SENATE TAX REFORM BILL PASSES
Saturday, December 02, 2017
Briefly...
The growing list of "moves" struck from the old "playbook" in recent months include...
--The mall troll
--The strip-to-ones underwear (with or without robe)
--The ass smack
--The backrub into a six inch hand slide (up or down)
--The boob grab (from the front or the reacharound)
--The innocent kiss into a tongue probe
--The winkie presentation
The growing list of "moves" struck from the old "playbook" in recent months include...
--The mall troll
--The strip-to-ones underwear (with or without robe)
--The ass smack
--The backrub into a six inch hand slide (up or down)
--The boob grab (from the front or the reacharound)
--The innocent kiss into a tongue probe
--The winkie presentation
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Points to Ponder:
“Constitutional protections for due process apply when the state is attempting to deprive a person of ‘life, liberty, or property.’ That’s why we have trials before we render civil or criminal judgments. That’s why due process is mandatory before state-mandated punishment in campus sexual assault tribunals. As a general rule, when the state is attempting to deprive you of rights you’d otherwise enjoy, due process attaches. Here, there is no state action. Roy Moore will not lose his life, liberty, or property if voters reject his bid for high office.
Due process protections, absolutely, positively do not prevent voters from evaluating the veracity of news reports and judging whether a politician is fit for public office. It was entirely fair for voters to analyze the available facts about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal or the available facts about the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation without waiting for the outcome of a civil or criminal proceeding. It is entirely fair for members of the public to evaluate Juanita Broaddrick’s claims against Bill Clinton without a trial. Similarly, it’s entirely fair for the public to analyze the available facts about Roy Moore before deciding how to vote.” [David French]
“Constitutional protections for due process apply when the state is attempting to deprive a person of ‘life, liberty, or property.’ That’s why we have trials before we render civil or criminal judgments. That’s why due process is mandatory before state-mandated punishment in campus sexual assault tribunals. As a general rule, when the state is attempting to deprive you of rights you’d otherwise enjoy, due process attaches. Here, there is no state action. Roy Moore will not lose his life, liberty, or property if voters reject his bid for high office.
Due process protections, absolutely, positively do not prevent voters from evaluating the veracity of news reports and judging whether a politician is fit for public office. It was entirely fair for voters to analyze the available facts about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal or the available facts about the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation without waiting for the outcome of a civil or criminal proceeding. It is entirely fair for members of the public to evaluate Juanita Broaddrick’s claims against Bill Clinton without a trial. Similarly, it’s entirely fair for the public to analyze the available facts about Roy Moore before deciding how to vote.” [David French]
Monday, November 27, 2017
Points to Ponder:
Free Campaign Strategy Advice For Republicans:
If you want to keep Jeff Sessions' old seat, you need to recognize the gift you have been given in Nancy Pelosi. When the leader of congressional Democrats has a colleague who has serious charges of sexual impropriety against him two of which he has been sued and also settled out of court on respectively and she refuses to call for their resignation for political reasons, you need to point this out. You need to hammer on the example of Conyers as well as Leader Pelosi's blatant assertion that Rep Conyers is too important politically to be sacrificed and say "see, it is obvious they do not give a damn about women and accusations of abuse, its all politics with them." Dare them to force Conyers to resign and publicly say they have no credibility on these matters until they force him out.
Yeah its a huge distraction but when you have been given such a juicy club with which to beat your opponent senseless with, you need to use it. If you do this enough, you will likely retain enough Republican and Independent voters to win Jeff Sessions' seat in two weeks time.
If you want to keep Jeff Sessions' old seat, you need to recognize the gift you have been given in Nancy Pelosi. When the leader of congressional Democrats has a colleague who has serious charges of sexual impropriety against him two of which he has been sued and also settled out of court on respectively and she refuses to call for their resignation for political reasons, you need to point this out. You need to hammer on the example of Conyers as well as Leader Pelosi's blatant assertion that Rep Conyers is too important politically to be sacrificed and say "see, it is obvious they do not give a damn about women and accusations of abuse, its all politics with them." Dare them to force Conyers to resign and publicly say they have no credibility on these matters until they force him out.
Yeah its a huge distraction but when you have been given such a juicy club with which to beat your opponent senseless with, you need to use it. If you do this enough, you will likely retain enough Republican and Independent voters to win Jeff Sessions' seat in two weeks time.
Free Campaign Strategy Advice For Democrats:
If you want to win Jeff Sessions' old seat, you need to present the appearance of moral high ground. The eight or nine accusations against Roy Moore are for the most part serious and credible. However, those against John Conyers are even more so insofar as one accused him, one filed a lawsuit against him, and he agreed to settle with a third. If your leader Nancy Pelosi cannot even admit that Rep. Conyers should resign over his indiscretions (to say nothing of his seeming senility!), do not expect Alabama Republicans to take any calls you make for Roy Moore to step aside or any claims you make about Moore's unfitness for office seriously.
In short, if you want the moral high ground to castigate Moore and his supporters, you need to call for Conyers to resign and if you do not: brace yourself for Senator Roy Moore!
If you want to win Jeff Sessions' old seat, you need to present the appearance of moral high ground. The eight or nine accusations against Roy Moore are for the most part serious and credible. However, those against John Conyers are even more so insofar as one accused him, one filed a lawsuit against him, and he agreed to settle with a third. If your leader Nancy Pelosi cannot even admit that Rep. Conyers should resign over his indiscretions (to say nothing of his seeming senility!), do not expect Alabama Republicans to take any calls you make for Roy Moore to step aside or any claims you make about Moore's unfitness for office seriously.
In short, if you want the moral high ground to castigate Moore and his supporters, you need to call for Conyers to resign and if you do not: brace yourself for Senator Roy Moore!
"Because Trump SoHo is doing so well financially that its tough to keep up with it all, I have decided I need to remove my name from the project!" [Donald Trump]
Final Nights at the Trump SoHo Before Trump Checks Out
Final Nights at the Trump SoHo Before Trump Checks Out
Thursday, November 23, 2017
"One From the Vault" Dept.
The following is a flashback to the archives of this website{1} from November 26, 2005...
Last night, I did not sleep more than an hour (if even that) due to a phone message I received about my friend Chris. We were five months apart in age and back in the days when titles such as "best friend" were used, he was my best friend. And the phone call was to say that Chris died the day before Thanksgiving in a hospital in Arizona. Pardon me if what I am about to write is disjointed...I am working off of virtually no sleep and because of the news from last night, my mind may not be clear. (Certainly my emotions are not stable as I write this.)...
...
I have had in mind for a while to see several people I have not spent much time with in recent years in the coming year (2006). And while I still intend to do that; nonetheless, I am hardly saying something original in noting that we all have those people whom we are close to who for a variety of circumstances we do not see much of over what can be a long stretch of years. Of course when this thought comes to our minds, many of us defend ourselves by saying that we will get back in touch with them "someday." Well, one of the first people on that list (if not the first) was to be my oldest friend Chris. But he died before I could do that and I will be asking myself for a long time when I think of him what I could have done differently...is there anything I could have set aside as truly less important to focus on what truly was more important.
One would think after all the family deaths in recent years that I would have gotten over putting friends and family aside as I did with my oldest friend. I told myself that I would see Chris "next year" aka "someday" and just because it was supposed to be next year does not remove the beam from my eye... [Excerpts from the Rerum Novarum Posting Remembering Chris (circa November 26, 2005)]
I do not have many things in my life I truly wish I had a reset button on but this is one of them. I miss you amigo and pray for you and the repose of your soul often.
Note:
{1} In posting this thread as I have, it necessitates creating a new primary posting tag so with this posting, consider the primary posting tag Vault Flashback to be added to this website for the current and future postings where applicable. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 20, 2017)]
The following is a flashback to the archives of this website{1} from November 26, 2005...
Last night, I did not sleep more than an hour (if even that) due to a phone message I received about my friend Chris. We were five months apart in age and back in the days when titles such as "best friend" were used, he was my best friend. And the phone call was to say that Chris died the day before Thanksgiving in a hospital in Arizona. Pardon me if what I am about to write is disjointed...I am working off of virtually no sleep and because of the news from last night, my mind may not be clear. (Certainly my emotions are not stable as I write this.)...
...
I have had in mind for a while to see several people I have not spent much time with in recent years in the coming year (2006). And while I still intend to do that; nonetheless, I am hardly saying something original in noting that we all have those people whom we are close to who for a variety of circumstances we do not see much of over what can be a long stretch of years. Of course when this thought comes to our minds, many of us defend ourselves by saying that we will get back in touch with them "someday." Well, one of the first people on that list (if not the first) was to be my oldest friend Chris. But he died before I could do that and I will be asking myself for a long time when I think of him what I could have done differently...is there anything I could have set aside as truly less important to focus on what truly was more important.
One would think after all the family deaths in recent years that I would have gotten over putting friends and family aside as I did with my oldest friend. I told myself that I would see Chris "next year" aka "someday" and just because it was supposed to be next year does not remove the beam from my eye... [Excerpts from the Rerum Novarum Posting Remembering Chris (circa November 26, 2005)]
I do not have many things in my life I truly wish I had a reset button on but this is one of them. I miss you amigo and pray for you and the repose of your soul often.
Note:
{1} In posting this thread as I have, it necessitates creating a new primary posting tag so with this posting, consider the primary posting tag Vault Flashback to be added to this website for the current and future postings where applicable. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 20, 2017)]
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Miscellaneous Musings on Political Squabblings About Sex Abuse Accusers in General:
The following is a Rosetta Stone to all the above political wrangling:
--All claimants are liars and all accused are innocent and we need an impossibly strict burden of proof unless the claimants are against someone we do not like. If the latter is the case, then we pull a 180 whereas claimants are truthful and all accused are guilty and we need not even a reasonable burden of proof but instead, anything on any fringe site however badly sourced is adequate to indict them.
--All news sources we do not like are dismissed as Ferrk Nerrz unless the same source has something we like. If the latter happens, we will pull a 180 and cite the once-reviled source as suddenly reliable and above suspicion while forgetting our previous dismissal wholesale of said source.
--In all things #OurTribeRight and #YourTribeWrong.
Am I missing anything?
The following is a Rosetta Stone to all the above political wrangling:
--All claimants are liars and all accused are innocent and we need an impossibly strict burden of proof unless the claimants are against someone we do not like. If the latter is the case, then we pull a 180 whereas claimants are truthful and all accused are guilty and we need not even a reasonable burden of proof but instead, anything on any fringe site however badly sourced is adequate to indict them.
--All news sources we do not like are dismissed as Ferrk Nerrz unless the same source has something we like. If the latter happens, we will pull a 180 and cite the once-reviled source as suddenly reliable and above suspicion while forgetting our previous dismissal wholesale of said source.
--In all things #OurTribeRight and #YourTribeWrong.
Am I missing anything?
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
This Just In: Mike Pence’s Rule Against Having Private Dinners With Random Women Is Not Christian
"...In public relations you learn, very early, that P = R, that is, Perception = Reality. What you actually do is less important that what you are perceived to be doing.
In this point, both Catholic theology and Federal ethics regulations come into sync. Catholics are told it isn’t sufficient to avoid sin, you must avoid the occasion, i.e. exposure to the possibility, of sin. So if you are an alcoholic it is not sufficient to avoid drink, you need to avoid places where alcohol is served. As 'scandal,' that is behavior that could cause other to do evil, a person in a leadership position has the obligation to avoid situations that could lead to rumors being spread. Federal ethics regs say it isn’t enough to avoid impropriety, you must avoid the appearance of impropriety..."
"...In public relations you learn, very early, that P = R, that is, Perception = Reality. What you actually do is less important that what you are perceived to be doing.
In this point, both Catholic theology and Federal ethics regulations come into sync. Catholics are told it isn’t sufficient to avoid sin, you must avoid the occasion, i.e. exposure to the possibility, of sin. So if you are an alcoholic it is not sufficient to avoid drink, you need to avoid places where alcohol is served. As 'scandal,' that is behavior that could cause other to do evil, a person in a leadership position has the obligation to avoid situations that could lead to rumors being spread. Federal ethics regs say it isn’t enough to avoid impropriety, you must avoid the appearance of impropriety..."
Monday, November 20, 2017
Public Service Announcement:
For those who do not like President Trump and talk about impeachment, even if somehow it is successful remember: impeachment does not actually remove a president from office. Instead, it is basically an indictment and as I said already, would have to be based on "high crimes and misdemeanors."
To prosecute said indictment against the president, it would involve a trial before the whole Senate which would be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Then after the trial, if the charges were somehow proven, it would still involve a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to remove the president. That would mean all Democrat and Independent senators as well at least 19 Republican senators would have to vote for removal. And even then, you would simply get Vice President Pence as your new president.
Again, simply hating President Trump or not liking his policies is not sufficient.
This has been another public service announcement...
For those who do not like President Trump and talk about impeachment, even if somehow it is successful remember: impeachment does not actually remove a president from office. Instead, it is basically an indictment and as I said already, would have to be based on "high crimes and misdemeanors."
To prosecute said indictment against the president, it would involve a trial before the whole Senate which would be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Then after the trial, if the charges were somehow proven, it would still involve a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to remove the president. That would mean all Democrat and Independent senators as well at least 19 Republican senators would have to vote for removal. And even then, you would simply get Vice President Pence as your new president.
Again, simply hating President Trump or not liking his policies is not sufficient.
This has been another public service announcement...
Thursday, November 16, 2017
Briefly...
"Leah Corfman is not credible because she has been divorced multiple times."
So has Donald Trump
"Leah Corfman is not credible because she accused multiple pastors of hitting on her."
What is less credible, multiple accusations of minor improprieties or multiple acts of adultery? Corfman is said to have done the former, Trump is known to have done the latter.
"Leah Corfman is not credible because she filed for bankruptcy three times."
Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy FOUR times.
Do you still want to keep playing the "not credible game"?
"Leah Corfman is not credible because she has been divorced multiple times."
So has Donald Trump
"Leah Corfman is not credible because she accused multiple pastors of hitting on her."
What is less credible, multiple accusations of minor improprieties or multiple acts of adultery? Corfman is said to have done the former, Trump is known to have done the latter.
"Leah Corfman is not credible because she filed for bankruptcy three times."
Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy FOUR times.
Do you still want to keep playing the "not credible game"?
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Briefly on the Virginia and New Jersey Elections:
The results of those election can be subject to mistakes on both sides meaning they can be over thought or under thought.
To over think would be to see it as an inevitable harbinger of either 2020 or 2018. Case in point: 2009 did not mean Obama was toast in 2012 and the resistance folks in 2017 should remember that the tea party of 2009 was a lot less robust in 2012. As for the 2010 comparison to 2018, its way too early and folks forget: the backlash of 2010 was because of political overreach by the Dems. The GOP has not overreached yet, heck it debatable if they have even reached at all yet. Either way, the whiter and hotter the populism of a moment, the shorter its political shelf life tends to be.
As far as under thinking, to dismiss these results as just the results of blue states and thus presume it has no bearing whatsoever on 2018 (or does not reflect on a lack of coattails thus far for Trump) would be a mistake that could lead to a political complacency that results in a correction midterm election rather than an election where GOP can build on their advantages nationwide.
In short, its possible to overthink as well as underthink last night's results for the GOP as well as for the Dems.
The results of those election can be subject to mistakes on both sides meaning they can be over thought or under thought.
To over think would be to see it as an inevitable harbinger of either 2020 or 2018. Case in point: 2009 did not mean Obama was toast in 2012 and the resistance folks in 2017 should remember that the tea party of 2009 was a lot less robust in 2012. As for the 2010 comparison to 2018, its way too early and folks forget: the backlash of 2010 was because of political overreach by the Dems. The GOP has not overreached yet, heck it debatable if they have even reached at all yet. Either way, the whiter and hotter the populism of a moment, the shorter its political shelf life tends to be.
As far as under thinking, to dismiss these results as just the results of blue states and thus presume it has no bearing whatsoever on 2018 (or does not reflect on a lack of coattails thus far for Trump) would be a mistake that could lead to a political complacency that results in a correction midterm election rather than an election where GOP can build on their advantages nationwide.
In short, its possible to overthink as well as underthink last night's results for the GOP as well as for the Dems.
Monday, November 13, 2017
Points to Ponder:
Politics in a nutshell today:
My side's purported indiscretions: all lies and conspiracies by evil forces to destroy good noble people - innocent until proven guilty far beyond any reasonable doubt.
Your side's purported indiscretions: ipso facto true because your side is evil incarnate and thus irredeemable - guilty until proven innocent far beyond any reasonable doubt.
Any questions?
Politics in a nutshell today:
My side's purported indiscretions: all lies and conspiracies by evil forces to destroy good noble people - innocent until proven guilty far beyond any reasonable doubt.
Your side's purported indiscretions: ipso facto true because your side is evil incarnate and thus irredeemable - guilty until proven innocent far beyond any reasonable doubt.
Any questions?
If You Refuse to Condemn Predators because of Politics, You’re Disgusting
Briefly...
"...The deflections are too predictable. There’s the 'Why are these women just coming out now? Seems suspicious!' comeback and, of course, the 'They’re just doing it for the fame! These women just want attention!' angle. Now, these comments actually are very important — just not for the reasons that the people making them think that they are. They’re important not as defenses, but because they’re perfect examples of an exact reason why these women may have been too afraid to come forward sooner: because they were afraid that they’d be ridiculed and doubted, and that no one would believe them..."
Briefly...
"...The deflections are too predictable. There’s the 'Why are these women just coming out now? Seems suspicious!' comeback and, of course, the 'They’re just doing it for the fame! These women just want attention!' angle. Now, these comments actually are very important — just not for the reasons that the people making them think that they are. They’re important not as defenses, but because they’re perfect examples of an exact reason why these women may have been too afraid to come forward sooner: because they were afraid that they’d be ridiculed and doubted, and that no one would believe them..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)