Hard News: The Universal Intercept
104 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Hey you. Stop piddling on the lamppost! Yes, everyone is looking at you now! Yes you look like a dick! Thank you.
more like: MUAHAHAHAHAAHA.... tiny, <sigh> YouTube will love this one... fark! is this thing on! <crackle>
-
I'm sure they can be used as evidence. I just think the main value of them to police will be in clues. Don't like, btw.
-
Hey you. Stop piddling on the lamppost! Yes, everyone is looking at you now! Yes you look like a dick! Thank you.
more like: MUAHAHAHAHAAHA.... tiny, <sigh> YouTube will love this one... fark! is this thing on! <crackle>
Choose a lampost away from any letterboxes....
-
Count your blessings. There are US states where taking a leak down an alley at night can get you on a sex offenders' register.
I didn't think the kind of people who hung around alleys at night looking for dick were easily offended. My sheltered upbringing shows again...
It's the "clues" thing I'd be wary about. You don't want to set up the facility for the authorities to just go on fishing expeditions.
Indeed not. I also wonder if Mr. O'Connor would be quite so sanguine if Police management wasted to just have a little poke through the archived texts of one of his members, as part of a disciplinary investigation? The funny thing about people who want to erode privacy rights are so often the people who scream bloody murder when they're on the receiving end.
-
There are US states where taking a leak down an alley at night can get you on a sex offenders' register.
Isn't that a Jimmy McGovern script?
-
Isn't that a Jimmy McGovern script?
It happened to a friend of a friend, in a California town. Madness.
-
Madness indeed.
Completely off-topic, and without vouching for its veracity, I am finding the current Clinton spin about a change in momentum interesting to say the least in light of this
-
Completely off-topic, and without vouching for its veracity, I am finding the current Clinton spin about a change in momentum interesting to say the least in light of this
Richard:
OK, I've made it pretty clear my preference is for a McCain/Obama general, but you've got to have a sneaking admiration for just how shameless Clinton is. At the same time she's running that 'red phone' ad deriding Obama as an inexperienced lightweight (and might I add in a way she'd be crying "shame" if McCain pulled it on her), she has proxies saying he wouldn't be a bad Veep. Oy...
Also, it doesn't seem to have gotten much play that on the day of the Texas primary, Bill Clinton found time to call in to... the Rush Limbaugh Show. (The Great Satan himself was conveniently 'off sick', but could you imagine the shit McCain would get from the right if he was doing the rounds of progressive talk radio shows the day of an open primary.)
-
you've got to have a sneaking admiration for just how shameless Clinton is
vintage Craig, thinly vieled misogyny wrapped in thick blanket of piousness
-
vintage Craig, thinly vieled misogyny wrapped in thick blanket of piousness
Oh, Snowy. Two penny minds shouldn't use fifty cent words without looking them up in the dictionary. I'd almost be offended if you weren't so painfully ridiculous.
-
And here's some more misogyny -- as Snowy defines it: [url|Geraldine Ferraro is shameless trash]]:
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
Playing the gender card, and a wee bit of not very subtly coded race baiting, in the one bitter pill. And it's certainly no more attractive than it is coming out of the mouth of Bill Clinton.
-
HRC is a bit of a fighter, maybe shameless.
And Obama is above all that - he's going to bring a fresh approach to Washington.
Except that while he was telling the workers of Ohio how much he opposed NAFTA he had his people meet with the Canadian govt to say he didn't really mean what he was saying. He then denied the meeting took place. Problem is it did.
It's not unusual for politicians to tailor their message for particular audiences but for some one who is campaigning on bringing an end to such politics, who claims such moral high ground, it's a bit odd.
So Obama isn't really that different from other politicians but pretends otherwise. HRC is no different from other politicians and doesn't pretend otherwise.
-
All these CCTVs are useless without intelligent monitoring software - they could never afford to employ enough people to monitor all the cameras and make them useful tools of halting of crime as it happens.
Perhaps Skynet will be tougher on crime than our current representative democracy?
-
I dunno Neil, I mean I get that to some extent all politicians share certain expediencies (and most political systems encourage it), but I just don't see Obama and Clinton as having particularly similar styles or MO's (which is part of the reason that this seemingly even-matched race is so enthralling).
From where I've been standing, it seems fairly clear that the vast majority of the dirty pool and negative politics has been coming from the Clinton camp - which to my mind just reinforces the argument that this is a classicly pitched battle between old establishment and something that, at least for now, has the refreshing appeal of change (much like the appeal of Tony Blair after decades of Thatcherism, heh :)
And while I'm sure Obama is not the messiah (or even a naughty boy), given that it already seems mathematically impossible for Clinton to win the nomination on the basis of a popular vote, the willingness of her camp to fight on with such a scorched earth policy strikes me as being against the interests of the Democrats, and probably against the interests of a healthy US democracy - 'welcome to the best democracy that your Super Delegate mates can deliver'.
That, in a nutshell, is why I'll be glad to see the back of her and her dynastic ambitions - not, mind you, that I am for a minute assuming that her and Bill will cede power to anyone unless it is prised from their cold dead hands :)
-
Ahh, O'Connor. The man who characterised Rickards as an 'isolated incident' in direct contradiction of the Beazly report; who saw nothing wrong with the detective leading the Ellis investigation having propositioned one mother during the case and having sexual relationships with two of the parents of children involved in the case later on.
I wonder what an officer would have to do, other than being a woman working as a hooker on the side, to earn censure?
-
From where I've been standing, it seems fairly clear that the vast majority of the dirty pool and negative politics has been coming from the Clinton camp -
Obama made a series of TV ads attacking Clinton's health policies. Those ads were exact copies of ads the insurance industry used to sink her heath reforms back in the 90s.
I think that's dirty politics, especially as there are quite a few sensible commentators that think Clinton's health policies have an edge over Obamas'.
...the willingness of her camp to fight on with such a scorched earth policy strikes me as being against the interests of the Democrats
Scorched earth - you mean pointing out that Obama is willing to say one thing to one audience and the opposite to another? This is politics.
I think that the interests of the Dems should be determined by the Dems themselves and at present around 50% of them want Hillary. She may not win but she's perfectly entitled to keep running and to keep offering Dems an alternative. One of the benefits of this close contest is that every vote in every state is meaningful.
But certainly the Obama camp is promoting the idea that her even running is an attack on democracy.
I don't have a problem with Obama - his presidency would look a lot like hers but this Saint Obama vs. The Devil Clinton that Obama supporters have got into is complete BS.
-
Ah well Neil, I don't buy into the Saint Obama view either (he's not the messiah etc), but my take on the Clinton camp behaviour is so different to yours that we must be either reading different sources or coming at it from a different base. Might have to agree to differ there.
By scorched earth I mean, for example, Hillary's recent suggestion that only she and McCain are experienced enough to do the job - with its sub-text that if she doesn't win the nomination that a Republican would be better than a Democrat. Or her use of a proxy like Ferraro to raise the race card again, or her cleverly worded denial that Obama is a Muslim "as far as I know", or her attempts to change the rules in Florida after the fact etc etc.
Now I'm sure you can item examples where Obamas camp has returned fire or wallowed in the mud, but the point is that *most* of this Democratic friendly-fire has come from Clinton. Yes its all politics, and yes she and her family are steeped in this sort of tactic, and yes its a rough tough blood-sport. But at what point does a losing candidate put the interests of the party above their own?
I just don't buy the line that this protracted battle helps the Dems come Nov. Say that Clinton does twist enough Super Delegate arms to overturn the pledged delegate vote and give her the nomination, while one could argue that this is the very function that the Super Delegates are there to provide, it seems the antithesis of the notion of a democracy - and I'd say exactly the same if the candidate positions were reversed.
-
But certainly the Obama camp is promoting the idea that her even running is an attack on democracy.
Oh, theatre. Do you think "the Clinton camp" and various proxies could stop screaming 'misogyny' every time she's criticised on policy grounds? That pointing out her voting record on issues of concern to the Democrat base -- like Iraq -- is "republican dirty tricks"?
And with all due respect, Clintonistas who want to accuse Obama of being a mouthpiece of the VRWC should tell Bill that appearing on the fraking Rush Limbaugh Show the day of the Texas primary is not a good look.
Look, I understand the politics of it: it suits Clinton to play the victim (now) of a hostile media, and naive idiots bamboozled by the smooth-talking but empty gigolo, but (as you say) it is complete BS.
The "experience' meme is just factually wrong. And I think it was totally fair comment to point out the rancid shamelessness of a campaign running that 'red phone' ad, then in the next breath saying Obama wouldn't be such a bad Veep after all. Sorry? As BHO has said himself, he's not "ready from day one" to be President, but he is competent and experienced enough to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office? It would be rather funny if it just wasn't so transparently dishonest.
I think that the interests of the Dems should be determined by the Dems themselves and at present around 50% of them want Hillary.
And may I point out that more than 50% of those who voted want Barrack? He's leading in the popular vote, has won more states and has more delegates -- but that doesn't really count in the eyes of some.
-
I should add, regardless of the outcome of this fascinating race, I'd have no issue with Clinton or Obama (or McCain for that matter) as Prez - I'm sure any one of them would be infinitely better than the incumbent :)
-
I should add, regardless of the outcome of this fascinating race, I'd have no issue with Clinton or Obama (or McCain for that matter) as Prez - I'm sure any one of them would be infinitely better than the incumbent :)
Well, I'd like to think the bar is set a little higher than that. But could someone explain to me how its a bad thing that the Democratic primary didn't turn out to be the "inevitable" coronation of Hillary Clinton after all?
-
Craig, I just can't fathom the degree of hostility that Obama supporters have for HRC. On the basis of policy - where there are very slight differences between them - I can't see the justification.
Sure she's gone after Obama - but he's done exactly the same, that's politics. But Obama is attempting to portray himself as a different sort of politician when he isn't. I don't have a problem with that, it's campaign branding with as much claim to reality as Clinton's "experience" brand.
But all he's doing is travelling a well worn path to the White House by playing the outsider who will clean up Washington. Reagan did it, Bill Clinton did it. But it's just a marketing exercise after all.
And may I point out that more than 50% of those who voted want Barrack?
yes, thanks to Republican and independent voters who can turn up and vote in this selection system.
Or her use of a proxy like Ferraro to raise the race card again, or her cleverly worded denial that Obama is a Muslim "as far as I know", or her attempts to change the rules in Florida after the fact etc etc.
I'm not going to defend everything the Clinton campaign has done but pointing out that Obama gets some advanatge from being black is on the same level as saying Clinton gets some advantage from being a woman. Are we supposed to ignore such obvious demographics?
I think you're reading to much into her words regarding the Muslim thing.
As for Clinton trying to change the rules TalkLeft have a bit on that. Again Clinton is getting a bad rap for nothing.
-
__I think that the interests of the Dems should be determined by the Dems themselves and at present around 50% of them want Hillary.__
And may I point out that more than 50% of those who voted want Barrack? He's leading in the popular vote
I think the point may have been that although Obama is leading in the popular vote, he's not leading among Democrats. He's leading once independents and Republicans who can vote in some contests are taken into account.
If the Dems were determining this, Clinton would likely be winning.
-
If the Dems were determining this, Clinton would likely be winning.
Hmmm, thats an interesting claim Graeme, if true, I'd love to see the evidence.
While its true that Republicans and Independents can vote in some states (which is bizarre) I've heard plenty of people point out that this allows tactical voting from Republicans, who have been exhorted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly to vote for Clinton to ensure she wins the nomination (on the basis that many Republicans believe HRC will be easier to beat). If anything, there is an argument that suggests that this anomaly has actually benefited HRC. It would be good to see some facts and figures around the non-Democrat voting patterns .....
-
On that note, it would also be interesting to see some stats on Dems who turned out to vote this year only because there was a candidate who was perceived (rightly or wrongly) as outside of the party orthodoxy.
-
I've heard plenty of people point out that this allows tactical voting from Republicans, who have been exhorted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly to vote for Clinton to ensure she wins the nomination (on the basis that many Republicans believe HRC will be easier to beat)
I think that's mostly been happening since the Republican nomination was sown up - i.e. it might have helped Clinton in Texas, but not many other places. Plus, are you sure it was Bill'O? Not Limbaugh? Taking such a partisan position doesn't really seem like Bill'O.
Opposes the death penalty, supports gun control, abortion rights, and gay marriage/civil unions ... I'm pretty sure Bill'O doesn't fit within the usual Republican paradigm.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.