"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:

## See imbedded observations
!!! See imbedded replies



Me too. You have to realize this is futile, Han. If Obama were to
release the certificate, those who don't believe will simply reject
it as a forgery that Obama's people needed time to complete. Yet
these are the people who will defend to the death Bush's refusal to
access his Air National Guard performance records.

## Bush's National Guard records have no bearing on his qualification for
the presidency.

!!! Strictly speaking. However, you'll notice I did not claim those records
were anything, other than that they dribbled out slowly and incompletely
over time and that Republicans were clamoring to keep them private. The
Bush camp certainly acted and seemed to believe that Bush's ANG records
might affect his "(re-) electability" - something different from
Constitutional qualifications but obviously required to become POTUS. The
Swiftboaters certainly felt that past military behavior was something of
great importance to "electability" and did serious damage to Kerry's
campaign with dubious reports and slurs.

I've just *got* to ask. What do birthers expect to find that's so damning
in Obama's hidden "long" form they're all longing to see?

This is about shock, not truth. It's all about people *still* not
believing that they could have possibly lost the election, so they're
looking for ways to "redo" the vote or invalidate the outcome, at
least in their minds. The claims of ineligibility is about the only
avenue left for some to deal with the trauma of a Democratic
president, especially a black Constitutional Law scholar and
"organizer" having won the election against a seasoned man like
McCain. It was and is pretty shocking, there's no doubt about it.
No one lives easily being on the wrong end of a "sure thing."

## Losers are always looking for something to blame for the loss. Obama's
election proved that this great country CAN elect a black man as
president.

!!! Just by saying "Obama's election proved" (jingoism deleted!) pretty much
says how much it was considered impossible by pols to elect a black, for at
least the years I've been alive. A lot of people are still shocked that it
*did* happen. That's not racism, it's just the historical results of every
political poll ever taken on the subject up until it actually happened.
When someone starts shouting "RACE CARD!" every time they see the words
"black" and "Obama" in the same sentence, I suggest they're not
understanding what the phrase even means.

Regrettably, Obama's performance has proven it will be generations before
the country elects another black man as president.

!!! Ouch! Now there's the *reverse* race card! Aren't you essentially
claiming "If one black fails, they will all be failures?" The irony in your
statement is that Obama actually stands a decent chance of being elected if
the Republicans don't counter with an impressive candidate. So far, they
have a very muddy and unimpressive field now apparently lead by the Donald,
famous for his odd hair and many bankruptcy filings over the year.

Voters for the President pretty much only care about the crisis of the
moment, which has well over a year to occur. There are plenty of twists and
turns the world takes in over a year. McCain might have actually won had he
not selected Palin. Guys like Ryan are already fluttering around a number
of political "third rails" like privatizing Medicare while the Repubs are
still at the "TV character/candidate" phase. There is still plenty of time
and opportunity for the Republicans to get into serious trouble with their
Tea Party "wing." The Right could easily split and put forth a third party
candidate like Ross Perot. Anyone who follows politics knows that the Far
Right doesn't think the rank and file Republicans represent them, setting
the stage for a splintering of the party.

Last time the "TV Candidate" was DA Arthur Branch from LawnOrder. Now we
are asked: President Trump? Maybe the time has come to ask if we're ready
for a Mormon president. Along with Jews, women and blacks, they are/were
thought to be inelectable. The people who voted for Obama mostly knew he
was black from the start. The primary voters for Hillary knew she was a
woman. Religion's not quite the same. I don't believe a candidate's
religion is as obvious as his race and that some candidates could build up a
lot of steam only to find people turning against them once their religious
affiliation becomes widely known. Hasn't every POTUS been a mainline
Christian for a long, long time? That's why some people have desperately
tried to portray Obama as Muslim - they have to be even less electable than
Mormons in the eyes of many Americans.

I'm *still* not over the verdict in the OJ trial. I remember where I
was standing in Crystal City when I heard the news. That "hero" (my
ass!!) slaughtered his wife and her friend Ron. All you had to do
was to listen to him ranting on some of the 911 calls. He was way
over the edge. If anyone was ever guilty of murder, it was Orenthal
J. Simpson. Reversals like that, where the expected outcome is SO
alien to what you know and believe in, are very hard to shake. Only
time will do it. And maybe not even that.

## That OJ Simpson was found not guilty is a credit to our judicial
system.
The jury refused to allow the prosecution to frame a guilty man.

!!! It would be a credit if an *innocent* man had beaten an alleged "frame"
job. It's not a credit to allow a clearly guilty man to escape because a
detective once used the N word and foolishly denied it. It should have
merely given doubt to Fuhrman's testimony. There was still plenty of good
evidence left but the LA DA's office muffed nearly every advantage they had
in the face of OJ's very effective legal team. It's hard to listen to some
of the Nicole Brown 911 calls (with OJ screaming death threats like a
maniac) and come away with any sense other than "he's a f*cking stone cold
killer." But the OJ jury did.

We just had a "leather glove" thread. What nimlo doesn't know that a glove
soaked in blood shrinks a size or two? Members of the OJ jury, that's who!
Remove the possibly tainted evidence and you've still got lots of other
quality evidence, like the Bruno Magli shoes. That sort of evidence just
couldn't be doctored without a time machine. Fuhrman offers a lot of
interesting insight at (ugh!) Oprah's site:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Mark-...-Trial/print/1

Apparently Chris Darden and Marcia Clark made *lots* of mistakes that never
saw the light of day, including crediting Vanatter with evidence gathering
done by others and failing to make use of very good evidence (OJ's bloody
fingerprint on the gate latch).

LE and high profile people often interact badly for a wide range of reasons.
I can't remember what it's cost to put Pistol Packin' Psycho Phil Spector
away after the first trial/travesty but it was enormous. Has the justice
system improved since the OJ verdict? Who knows? Robert Blake walked,
probably only because the victim in that case (Bonnie Lee the Blackmailer)
was slightly less sympathetic than Vlad the Impaler. That prosecution
wasn't as badly botched as OJ's, but it turned out to have some serious
defects, like the veracity of the witnesses, with whom many deals were cut
in exchange for damning testimony.

I gotta admit - getting blood from a suspect (OJ) to (allegedly) dribble
around later at a crime scene was something that shocked me. But I can see
how something like that could become routine with at least some experienced
homicide detectives that had seen good cases melt away under an intense
legal spotlight.

Extensive media coverage can turn any routine event into a circus. The
media, IIRC, was much more concerned with Marcia Clark's hair-style change
than they were with the facts of a case. When defendants like Robert Blake,
Michael Jackson or Phil Spector go on trial, the legal system is just not
equipped to handle the resulting "deep pore" scrutiny. The OJ trial was a
judicial travesty and not anyone's shining hour - except, oddly, yours. (-:

Here in DC cops are getting the shaft for escorting Charlie "7g rock" Sheen
to a gig using lights and sirens. Celebs and cops - bad mixture.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



candidate like Ross Perot. Anyone who follows politics knows that the Far
Right doesn't think the rank and file Republicans represent them, setting
the stage for a splintering of the party.

Which might actually not be a bad idea for the party. The remainder
would probably more palatable to the Great Undecided.


Last time the "TV Candidate" was DA Arthur Branch from LawnOrder. Now we
are asked: President Trump? Maybe the time has come to ask if we're ready
for a Mormon president.

But at least Fred Thompson had had some experience in politics having
served in the Senate for awhile.



!!! It would be a credit if an *innocent* man had beaten an alleged "frame"
job. It's not a credit to allow a clearly guilty man to escape because a
detective once used the N word and foolishly denied it. It should have
merely given doubt to Fuhrman's testimony. There was still plenty of good
evidence left but the LA DA's office muffed nearly every advantage they had
in the face of OJ's very effective legal team. It's hard to listen to some
of the Nicole Brown 911 calls (with OJ screaming death threats like a
maniac) and come away with any sense other than "he's a f*cking stone cold
killer." But the OJ jury did.

The trial was lost when the DA did not object to the trying on the
glove. Deservedly so, at least from a Karma standpoint, for their
stupidity.


We just had a "leather glove" thread. What nimlo doesn't know that a glove
soaked in blood shrinks a size or two? Members of the OJ jury, that's who!
Remove the possibly tainted evidence and you've still got lots of other
quality evidence, like the Bruno Magli shoes. That sort of evidence just
couldn't be doctored without a time machine. Fuhrman offers a lot of
interesting insight at (ugh!) Oprah's site:

Heck you don't even need to bring that up. Just putting them on over
latex gloves is idiocy.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:



candidate like Ross Perot. Anyone who follows politics knows that the
Far
Right doesn't think the rank and file Republicans represent them,
setting
the stage for a splintering of the party.

Which might actually not be a bad idea for the party. The remainder
would probably more palatable to the Great Undecided.

It might have long term good repercussions for a party that's in fairly
serious disarray. I don't think a split would help a weak candidate from
the Republicans win against an incumbent who might be actually pulling out
of AfRaq as promised, when promised. Obama could be a genius by saving the
pullout (and the release of his "long form" birth certificate until just
before the election where they would carry the most weight.

Of course, it's also likely we could be adding North Korea and Iran to the
list of low-intensity conflicts as well by Oct 2012. Who can tell? The
world does what it wants when it wants to. Who knew "Arab Spring" was
coming until it hit us square in the face? What ARE we spending trillions
on intelligence for if they can't foresee events like this? The economy
could also turn around by then, but I won't hold my breath.

Last time the "TV Candidate" was DA Arthur Branch from LawnOrder. Now
we
are asked: President Trump? Maybe the time has come to ask if we're
ready
for a Mormon president.

But at least Fred Thompson had had some experience in politics having
served in the Senate for awhile.

True, that. Well, Trump has some serious business experience. If the US is
going to go bankrupt, Trump's the man with real bankruptcy experience.
Apparently he's learned how to survive them and that could be very, very
useful in case we can't pull out of the deficit nose-dive.

!!! It would be a credit if an *innocent* man had beaten an alleged
"frame"
job. It's not a credit to allow a clearly guilty man to escape because
a
detective once used the N word and foolishly denied it. It should have
merely given doubt to Fuhrman's testimony. There was still plenty of
good
evidence left but the LA DA's office muffed nearly every advantage they
had
in the face of OJ's very effective legal team. It's hard to listen to
some
of the Nicole Brown 911 calls (with OJ screaming death threats like a
maniac) and come away with any sense other than "he's a f*cking stone
cold
killer." But the OJ jury did.

The trial was lost when the DA did not object to the trying on the
glove. Deservedly so, at least from a Karma standpoint, for their
stupidity.

Instead of putting their best people on it, they put a woman and a black man
on the prosecution for appearances' sake. That's when they lost the case
of the century, at least IMHO. Getting "bend over backwards" Ito as the
trial judge sealed the deal. By the time we got to the "if the glove
doesn't fit, you must acquit" phase of the trial, it was all over. The jury
had made up their minds. Part of the problem of high-profile cases (and it
was nakedly apparent in the Spector trial) is that like cops, jurors get
blinded by celebrity. I heard one witness in the Spector trial virtually
say she was expecting a record contract from Spector for helping him out.
The woman was the victim's best friend, allegedly, and she turned on her in
a NY second when she realized that changing her story to help Spector would
help her in the long run.

We just had a "leather glove" thread. What nimlo doesn't know that a
glove
soaked in blood shrinks a size or two? Members of the OJ jury, that's
who!
Remove the possibly tainted evidence and you've still got lots of other
quality evidence, like the Bruno Magli shoes. That sort of evidence
just
couldn't be doctored without a time machine. Fuhrman offers a lot of
interesting insight at (ugh!) Oprah's site:

Heck you don't even need to bring that up. Just putting them on over
latex gloves is idiocy.

Correct. That demonstration was a textbook case in how NOT to do things.
There was enough evidence to convict three or four times over. It was so
badly presented and the prosecution got blind-sided so many times (like
Fuhrman's N bombs) it's no surprise that they failed to convict. Darden and
Clark didn't go very far after that case, IIRC. They were way out of their
league with OJ's attorneys and their level of experience.

--
Bobby G.

"dadiOH" wrote in message
...
Robert Green wrote:

McCain might have actually won had he not selected Palin.

Bingo!

It was the reason I didn't choose McCain nor did my much more conservative
boss. McCain's health and Palin's first few interviews just made me too
nervous.

There is still plenty of time and opportunity for the Republicans to
get
into serious trouble with their Tea Party "wing."

Bingo #2

It wouldn't be the first time and if anything's true, it's that history
repeats itself. Will Trump be 2012's Ross Perot? He has the ego for it!

Anyone who follows politics knows that the Far Right doesn't think the
rank and file Republicans represent them, setting the stage for a
splintering of the party.

As far as I am concerned, it is alread splintered. I long - really long -
for a moderate, do what's right for the country, to hell with special
interest groups, government should help people help themselves not wipe
their asses non-nut case candidate.

Dream on, DadiOH. (-: I think the process of selecting a candidate in this
day and age pretty much rules out selecting one with those traits. A long
time ago I read that special interest groups act as serious brakes on
progress and the way the US is failing behind on more and more key metrics
makes it seem very true. Both presidents (Bush and Obama) were forced into
bailouts and both have embraced expensive wars that rarely solve anything
(look at nutty North Korea and Israel/Palestine some 60 years later). It's
hard to tell who represents what anymore.

I read a great article about the futility of foreign aid. It said "They
thank us profusely for the first check, but hint it's not big enough. Then
they complain the second check and are much less shy about complaining how
small it is and that it didn't come fast enough. By the time the third aid
check arrives, it's an entitlement and recipients will complain bitterly
about us and our evil ways all the way to the bank." I think it's the same
with welfare payments to our own citizens or tax breaks to Big Business.
Entitlements are like werewolves. It takes a special silver bullet to kill
them.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:



candidate like Ross Perot. Anyone who follows politics knows that the
Far
Right doesn't think the rank and file Republicans represent them,
setting
the stage for a splintering of the party.

Which might actually not be a bad idea for the party. The remainder
would probably more palatable to the Great Undecided.

It might have long term good repercussions for a party that's in fairly
serious disarray. I don't think a split would help a weak candidate from
the Republicans win against an incumbent who might be actually pulling out
of AfRaq as promised, when promised. Obama could be a genius by saving the
pullout (and the release of his "long form" birth certificate until just
before the election where they would carry the most weight.

Of course, it's also likely we could be adding North Korea and Iran to the
list of low-intensity conflicts as well by Oct 2012. Who can tell? The
world does what it wants when it wants to. Who knew "Arab Spring" was
coming until it hit us square in the face? What ARE we spending trillions
on intelligence for if they can't foresee events like this? The economy
could also turn around by then, but I won't hold my breath.
Heck that worked so well for Nixon that he never actually HAD to get
out (grin).



True, that. Well, Trump has some serious business experience. If the US is
going to go bankrupt, Trump's the man with real bankruptcy experience.
Apparently he's learned how to survive them and that could be very, very
useful in case we can't pull out of the deficit nose-dive.
WHole lot of difference when a company goes bankrupt than when a
country does. If no other thing, than where would he get that much
debtor-in-possession financing?

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke