dagblog - Comments for "Are Herman Cain’s right-wing defenders exempt from the journalism code of ethics?"

Thanks for the clarification

NCD — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 04:06:21 +0000

In reply to Do you remember when I said,

Thanks for the clarification on your view of the GOP.

I would go beyond your belief that George W. Bush was 'not smart'.

I agree with the former Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferenccz, who prosecuted 22 Nazi officers after WW2, and more recently did work for the International Court in the Hague, that Bush should stand trial for the 'supreme international crime' of starting an aggressive war.

Aman dismissed that sentiment along with Bush accountability, citing Congressional actions, intelligence failures and that Bush was elected, Genghis opined that invading a peaceful Iraq in 2003 was, in effect, business as usual for the US, comparing it to Vietnam. In Vietnam we entered a war that had been going for 10 years, on the side of an existing government and army. Iraq was, of course, at peace until Bush sent our forces in, which is the crime Ferenccz refers to, initiating 'aggressive war'. (Supporting the losing side in a civil war that you should have stayed out of to begin with is not comparable.)

I didn't propose that,

MuddyPolitics — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:23:29 +0000

In reply to And Cal Thomas seems

I didn't propose that, exactly, but I've politely requested that Cal Thomas retire once before >> http://www.muddypolitics.com/2011/09/cal-thomas-retire-already.html

Anne Coulter is the winger

artappraiser — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:59:32 +0000

In reply to Are Herman Cain’s right-wing defenders exempt from the journalism code of ethics?

Anne Coulter is the winger that deserves to be razzed the most with this. Because she is a fan of Cain and has already played the Clarence Thomas high tech lynching card on this. And because she also owes her celebrity to proudly being one of the "vast right wing conspiracy" supporting Paula Jones' case (some fun quotes @ that wikipedia link, like: I just wanted to help Paula. I really think Paula Jones is a hero. I don't think I could have taken the abuse she came under.) There's ample video in cable TV archives of her going on and on and on about the awful abuse of power by such sexual harassers as Bill Clinton, what horrible people such people are, and how they don't deserve to be in government, etc. (virtually several times a week for many months, as I recall.)

Do you remember when I said,

Verified Atheist — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:59:20 +0000

In reply to VA, I have noted Republicans

Do you remember when I said, way back when (nearly six hours ago!):

…legally he should obviously be presumed innocent; practically, he's most likely guilty …

So, to answer your question on what to do, it depends on who the implied "we" is. I don't plan on doing anything. As I've already said, I think he's probably guilty. If he is, it'll come out if he continues to get significant traction.

The nice thing is, that this thread is so short, your previous assertion that I in any way suggested that it's OK if Republicans do it (AKA IOKIYAR) is laid bare. I hope you can see that. In so doing, perhaps you'll reconsider your position that:

This mindset, in fact, seems a motivation for many posts here at Dag.

I posit that the problem isn't the posts at Dag, it's the filter through which you interpret them. Anyone who knows me, knows how important it is for me to keep as much power as possible out of Republican hands. Your assertion is as laughable as me asserting that Cheney is a good man or that Bush is a smart one.

VA, I have noted Republicans

NCD — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:42:30 +0000

In reply to Wow, what a complete load of

VA, I have noted Republicans have a very long memory for unseemly stuff Democrats have been accused of, while a very short recollection of their own bad 'stuff'.

This is a trait almost universally present among Republicans, and you seem to display it on this thread.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on your prescription for what to do with Cain without bringing up 20 year old stuff about Clinton.

Wow, what a complete load of

Verified Atheist — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:30:15 +0000

In reply to Bottom line, whatever it is,

Wow, what a complete load of hogwash. I said that they both should be treated the same, and you twist that to be that I said that Republicans should be exempted. It sounds to me like what you're really saying is that it's OK if Democrats do it.

Bottom line, whatever it is,

NCD — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:24:34 +0000

In reply to I'm guessing you're referring

Bottom line, whatever it is, starting wars, lying, sex, outing agents, deficits, it's OK if Republicans do it. 'Everybody does that stuff'. However, only Democrats are to be held to account. This mindset, in fact, seems a motivation for many posts here at Dag.

5 payouts on sexual

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:22:14 +0000

In reply to I'm guessing you're referring

5 payouts on sexual harassment is a bit more proven than in-court proceedings showing the witness to have lied.

"U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright's decision to toss out the Paula Jones case on summary judgment underscores a fact that should have been obvious from the outset: the case always was a political device to destroy President Clinton and negate the electoral results of 1992 and 1996."

"Over time, even Jones's lawyers came to doubt elements of her story. Her first lawyer, Daniel Traylor, quit and later objected to additions that Jones made as the case evolved. Her second set of lawyers quit, too, emphasizing strategic differences but also citing unspecified "illegal or unjust" actions by their client. In Esquire, Brock noted that "one of Jones's key legal advisers told me that he didn't necessarily believe her story of sexual harassment." "

You can refresh your memory of the wonderful 90's here: http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/clinto12.html

I'm guessing you're referring

Verified Atheist — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:24:36 +0000

In reply to Clinton's affair was between

I'm guessing you're referring to Monica Lewinsky. I'm not. I'm referring to the allegations during the '92 campaign, which are as proven as the allegations against Cain.

Clinton's affair was between

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:20:51 +0000

In reply to I am quite aware of how

Clinton's affair was between consenting adults.