is somewhat different. Nixon risked impeachment, but he never committed perjury while in office (and probably not afterwards either).

ndebord
March 13th, 2009, 11:51 AM
Point taken. But, when the president of the usa commits perjury the garden is somewhat different. Nixon risked impeachment, but he never committed perjury while in office (and probably not afterwards either).

Earle,

The man enjoyed a sexual indiscretion (as one side of my family would call it). Get over it. If you wish to hold a grudge against any living president, make it George W. Bush... and the charge would be treason.

earler
March 13th, 2009, 05:50 PM
It ain't the discretion that counts here. After all, he wasn't the first president who is guilty of that offense. But none of the others were found guilty of criminal perjury.

I wasn't a fan of the predecessor to mr. obama. But to say he comitted treason is over the top.

Did you know that President Obama signed the stimulus package at the same desk where President Clinton got his package stimulated?

rlohmann
March 13th, 2009, 06:00 PM
But as a married man he lied about having an affair! That response is pure casuistry, and you know it.

The context of the discovery in which he lied was Paula Jones' action against him. Six or seven years ago, in the old CompuServe Bar Room, I did a tedious analysis of Judge Susan Wright's tedious definition of "sexual contact." (I may have it on a CD buried someplace. If I find it, I'll post it here.)

The point was not whether he'd had an affair or not; he wasn't impeached for having an affair. He was impeached for, among many other things, lying under oath in a judicial proceeding. (You may recall that Judge Wright found him in civil contempt in 1999 for his testimony at the Jones trial.)

(Obiter, I find it strange that anyone with even mild feminist sympathies would ignore the injury to Paula Jones, a low-level employee of the State of Arkansas, who was, according to substantially uncontradicted testimony, brought to the Governor's hotel room by an Arkansas State policeman, whereat the governor removed his trousers and demanded oral sex.)

Why do all of the Clinton defenders persist in ignoring this?

The world wonders.

rlohmann
March 13th, 2009, 06:06 PM
(plus he did lose his law license, so he hardly got off scot free). I'm sure the pain of losing it afflicts him to this very day. He's certainly running about in sackcloth and ashes bewailing his loss.

He certainly deserves your deepest sympathy. :->

rlohmann
March 13th, 2009, 06:13 PM
It is time for this Pentagon to cancel a couple of big ticket failures and buy the troops a new rifle.I fired expert with the M-1, but couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with the M-14.

And it would be a miracle if we can do what neither Alexandar the Great, the Brits, the Ruskies and who knows who else could NOT do, which is conquer the Pushtans.We find ourselves here in unaccustomed, but depressing, agreement.

earler
March 13th, 2009, 06:53 PM
More likely, ralph, he dropped his trousers. No need to remove them for what he was demanding.

ndebord
March 13th, 2009, 10:42 PM
I fired expert with the M-1, but couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with the M-14.

We find ourselves here in unaccustomed, but depressing, agreement.

Ralph,

I fired expert with the M-14... really just an M-1 with a large clip. Can't fire it on auto and expect to hit anything. If you were real gentle with it and let off a 3 round burst, maybe you could hit something, or you had the arm of Paul Bunyon and could hold the thing down... Never fired the Garard, though my Uncle carried one instead of the carbine in Korea, as he hated the carbine and carried a Colt and the rifle instead (as a Lt, later Cpt).

The punjabis have to figure out how to deal with the pushtus... if not, then all hope is lost imo.

Judy G. Russell
March 13th, 2009, 10:52 PM
Why do all of the Clinton defenders persist in ignoring this?I don't think they do ignore it. The question is not whether what he did is despicable. The question was (note the past tense, which is where this entire discussion belongs) whether he should be removed as President. You say yes, the Senate said no, case closed.

ndebord
March 13th, 2009, 11:02 PM
It ain't the discretion that counts here. After all, he wasn't the first president who is guilty of that offense. But none of the others were found guilty of criminal perjury.

I wasn't a fan of the predecessor to mr. obama. But to say he comitted treason is over the top.

Did you know that President Obama signed the stimulus package at the same desk where President Clinton got his package stimulated?

Earle,

What I find disturbing is your obsession with things Clinton... As for Bush, when I catalogue the litany of ills he left us with, criminal perjury would be the least of his crimes. We are left with a heightened war with a terrorist organization because of his missteps...

Lindsey
March 14th, 2009, 01:00 AM
As for Bush, when I catalogue the litany of ills he left us with, criminal perjury would be the least of his crimes.

There were more than just Scooter Libbie who lied about the Bush administration's involvement in the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity, and yes, I think it is very possible that one of them was George W. Bush. That disclosure alone was a far more serious thing than any of Bill Clinton's misdeeds.

earler
March 14th, 2009, 09:29 AM
Please name which crimes for which obama's immediate predecessor has been indicted or even been arraigned.

ndebord
March 14th, 2009, 10:24 AM
Please name which crimes for which obama's immediate predecessor has been indicted or even been arraigned.

Earle,

Perhaps you should let sleeping dogs lie... Let's recap where GWB left us: two unfinished wars, a depression and, oh yes, a list of assaults against the Constitution that would fill a silo. Will he be indicted? Don't know. Should he be indicted? Yes. Is Obama being smart in avoiding recriminations? Considering what is on his plate, a qualified yes.

earler
March 14th, 2009, 12:09 PM
While one can blame bush for bungling the aftermath of the occupation of iraq, the afghan situation isn't his fault.

In either case there is nothing in the federal statutes that could justify an indictment.

The recession/depression isn't his fault either. it resulted from policies of both his and clinton's administrations, plus the fact that the usa has been living on borrowing for far too long. Last year french personal debt was 50% of income. In the states it was 117%. The difference is about the same with other european countries. For the last 40 years americans have been encouraged to overspend, and they have done so.

I'm surprised you don't blame bush for the spread of aids and ebola, too.

ndebord
March 14th, 2009, 03:42 PM
While one can blame bush for bungling the aftermath of the occupation of iraq, the afghan situation isn't his fault.

In either case there is nothing in the federal statutes that could justify an indictment.

The recession/depression isn't his fault either. it resulted from policies of both his and clinton's administrations, plus the fact that the usa has been living on borrowing for far too long. Last year french personal debt was 50% of income. In the states it was 117%. The difference is about the same with other european countries. For the last 40 years americans have been encouraged to overspend, and they have done so.

I'm surprised you don't blame bush for the spread of aids and ebola, too.

Earle,

You dance around a subject, like a flea in a circus. The aftermath in Iraq? How about initiating the war itself. (The longterm implications of Iraq are another kettle of fish.)

Ginning up a war by falsifying intelligence is not a crime? A preemptive war? I think it is, and I'll start looking for precedent to prove it.

As for the Depression, you, I, every American is in part responsible for it, aside from arcane economists with their long wave theory of bust and boom. But Bush, in 8 years, was the "crony" President and his idea of government was merely an elaboration of Norquist's famous quote: "(reduce government) down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub...." And regulations. As for regulation repeal, thank Newt and the Republican majority for that, along with a spineless or perhaps too pragmatic Clinton who went along. Not that he had a choice. Vetoes overturned showed him the wisdom of going along to get along. The Republicans (you know the so-called "permanent Republican Majority" touted by Rove) could get anything they wanted in the flush of victory and killing off regulations, any regulations was at the top of their list. By the time Bush came around, it was "no government, all the time..." (Got a problem with that? Talk to your parish priest... shades of Brit poorhouse policy.)

So if you want to blame any one political party for the ills we suffer today, my primary focus would be on the old, true conservative Republicans who failed to step forward and criticize their own compadres: fellow Republicaitons who wallowed in corruption and ran things for 12 years until the Democratic revivial in 2008.

P.S. As I reread your post, I'm getting quite heated with your assertion that Afghanistan was not Bush's error. Pulling the 10th Mountain out, not putting enough troops in, when Bin Laden was almost within our grasp... We had a chance there to end his mysticism and we took our eyes off the ball. And now another few thousand Americans are going to die in Afghanistan and we'll be lucky if we don't destabilize what is left of Pakistant while we're at it and then, who gets the Nukes? Let us hope the Pushtu do not, nor radical elements in the ISI.

earler
March 14th, 2009, 08:44 PM
There were good reasons to rid iraq of saddam hussein. Things would have got worse if his elder son had succeeded him, too. Unfortunately, the afterward was what was poorly planned and implemented.

As for afghanistan, the british and french don't agree with you. They have troops there, too. The error was one made when the mujaddin were armed so they could rid the country of the soviets. That was done long before bush.

There are many things I could fault george w. bush for, but the burst bubble can't be one of them. It was heading in that direction beginning in the 1990s, which further encouraged americans to overspend. Faulty controls of financial markets predated the bush years, too.

ndebord
March 15th, 2009, 11:21 AM
There were good reasons to rid iraq of saddam hussein. Things would have got worse if his elder son had succeeded him, too. Unfortunately, the afterward was what was poorly planned and implemented.

As for afghanistan, the british and french don't agree with you. They have troops there, too. The error was one made when the mujaddin were armed so they could rid the country of the soviets. That was done long before bush.

There are many things I could fault george w. bush for, but the burst bubble can't be one of them. It was heading in that direction beginning in the 1990s, which further encouraged americans to overspend. Faulty controls of financial markets predated the bush years, too.

Earle,

??? the British and French don't agree with ME?? About what (you make ZERO sense here)? How was it that you don't get that the Iraq War meant we pulled our troops out of Afghanistan precisely when we needed them the most (who else but our mountain troops and our special forces were both trained and experienced enough to fight in the Hindu Kush?). What do you the Brits and the French have to do with that? NATO (which means Dutch and German and Polish and others also) has had troops there since we went in. As for the mujaddin and Charlie Wilson... not an error, as we were at war with Russia and pulling the Bear's teeth was payback for what they did to us in 'Nam, not to mention if they had won in Afghanistan, Pakistan was next on the list. And China, lest we forget, was helping fight the Russians too there. After all, controlling their borders means Russia and India and China has done that more than once with little-known (in the Western media) border wars to some good effect.

Back to Charlie Wilson's war... He said after the Russians withdrew that it was in our best interest to invest in Afghanistan to prevent the country from being destabilized by the Taliban. We had the opportunity to prevent the country's fall into 9th century rule, if only we were not penny wise and pound foolish. That was a bipartisan failure, but, it was your boy Reagan who let the ball slip through his grasp then. And the continuation of aid then, would have lessened the chances of future entanglements. (Caveat: no outsider has every managed to, ah, "manage" Afghanistan.)

As for the burst bubble, yes, years of financial misconduct and an America living high off the hog since 1945 helped lead to the debacle... but history will say about GWB what they said about Hoover... it was Hoover's Depression (if it turns out that this Recession goes that bad, it will be Bush's Depression).

If the financial sector screwed the pooch, then Bush's deregulatory bias was the enabler for them for eight long years and if you can't blame him for that, then you are looking at his regime with rose-colored glasses and an unwillingness to put blame where blame is due for other reasons, that only you can explain or justify.

earler
March 15th, 2009, 05:41 PM
You are indeed very obdurate. If the occupation of iraq had been handled correctly, far fewer troops would have been required. The first error made was oust all the people involved with the previous government, especially military and police. The next error was to put soldiers to police the cities rather than policemen. They are not the same.

You blame reagan for not following through after the departure of the soviet troops. At that time he had retired and george h. w. bush was president. It was also 12 years before 9/11. The political context wasn't very all that good to take much action. Now that may well have been a mistake. You have perfect 20-20.........hindsight.

As for the 1929 crash, hoover had only been in office for a few months. However, fdr, a consummate politician above all, tagged hoover with a blame which wasn't merited. Fdr was also clever in appropriating the rfc, set up by hoover, as his own initiative. In any case, it took the rearmament for the 2nd world war to pull the usa out of the decade long depression.

It is easy to blame gwb for this recession (we all hope it won't be a depression). But, he happened to be there when it occurred. The balloon had become so distended that many people expected a collapse, though virtually not to the extent that it has been so far. Even the sage of obama was caught by it. Bush, or his advisors, saw problems with fannie mae and freddy mac back in 2002; congress would'nt allow him to anything about it.

I don't mean to give obama's predecessor a clean bill. He made a number of mistakes. But he wasn't as bad as those of who foam at the mouth when his name is mentioned.

ndebord
March 15th, 2009, 09:12 PM
You are indeed very obdurate. If the occupation of iraq had been handled correctly, far fewer troops would have been required. The first error made was oust all the people involved with the previous government, especially military and police. The next error was to put soldiers to police the cities rather than policemen. They are not the same.

You blame reagan for not following through after the departure of the soviet troops. At that time he had retired and george h. w. bush was president. It was also 12 years before 9/11. The political context wasn't very all that good to take much action. Now that may well have been a mistake. You have perfect 20-20.........hindsight.

As for the 1929 crash, hoover had only been in office for a few months. However, fdr, a consummate politician above all, tagged hoover with a blame which wasn't merited. Fdr was also clever in appropriating the rfc, set up by hoover, as his own initiative. In any case, it took the rearmament for the 2nd world war to pull the usa out of the decade long depression.

It is easy to blame gwb for this recession (we all hope it won't be a depression). But, he happened to be there when it occurred. The balloon had become so distended that many people expected a collapse, though virtually not to the extent that it has been so far. Even the sage of obama was caught by it. Bush, or his advisors, saw problems with fannie mae and freddy mac back in 2002; congress would'nt allow him to anything about it.

I don't mean to give obama's predecessor a clean bill. He made a number of mistakes. But he wasn't as bad as those of who foam at the mouth when his name is mentioned.

Earle,

Reagan... Bush at the end, neither the President, nor his Vice and successor, nor the Democratics on the Armed Services Committee would invest in the peace after Charlie helped win the war. Both turned their backs on the Afghans and Wilson was there to say that a little investment would go a long way towards stabilizing the country. Was he wrong? Was he naive? Perhaps. Was he Sisyphlus, pushing a task incapable of being fulfilled? We will never know.

As for Iraq. The mistakes are large and clear... with hindsight. But the occupation of Iraq was as poorly handled as was the idea of going in to kill off a tinpot dictator, of which the world has so many. Finish the fight you're in, then fight another, if you can convince the American people that the war is necessary or just. But Bush Jr. ignored a precept that has held good since the Repubic was founded. Don't lie to the American public, as that alone they will not stomach.

What was that cartoon at the time of the invasion? Bush Sr, Bush Jr., and Barbara sitting across each other at the breakfast table. Barbara sitting stonefaced with knife and fork upright, like many a caricature of school children eating. Bush Sr. says "Just because he tried to kill me, doesn't mean you have to invade." Barbara says, "Kill him or no breakfast for you." Going to war on the basis of false declarations (that can be found out), particularly when you let live the modern day equivalent of Admiral Yamamoto, is dangerous foreign policy. If not for Rice's aide stumbling upon the actions of McMaster in one province, Bush would have stuck with Rummie and his policies, and the surge would have never happened. Yet another example of a poor leader employing bad help.

As for putting police to police the cities instead of troops, well now that is that other kettle of fish indeed. The outsourcing of the American Army to Guard and Reserve units was, as you well know, the policy of an Army in retreat after the ravages of VietNam. General Abrams' "Total Force" policy meant the outsourcing of tasks to the Reserves, including, and mark this closely, the Military Police. Some say his goal was to force a future President to mobolize the country if the wish was to fight a war. The end result from a crony President? Halliburton and Blackwater, or its reincarnation "Xe."

earler
March 16th, 2009, 03:34 PM
Saddam hussein may have been a tin pot dictator, but he was also guilty of genocide of both kurds and shiites, and, most important, a central figure for oil in the middle east. He had already tried to conquer iran, but failed, then went after kuwait, with success until the west crushed his troops in a few days. As bad as saddam was, his elder son, was worse, and his advent would made the situation even more dangerous out there.

Of course, the truth is that we ignore some pretty awful dictators, especially in africa, but their countries don't have huge reserves of oil, vital for world economies. Not do they have nuclear weapons or the means of manufacturing them.

Problems with private companies like halliburton or blackwater date way back. Once upon a time halliburton was called brown & root, which had the attentive ear of johnson.

rlohmann
March 16th, 2009, 06:17 PM
More likely, ralph, he dropped his trousers. No need to remove them for what he was demanding.
Good point.

Why some of our good friends of a feminist tilt continue to defend him is unclear.

I have, in the past, have had very few things good to say about Alaric the Visigoth, but, hey, the Senate hasn't had anything bad to say about him, either...

ndebord
March 16th, 2009, 07:29 PM
Saddam hussein may have been a tin pot dictator, but he was also guilty of genocide of both kurds and shiites, and, most important, a central figure for oil in the middle east. He had already tried to conquer iran, but failed, then went after kuwait, with success until the west crushed his troops in a few days. As bad as saddam was, his elder son, was worse, and his advent would made the situation even more dangerous out there.

Of course, the truth is that we ignore some pretty awful dictators, especially in africa, but their countries don't have huge reserves of oil, vital for world economies. Not do they have nuclear weapons or the means of manufacturing them.

Problems with private companies like halliburton or blackwater date way back. Once upon a time halliburton was called brown & root, which had the attentive ear of johnson.

Earle,

Genocide in Africa went unnoticed, but genocide in Iraq was worth an invasion? And the possibility of Saddam's sons inheriting power... at some unspecificied time down the road justified invasion? Or was it as you say, because of "the huge reserves of oil." All of which begs the point. The President faked intelligence to justify a preemptive invasion, while letting the war against terrorism languish in Afghanistan... in effect giving them a free pass to build up their Pushtan infrastructure to the point where Pakistan itself is losing provinces to Taleban ( & Al Qaeda) rule. As for the MIC (Military Industrial Complex), as Eisenhower warned, it has grown to uncontrollable proportions and just goes to prove my revised first axiom: "Never elect a President from Texas."

GWB the worst president ever? Perhaps, but I would settle for listing him in the top or rather bottom 3: Hoover, Harding and Shrub.

earler
March 17th, 2009, 05:50 AM
Genocide and other atrocities in africa have long been well known. Saddam's actions, too. But, as I've said, he sat on oil, and was trying to get nuclear weapons, too.

As for the worst president, well you are probably too young to remember that people were saying that truman, as he left office, was the worst president ever. History will judge bush, as it does for other past presidents. He certainly wasn't a great president. He didn't "fake" intelligence though what was reported was definitely in error. He did some good things, like vastly increasing funds for aids research, however, and he did warn of the problems with fannie and freddie years ago.

As for hoover, well he was pilloried most cleverly by fdr and his minions. He is blamed for the depression which began a few months after he took office. This is as silly as crediting clinton for the prosperity of 90s though he took office as the country was emerging from a serious recession. Because of those famous leads and lags voters didn't see this and clinton squeaked through though he lost the popular vote by a considerable margin.

By the way, most historians agree that james buchanan was the worst president.

ndebord
March 17th, 2009, 09:48 PM
Genocide and other atrocities in africa have long been well known. Saddam's actions, too. But, as I've said, he sat on oil, and was trying to get nuclear weapons, too.

As for the worst president, well you are probably too young to remember that people were saying that truman, as he left office, was the worst president ever. History will judge bush, as it does for other past presidents. He certainly wasn't a great president. He didn't "fake" intelligence though what was reported was definitely in error. He did some good things, like vastly increasing funds for aids research, however, and he did warn of the problems with fannie and freddie years ago.

As for hoover, well he was pilloried most cleverly by fdr and his minions. He is blamed for the depression which began a few months after he took office. This is as silly as crediting clinton for the prosperity of 90s though he took office as the country was emerging from a serious recession. Because of those famous leads and lags voters didn't see this and clinton squeaked through though he lost the popular vote by a considerable margin.

By the way, most historians agree that james buchanan was the worst president.


Earle,

Trying to get nuclear weapons? Rather trying to impress everyone that he was still working on a nuclear weapons program, which he was not and which the international inspectors were proving right up until our invasion.

As for Hoover, he did not have the will nor the vision to try and regulate Wall Street. He was a prisoner of his age (perhaps) and the modern day image of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. As for Bush Senior... ahhh. Did a good job in Kuwait... gets less savory marks for his performance with the Contras (have family on both sides of that conflict). A brahaman trying to fit in with a new social rightwing conservatism and failing in his attempt.

I could well amend my list to include Buchanan.

BUT... once again, you neglect the core issue here, which is Afghanistan/Pakistan. Because of Bush, we have a Mahdi now, whose fame is solidified along with his organization which can now outlast him and a transnational enemy with a secure base of operations inside a nuclear power's boundries, said power unwilling or unable to control their own territory and it did not have to be this way. But I've made my point before in this thread and you have not addressed it in any substantive fashion. I can only speculate that you are indifferent that an American President has gone this far off the reservation.

earler
March 18th, 2009, 05:12 PM
It wasn't just wall street in '29 and no one had the smarts to handle such events in those days. All of the politicians were then prisoners of the age, as those today are prisoners of this age.

As for the contras, well my son lived in nicaragua and I can tell you that the ortegas were no better, and many ways worse then the contras. Have you ever been in nicaragua? I have and can tell you the sandinistas were in many ways worse than the administration they replaced. Somoza was stupid, inept, but he didn't destroy the agriculture of the country as the sandinistas did.

ndebord
March 18th, 2009, 11:23 PM
I
As for the contras, well my son lived in nicaragua and I can tell you that the ortegas were no better, and many ways worse then the contras. Have you ever been in nicaragua? I have and can tell you the sandinistas were in many ways worse than the administration they replaced. Somoza was stupid, inept, but he didn't destroy the agriculture of the country as the sandinistas did.

Earle,

Never said I loved the Sandinistas or any vanguard of the proletariat. Have family there who adopted the Scottish model: one son in the Sandinistas, one in Miami. They kept their coffee plantation (or most of it). As for Somoza, he appropriated upper middle and elite property after the Managua earthquake and so deserved his fall: for when you alienate every class, you have nothing left for support.

ndebord
March 18th, 2009, 11:26 PM
It wasn't just wall street in '29 and no one had the smarts to handle such events in those days. All of the politicians were then prisoners of the age, as those today are prisoners of this age.



Earle,

Certainly did put paid to the lifestyle of the 400 in LI! And in this case, hindsight is golden, but the ability to look back and compare Hoover with Roosevelt begs the question: How could one party so outdo the other unless you would care to call the old Republican thinking of that time hidebound.

ndebord
March 20th, 2009, 12:06 AM
It wasn't just wall street in '29 and no one had the smarts to handle such events in those days. All of the politicians were then prisoners of the age, as those today are prisoners of this age.

As for the contras, well my son lived in nicaragua and I can tell you that the ortegas were no better, and many ways worse then the contras. Have you ever been in nicaragua? I have and can tell you the sandinistas were in many ways worse than the administration they replaced. Somoza was stupid, inept, but he didn't destroy the agriculture of the country as the sandinistas did.

Earle,

From the 50s through the 60s, we used to get 2 50 lb bags of high mountain coffee from our cousins in Nicaragua, one to my father and one to his father. We would run around looking for local roasters!

I'll never forget, in 1963, my gorgeous cousin came north for a visit. Black hair, blue eyes and when she asked how old I was (16), she said 17 and never gave me another glance (it also didn't help that we had a Buick in the driveway and she drove up in a Mercedes.) <delayed sob>

earler
March 20th, 2009, 08:58 AM
Somoza was inept and corrupt. Those brick roads still exist and they are most dangerous due to their slipperiness. The somoza family had brick kilns. But, the ortega brothers were even more corrupt. They grabbed the best houses in managua for themselves, too.

earler
March 20th, 2009, 09:00 AM
It was the life style of the north fork, southampton, where the stockbrokers and the irish rich congegrated. The kind of people that fitzgerald wrote about in gatsby. And, of course, there was ol' joe kennedy, who was foresighted enough to liquidate his stocks before the crash. Mind you, he was tied up with the mafia, hauling hootch down from canada. Prohibition made him rich.

earler
March 20th, 2009, 09:02 AM
Yes, nicaragua was justly proud of its coffee, and its beef, too. The sandinistas destroyed the coffee business, cutting down most of the trees. The beef still exists, but almost none is exported. You can get awfully beef in managua.

ndebord
March 20th, 2009, 10:28 AM
Somoza was inept and corrupt. Those brick roads still exist and they are most dangerous due to their slipperiness. The somoza family had brick kilns. But, the ortega brothers were even more corrupt. They grabbed the best houses in managua for themselves, too.

Earle,

Yup, the coffee crop was lousy, after Ortega introduced revolutionary life. Starting to get good again, but Guatemala now has a better bean.

rlohmann
March 24th, 2009, 04:37 PM
It just took you guys a lot longer than the rest of us to have "enough" of the frat boy. Not really. We were faced with balancing the equities between him and Hillary, and decided that we were, at least until the 2008 elections, stuck with him.

rlohmann
March 24th, 2009, 05:01 PM
I should be a bit clearer.~

I'm reluctant to have suspicion that leads to "knock-the-door-down raids in the wee hours" cast upon me. VRWC monitoring, OTOH, means I still don't need a burglar alarm.

This is indeed true. We here at the VRWC are far more interested in Hillaryite plots to introduce Leninism into the public schools than in investigating anyone's personal preferences (as long, of course, as those preferences do not include Hillaryistic tendencies.)

So, what have you been up to?Pursuing a million-dollar lawsuit against the Navy for having destroyed a contractor--a legal immigrant from Sierra Leone who had built a million-dollar business--for a variety of reasons, expressed most precisely by a Navy employee, to the effect that "We don't want some black chick from DC [the Navy installation was located in Southern Maryland, a region that strongly supported the wrong side in 1861] coming down here and taking our jobs."

Judy G. Russell
March 24th, 2009, 05:41 PM
Not really. We were faced with balancing the equities between him and Hillary, and decided that we were, at least until the 2008 elections, stuck with him.You really do have a Clinton complex. She wasn't a candidate in 2004...

rlohmann
March 24th, 2009, 05:56 PM
I haven't read the article, and I don't intend to. Dick Morris is not a reliable source when it comes to the Clintons; I'm not sure he is reliable on anything else, either.The Clintons thought the world of Morris until he switched sides.

But if he's saying that Hillary Clinton has been sidetracked by being made Secretary of State -- well, that is certainly a form of sidetracking that many can only dream of reaching!Think about that. He is indeed saying that she's been sidetracked, and he's right.

When one thinks of oneself as presidential material and is faced with clear and convincing evidence of doubt as to one's electability, one can withdraw from public life in the Nixonian fashion and await better days. In the alternative, one may grasp desperately at the straw of a meaningless cabinet post in the administration of a president who's made it clear beyond peradventure that he intends to be his own foreign minister.

I dunno; I would have liked her to remain in the Senate, because I think she would have been able to have had a career there for as long as she wanted.

Unlikely. She left Illinois for a better political opportunity in Arkansas, left Arkansas for Washington, left Washington for New York, and left New York for Foggy Bottom. If you were a New Yorker (as I briefly was), would you want to re-elect her forever?

and I think she could well have filled Ted Kennedy's shoes as the Lion of the Senate. And gotten a Massachusetts driver's license? And driven Slick Willy off the bridge at Chappaquiddick? :->

The possibilities are endless....

OTOH, the atmosphere on Capitol Hill has become toxic over the last couple of decades. Could be that's not a place that promises to be an enjoyable place to spend a long career any more, and maybe she felt she'd be better able to leave her mark on the world in the State Department.

See above, with reference to a president's being his own foreign minister.

Hillary's toast.

Lindsey
March 25th, 2009, 01:28 AM
The Clintons thought the world of Morris until he switched sides.

Yeah, and George Washington thought the world of Benedict Arnold until he switched sides, too. Don't know of too many people who like turncoats. Jesus might have forgiven Judas, but most of us regular mortals are not so generous.

Unlikely. She left Illinois for a better political opportunity in Arkansas, left Arkansas for Washington, left Washington for New York, and left New York for Foggy Bottom. If you were a New Yorker (as I briefly was), would you want to re-elect her forever?

Oh, good Lord, Ralph. She went to Arkansas to be with Bill, and he went there because that's where he was from. And yeah, they went to Washington when Bill was elected president. Don't know of too many presidents who have governed the country from their home state. Sure, New York presented a political opportunity, but that's hardly the first time that has been done, and New York seems to suit both of them pretty well. And yeah, New Yorkers seemed pretty happy with her as Senator, so why shouldn't they have continued to re-elect her?

Hillary's toast.

We'll see.

Mike
March 25th, 2009, 02:17 AM
We here at the VRWC are far more interested in Hillaryite plots to introduce Leninism into the public schools than in investigating anyone's personal preferences...
And as long as the VRWC is watching me, I'll be alerted when a simple, primitive burglar breaches the monitoring zone.

Pursuing a million-dollar lawsuit...
I'm glad you're on the good side!

rlohmann
March 25th, 2009, 04:44 PM
And as long as the VRWC is watching me, I'll be alerted when a simple, primitive burglar breaches the monitoring zone.

I'm glad you're on the good side!

You may rise.

--
My Grace

rlohmann
March 25th, 2009, 05:05 PM
Yeah, and George Washington thought the world of Benedict Arnold until he switched sides, too.

[Adjusting wig and bands] Given defendant's admission of the identity of interest and motivation between Mme. Hillary and Benedict Arnold, the prosecution rests, sneeringly.

Lindsey
March 25th, 2009, 11:02 PM
[Adjusting wig and bands] Given defendant's admission of the identity of interest and motivation between Mme. Hillary and Benedict Arnold, the prosecution rests, sneeringly.

Sorry, you've got the analogy the wrong way around. Dick Morris is the Benedict Arnold character here.

sidney
March 25th, 2009, 11:44 PM
Sorry, you've got the analogy the wrong way around

You weren't supposed to notice that. Remember, you're talking to a lawyer. As in
"Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County

Mike
March 26th, 2009, 01:49 AM
You may rise.
Thank you, your Grace.

Lindsey
March 28th, 2009, 02:05 AM
"Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County

LOL!! I used to read that strip religiously and was truly sorry when Breathed ended it. But I never picked up on the sequel strips. Don't know why, I just never did.