Originally Posted by James50

Nothing comes close to California in regional myopia and chauvinism.

Chauvinism, yes. Myopia, no. We think we're the greatest because we are.

It makes us insufferable, I acknowledge. Oh, and you're wrong; New York certainly comes close, and with the same justification.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Chauvinism, yes. Myopia, no. We think we're the greatest because we are.

It makes us insufferable, I acknowledge. Oh, and you're wrong; New York certainly comes close, and with the same justification.

Heh. A close friend who grew up in S. CA calls it "the rotted coast."

Originally Posted by James50

This was in response to the crowing about GM becoming the biggest automaker. One reason this happened is because Japanese auto companies were crippled for several months by the tsunami in spring 2011. This is unlikely to happen in 2012, and GM's perch atop the industry will be short lived.

James50

Yes, but even now, GM in the US is nowhere near the biggest, right?

Originally Posted by James50

Nothing comes close to California in regional myopia and chauvinism.

James50

Yea, they gave us both Ron Ray-gun and Tricky Dick!

Originally Posted by James50

This was in response to the crowing about GM becoming the biggest automaker. One reason this happened is because Japanese auto companies were crippled for several months by the tsunami in spring 2011. This is unlikely to happen in 2012, and GM's perch atop the industry will be short lived.

James50

Still sounds off-key coming from Mr. Good Economy.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Still sounds off-key coming from Mr. Good Economy.

Sometimes even I have trouble holding off the iconoclast within. I am sure you understand.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Yes, but even now, GM in the US is nowhere near the biggest, right?

The numbers to keep in mind are 1.5 million, 10, and 0 - as in 1.5 million jobs not lost, a 10% unemployment rate that we would have had, and the zero cost of the bailout to taxpayers.

People say bondholders lost money but they would have lost money from the bankruptcy any way.

GM may or may not be number 1 in the world and it may or may not be the biggest employer in the US, but it and its supply chain are pretty damn big employers.

Too many Cosmo Girls (and Boys) on this forum!

Originally Posted by James50

Sometimes even I have trouble holding off the iconoclast within. I am sure you understand.

James50

I have no idea what that word means!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I agree with Badger and Annla about Clinton. Indeed, at the time, I posed this question for people like Ziggy:

Suppose you were dating a woman (I assume you're a man, Ziggy), and you had made out, done phone sex, and had one blow job from her, and your best friend--some one to whom you would tell the truth--asked you, "Have you two had sex?" What would you say? I would have said, "no." And meant it.

And for the record, during Gingrich's second marriage he told another woman that he preferred oral sex so that he could say he hadn't slept with anyone else.

I'm just saying it *is* possible to condemn both of those actions. Despite what today's political climate feels like, there is no law saying you have to makes excuses for one and vilify the other based on your opinion of their politics or their party.

As for phone sex, some would consider that a form of cheating but is not even in the same league as physical contact and intimacy.

And finally, as for Gingrich's comments about oral sex, yes, it would be true that you don't have to "sleep with" someone to receive oral sex. But to me, the bigger point is: How many wives, outside of open marriages, would say that their husbands didn't cheat on them because it was "only a BJ"?

We've been over this too many times already, but for all those who say "it's a private matter between him and his wife," I don't think so in this case for two reasons -- first, the sex was with a subordinate of his, which always brings the consensual nature of it (and the abuse of power aspect) into question (regardless of what the participants say), and second of all, if he would violate the trust of his wife, why should anyone else trust him?

Gingrich's actions were slimy, but it's possible to see that without making excuses for Clinton. We don't all see the world through blue- or red-tinted glasses. And when two things both stink, I don't go out of my way to defend why one stinks more than the other, especially for political expediency. "My team stinks less" is hardly inspiring or admirable.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I'm just saying it *is* possible to condemn both of those actions. Despite what today's political climate feels like, there is no law saying you have to makes excuses for one and vilify the other based on your opinion of their politics or their party.

As for phone sex, some would consider that a form of cheating but is not even in the same league as physical contact and intimacy.

And finally, as for Gingrich's comments about oral sex, yes, it would be true that you don't have to "sleep with" someone to receive oral sex. But to me, the bigger point is: How many wives, outside of open marriages, would say that their husbands didn't cheat on them because it was "only a BJ"?

We've been over this too many times already, but for all those who say "it's a private matter between him and his wife," I don't think so in this case for two reasons -- first, the sex was with a subordinate of his, which always brings the consensual nature of it (and the abuse of power aspect) into question (regardless of what the participants say), and second of all, if he would violate the trust of his wife, why should anyone else trust him?

Gingrich's actions were slimy, but it's possible to see that without making excuses for Clinton. We don't all see the world through blue- or red-tinted glasses. And when two things both stink, I don't go out of my way to defend why one stinks more than the other, especially for political expediency. "My team stinks less" is hardly inspiring or admirable.

You are using a debater's trick. You began by saying, it wasn't really about sex, it was about lying. When three posters made a strong case that Clinton didn't lie, you responded, it wasn't about lying, it was about sex.
We have also discussed the "subordinate" issue here and by Ms. Lewinsky's account (what is she doing these days, the way?) there is no question as to who was the aggressor in this case.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The numbers to keep in mind are 1.5 million, 10, and 0 - as in 1.5 million jobs not lost, a 10% unemployment rate that we would have had, and the zero cost of the bailout to taxpayers.

People say bondholders lost money but they would have lost money from the bankruptcy any way.

GM may or may not be number 1 in the world and it may or may not be the biggest employer in the US, but it and its supply chain are pretty damn big employers.

Too many Cosmo Girls (and Boys) on this forum!

I was not complaining about the bailout per se, merely making the point that GM is far from being only an American company.

This story from the time says it all. Newt initially jumped all over Monica's story, then backed off in the spring of 1998. But in the fall he helped devise a moralistic anti-Clinton set of commercials that aired in key districts. Then, after the election, the Republicans, while determined to push on with impeachment despite the losses they suffered, dumped him as well. Gee, I wonder if that could have been because. . .so the story shows Newt to be the upright, sterling, honest fellow we have always known him to be. Sorry I couldn't find you a youtube clip, James,. but I think this will do.

Let me be clear that Gingrich's personal behavior, while extraordinary even by political standards--there's nothing he doesn't think he can have, including three wives--is not the most important thing about him by any means. He suffers from grandiosity, a total lack of political principle, hatefulness, and overweening ambition. He will say anything to get where he wants. And like Barney Frank, I never imagined anything so delicious as him becoming the Republican candidate, which suddenly, momentarily, seems possible again. (Maybe he should be the veep. "A Mormon and a polygamist!"

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

You are using a debater's trick. You began by saying, it wasn't really about sex, it was about lying. When three posters made a strong case that Clinton didn't lie, you responded, it wasn't about lying, it was about sex.

You have an overactive imagination. And I still don't think most women would agree that their husband did not have sex with another woman if she gave oral sex to him. And I suspect many courts would consider that as adultery. If I told my wife I didn't have sex with another woman because she only gave me a BJ, you think she'd accept that?

We have also discussed the "subordinate" issue here and by Ms. Lewinsky's account (what is she doing these days, the way?) there is no question as to who was the aggressor in this case.

Mostly irrelevant to me. A superior has to have better judgment than to get sucked into it (no pun intended). Sure, she was probably intoxicated by the power and the title. But someone with the power and the title needs to exercise better judgment.

There's no doubt in my mind that many on this board would be a LOT more critical of Clinton's actions if he were a Republican. And none would be coming to his defense.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

This story from the time says it all. Newt initially jumped all over Monica's story, then backed off in the spring of 1998. But in the fall he helped devise a moralistic anti-Clinton set of commercials that aired in key districts. Then, after the election, the Republicans, while determined to push on with impeachment despite the losses they suffered, dumped him as well. Gee, I wonder if that could have been because. . .so the story shows Newt to be the upright, sterling, honest fellow we have always known him to be. Sorry I couldn't find you a youtube clip, James,. but I think this will do.

Yes, Newt's a tool and a sleazebag as well as a hypocrite. I've never argued against that. Doesn't have any bearing on my opinion of the Clinton affair one way or another.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Right after I saw the Obama Al Green video, some one posted a Bush blooper real.

He's a very funny dude. I actually think some of those goofs were on purpose and his sense of humor.

Felt the same way...

Best...

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

This story from the time says it all. Newt initially jumped all over Monica's story, then backed off in the spring of 1998. But in the fall he helped devise a moralistic anti-Clinton set of commercials that aired in key districts. Then, after the election, the Republicans, while determined to push on with impeachment despite the losses they suffered, dumped him as well. Gee, I wonder if that could have been because. . .so the story shows Newt to be the upright, sterling, honest fellow we have always known him to be. Sorry I couldn't find you a youtube clip, James,. but I think this will do.

Let me be clear that Gingrich's personal behavior, while extraordinary even by political standards--there's nothing he doesn't think he can have, including three wives--is not the most important thing about him by any means. He suffers from grandiosity, a total lack of political principle, hatefulness, and overweening ambition. He will say anything to get where he wants. And like Barney Frank, I never imagined anything so delicious as him becoming the Republican candidate, which suddenly, momentarily, seems possible again. "..."

I have never cared for Gringrich and I hope that he is not on the ballot anywhere. He should stay an "idea man" where he is more than well paid. I actually like some -not all of Ron Paul's policies- , but I think that Romney is the best choice remaining for the GOP.

I heard last night, forget exactly where, that whoever wins South Carolina will be the Republican presidential candidate. Yikes!

New South Carolina Polls: Newt Gingrich Has Big Lead In Primary

WASHINGTON -- Two new telephone polls concluded on the eve of the South Carolina primary not only confirm continuing momentum toward Newt Gingrich; they suggest that the former House speaker may be headed for a surprisingly comfortable, double-digit win.


A live-interviewer survey conducted by the American Research Group on Thursday and Friday nights finds Gingrich now leading Mitt Romney 40 to 26 percent, followed by Ron Paul (18 percent) and Rick Santorum (13 percent). An ARG poll fielded earlier in the week had Gingrich and Romney in a virtual tie (with 32 and 31 percent, respectively).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...usaolp00000009

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

You have an overactive imagination. And I still don't think most women would agree that their husband did not have sex with another woman if she gave oral sex to him. And I suspect many courts would consider that as adultery. If I told my wife I didn't have sex with another woman because she only gave me a BJ, you think she'd accept that?



Mostly irrelevant to me. A superior has to have better judgment than to get sucked into it (no pun intended). Sure, she was probably intoxicated by the power and the title. But someone with the power and the title needs to exercise better judgment.

There's no doubt in my mind that many on this board would be a LOT more critical of Clinton's actions if he were a Republican. And none would be coming to his defense.

I'm not Republican and I am highly critical of Clinton (on many things besides this too). She wasn't just a subordinate, she was an intern for christsakes. This is taboo in the private sector (as Willard loves to call it endlessly).

Let's put it this way. If you were a front line manager somewhere and your company had an intern for the summer, and you had a fling with him/her, and HR discovered this, you'd be gone the next day. Why is the standard lower for the POTUS.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I have no idea what that word means!

Look in the mirror, PW!

Carville hitting the GOP when they are down:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/21/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t2

I'm starting to think this election may not even be that close. O hasn't even turned on the machine yet "for Pete's sake."

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I'm just saying it *is* possible to condemn both of those actions. Despite what today's political climate feels like, there is no law saying you have to makes excuses for one and vilify the other based on your opinion of their politics or their party.

As for phone sex, some would consider that a form of cheating but is not even in the same league as physical contact and intimacy.

And finally, as for Gingrich's comments about oral sex, yes, it would be true that you don't have to "sleep with" someone to receive oral sex. But to me, the bigger point is: How many wives, outside of open marriages, would say that their husbands didn't cheat on them because it was "only a BJ"?

We've been over this too many times already, but for all those who say "it's a private matter between him and his wife," I don't think so in this case for two reasons -- first, the sex was with a subordinate of his, which always brings the consensual nature of it (and the abuse of power aspect) into question (regardless of what the participants say), and second of all, if he would violate the trust of his wife, why should anyone else trust him?

Gingrich's actions were slimy, but it's possible to see that without making excuses for Clinton. We don't all see the world through blue- or red-tinted glasses. And when two things both stink, I don't go out of my way to defend why one stinks more than the other, especially for political expediency. "My team stinks less" is hardly inspiring or admirable.

Some considerations on this:

1) There are no politicians who are very "trustworthy". Noone thinks there are. If Clinton were "trustworthy" in his personal affairs, there would be something else not to trust him about; and were of course. And Mr. Clean Barack Obama is really "trusted" by all, eh?

2) What Clinton did is just not that important. It was a minor indiscretion, and a minor stretching of the truth to try and cover it up for personal reasons-- that didn't work big time.

3) The worst part of what Clinton did, is to give a knife to his opponents, whom he already knew were ruthless. What a lapse of judgement, and what a waste of a potentially great presidency. He just could not control his appetites, even in the face of this relentless right-wing conspiracy. He was a casualty of his boomer culture in this respect, it's pretty safe to say. But he benefited from it too; no candidate or president ever had such an ability as his to connect with people and an audience. And of course, it's all writ large in his you-know-what.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

There's no doubt in my mind that many on this board would be a LOT more critical of Clinton's actions if he were a Republican. And none would be coming to his defense.

Only if they are hypocrites.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

......no candidate or president ever had such an ability as his to connect with people and an audience.

And you accuse me of exaggerations?

Kennedy, Reagan and TR all say, what am I chopped liver here?

p.s. He certainly was good at connecting, but best ever?

Originally Posted by Deb C

I heard last night, forget exactly where, that whoever wins South Carolina will be the Republican presidential candidate. Yikes!

New South Carolina Polls: Newt Gingrich Has Big Lead In Primary




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...usaolp00000009

The Real Clear Politics average has him up 5 points, with the latest poll up 9 points. But the American Research Group is not included in their average.

South Carolina has always voted for the eventual winner since 1980, but that doesn't mean Romney can't "make history" again.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The Real Clear Politics average has him up 5 points, with the latest poll up 9 points. But the American Research Group is not included in their average.

South Carolina has always voted for the eventual winner since 1980, but that doesn't mean Romney can't "make history" again.

Even though you predicted Romney, I see you have laid seeds for having been right even if it isn't him.

I still think you'll be right on the original prediction, so you can stop hedging.

Wow if they nominate Newt. It will make for an interesting horserace with lots of unexpected twists and turns. It will also make the debates high theatre. Newt is quick on his feet and the best debater of the elephant parade (term stolen from Prof. Kaiser).