Benghazi Will Screw Obama, Which He Deserves

[giblets]

He got impeached because he was stupid enough to lie under oath. Any President's opponents would have loved to have that.

Except there was no proof he lied under oath.

[Hauldren Collider]

That's perfectly natural. I've voted for candidates with Irish names over those with Anglo-Saxon names, for no other reason than ethnic preference. That doesn't mean that if Martin O'Malley were up against Rand Paul I'd vote for the gun grabbing piece of **** a second time. It just means that when all else is equal, I go for the guy who's "closer" to me. Race and ethnicity are more tie-breakers than primary motivators.

You voted for O'Malley because his name is ****ing Irish? The dude's an idiot, and an *******. If Maryland voters had sense they'd vote out the entire General Assembly

[Imran Siddiqui]

Except there was no proof he lied under oath.

Um... in the deposition in the Paula Jones harassment case, Clinton said he had no sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Which we know now isn't true.

Unless you want to claim that Clinton's interpretation of sexual relations was different than what the question was asking.

[giblets]

Um... in the deposition in the Paula Jones harassment case, Clinton said he had no sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Which we know now isn't true.

Unless you want to claim that Clinton's interpretation of sexual relations was different than what the question was asking.

It was the definition that had been provided.

"For the purposes of this deposition, a person [the deponent, in this case, Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [that is, any other person, in this case, Monica Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky];

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonjonesperjury.html

Given that definition you can't prove Clinton's statement that he hadn't engaged in sexual relations wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As the link points out, some have pointed out that the interpretation of "person", ie, the stuff in brackets is wrong. The bracketed stuff is NOT part of the definition. I disagree that the bracketed interpretation of person is reasonable at all. Why is person in some places interpreted to be Clinton and in other places to be Lewinsky.

[Felch]

It was the definition that had been provided.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonjonesperjury.html

Given that definition you can't prove Clinton's statement that he hadn't engaged in sexual relations wrong.

Are you kidding? She gave him head. And your link includes this:

"3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body"

I don't know how dicks get sucked where you're from, but around here there's generally some physical contact between genitals and another person's body.

[Jon Miller]

I think that it's really hard to say. "Extreme racists" are probably only 3-5%. But people who would marginally favor a white person over a black person? Presented two identical people to hire, same exact resume, just one is black and one is white? That's way, way more. 40% [would choose the white resume every time rather than 50/50 shot]? 60%? Who knows, but it's way up there (see for example the 'name/resume' study). And of course it works both ways (black people will tend to hire black people, white people tend to hire white people); much of that probably is due to the automatic preference for 'similar' people, after all. But look at employment tendencies; the 'old boy's network' and all that is certainly significant, and while it works both ways, the fact that more white people are in charge due to historic reasons means it will be a long time before it balances out.

As far as the Obama discussion, this is relevant only insomuch as to say that Obama isn't hated primarily for his race, but perhaps it's a slight factor increasing the vitriol for those on the margin.

Given the current US age distribution, I would put 'extreme racists' (ones who would try to block someone black from living near them just due to being black, for example, I am not just referring to people in the KKK/etc) at 10% or more. It has been getting much better. Not all 'extreme racists' are white.

There are areas where it is basically dead (what exists is hidden). There are other areas where it is common.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I think that it's really hard to say. "Extreme racists" are probably only 3-5%. But people who would marginally favor a white person over a black person? Presented two identical people to hire, same exact resume, just one is black and one is white? That's way, way more. 40% [would choose the white resume every time rather than 50/50 shot]? 60%? Who knows, but it's way up there (see for example the 'name/resume' study). And of course it works both ways (black people will tend to hire black people, white people tend to hire white people); much of that probably is due to the automatic preference for 'similar' people, after all. But look at employment tendencies; the 'old boy's network' and all that is certainly significant, and while it works both ways, the fact that more white people are in charge due to historic reasons means it will be a long time before it balances out.

As far as the Obama discussion, this is relevant only insomuch as to say that Obama isn't hated primarily for his race, but perhaps it's a slight factor increasing the vitriol for those on the margin.

Given the current US age distribution, I would put 'extreme racists' (ones who would try to block someone black from living near them just due to being black, for example, I am not just referring to people in the KKK/etc) at 10% or more. It has been getting much better. Not all 'extreme racists' are white.

There are areas where it is basically dead (what exists is hidden). There are other areas where it is common.

JM

[Felch]

I love how the link also has this tidbit:

Others have charged that Clinton lied because there was another form of sexual activity – namely, the infamous "Cigar incident." This was when Clinton allegedly inserted a cigar between Ms. Lewinsky’s legs. But this fails the definition too. It defines "contact" as "touching, either directly or through clothing." "Direct" means skin-on-skin. "Through clothing" means skin-on-clothing or clothing-on-clothing. The Cigar incident was cigar-on-skin, which fails the definition.

Except definition two is: 2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; which is obviously meant to cover sex toys.

[Elok]

"Not totally free of racism"? Is that meant to be a joke? On what planet exactly are you guys even close to being free of racism? I hear you guys endlessly repeating this stuff about how race isn't an issue any more while your citizens and your media reference race constantly and refer to blacks in ways that from here are quite shockingly derogatory.

As for it being 'crass' to call DD a racist, he's one of a group who not only oppose the president (who I don't particularly like incidentally) but who also refuse to accept the racism that pervades the party he supports. If the accusation of racism hurts his dainty feelings then maybe it's time he grew some balls and stood up to it among his own group instead of just pretending it isn't happening.

Who said race isn't an issue? Yes, it's an issue, but you just gave DD an argument of the form "I cannot find a satisfactory explanation for [phenomenon], therefore [sweeping, intrinsically unprovable claim requiring no evidence]." You may recognize this from its use by Intelligent Design proponents. It's a very lazy way to argue.

[giblets]

Are you kidding? She gave him head. And your link includes this:

"3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body"

I don't know how dicks get sucked where you're from, but around here there's generally some physical contact between genitals and another person's body.

That was part of the definition that was rejected because it was too broad.

[giblets]

As the link points out, some have pointed out that the interpretation of "person", ie, the stuff in brackets is wrong. The bracketed stuff is NOT part of the definition. I disagree that the bracketed interpretation of person is reasonable at all. Why is person in some places interpreted to be Clinton and in other places to be Lewinsky.

Under your broad interpretation of "person" if someone watches two other people have sex and derives sexual gratification from it they're having a threesome.

[Felch]

Oh, I see. I skipped the parts between the bold parts.

[kentonio]

Who said race isn't an issue? Yes, it's an issue, but you just gave DD an argument of the form "I cannot find a satisfactory explanation for [phenomenon], therefore [sweeping, intrinsically unprovable claim requiring no evidence]." You may recognize this from its use by Intelligent Design proponents. It's a very lazy way to argue.

Actually it was more 'There are huge numbers of openly racist teabaggers and GOP types who hate Obama because of his race. You exhibit unexplained hatred towards the man for no discernible reason. Ergo I can only assume race is also your primary motivator'.

[kentonio]

DP