Anyone who quotes Rumpole deserves a special commendation and we will raise a glass of Chateau Thames Embankment in your honor sir
Rumpole was (and still is) the best TV lawyer ever! Heâd never fit into shows like The Good Wife and Suits because he had no interest in high-dollar litigation. As I recall, the one time he tried, he deliberately lost the case because he found out his client was guilty of what he was being sued for. I miss both Rumpole and McKern, who never gave a bad performance â and I saw him in Help! and The Prisoner when those joints were new.
2 Likes
UGG! Where you been?!
2 Likes
Good for the students and faculty of my Alma Mater.
Rutgers is lucky. I had the misfortune of watching Dr. Rice speak, and it was a waste of precious time.
2 Likes
Itâs the poor brain chemistry. Teh crazy is powerful with this one.
I have been around academics for some time. One thing they share with politicians is an overriding belief in their ability to talk their way out of things. A variant of that is a belief in their ability to appeal to disparate groups of people with, essentially, the same message. Newt Gingrich is a perfect example of such a person.
Condi Rice is another.
4 Likes
Hillary Clinton voted for and endorsed the Iraq war. So did a lot of other Democrats in Congress including John Kerry. And I totally agree with you.
1 Like
I want to see the b*tch face a man with a sign that says, âMy son died for your hubris.â Or face a woman with a sign that says, âMy husband died so your buddies could make a buck.â
I want every one of those b@st@rds to see signs like that, every time the step foot outdoors.
3 Likes
Condiâs âhonoraryâ cap and gown:
Looks great with Ferragamo shoes!
War criminal decides to not speak at third-rate state school.
Everybody wins.
1 Like
Sheâs at Stanford?
I knew John Yoo is at Berkeleyâs Boalt.
Rather undermines the whole âUniversities are Liberalâ crap the right spews, doesnât it?
It also makes me very glad I didnât go to either of those highly dubious institutions. In both cases itâs a vivid demonstration of the old saying âthose who canât do teachâ.
1 Like
No I wasnât joking but did misread your previous post which led to the confusion youâre referring to. But the president is indeed a transparent fraud. My God, there are so many quotes from Obama where heâs stating his opposition to the war and then there are so many votes by him showing that he does indeed support the war - and the extension of the Iraq War. Hereâs just a few:
he voted against another successful bill which gave $120 billion in funding for the Iraq War (vote 181), but voted for two different votes on a separate failed bill (HR 1591), which appropriated similar amounts for the Iraq War but included timetables for American troop withdrawals [source: The Washington Post].
He voted in favor of HR 4939 in 2006, which granted $67 billion in emergency funding to the Department of Defense
Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006, (S. 3930) which granted legal immunity for CIA officials involved in acts of torture, outlawed certain acts of torture by U.S. agents, and barred detainees labeled enemy combatants from protesting their incarceration.
None of the things you posted show heâs a transparent fraud or show ideological support for the Iraq war though. He was a senator, and had to cast a vote one way or the other. Bills are messy and complicated, and often contain items where in order to vote yay on something you want (like troop withdraw timetables), you end up simultaneously voting on something you may not necessarily support. Itâs called compromise. Compromising on something does not mean you support the opposing agenda.
Think about it like this:
A bill containing two items. 1) $100 billion to fund the war; 2) a troop withdraw timetable.
Any way you vote on that bill can be used as evidence that you support the war (funding it). Any way you vote on that bill can also be used to show you do not support the war (withdrawing troops).
That is what youâre doing here.
In an ideal world, Ms. Rice would not be unwilling to make such a speech; rather, sheâd be unable to make such a speech, due to being forced, along with Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and George W. Bush, to spend the rest of her life behind bars as a war criminal.
One can dream of such a worldâŚ
1 Like
Another grifting Republican, in addition to her war crimes. She was getting $35K to receive a honorary doctorate?!? I was pretty disgusted when the University of Minnesota paid her $250K to come spew her lies. This takes the cake.
On edit: her fee at U of MN was only $150. My mistake. But still an outrageous sum. It would pay a professorâs salary for a year.
1 Like
Dancinâ David Gregory said it was surprising that a progressive organization didnât want to hear opposing views. No, Dave, the students and faculty did not want money and honors to go to someone who was instrumental in the lies that killed tens of thousands of people. Again, not a First Amendment issue - you can say what you want, the government wonât stop you, but may be held accountable by others.
Plus, she said nobody told her, the National Security Adviser, what to do.
1 Like
Finally her lies about mushroom clouds and smoking guns from Iraq have caught up with her. This shameless, close-minded woman doesnât deserve to be honored for anything.
And given the mess the administration she worked for left this country and the world in after eight years of incompetent, misguided, mean-spirited governance, sheâs a piss poor choice to speak to anybody, especially the young graduates of Rutgers.
We already know what this ideologue thinks and how she views the world - itâs very dark and very ugly. Donât need to hear another word from her. Ever.
2 Likes