Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs

Zero tolerance, no compromise, no mercy.

Bye bye, hypocrite.

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:42:49 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:

>Zero tolerance, no compromise, no mercy.
>
>Bye bye, hypocrite.

Posted to the wrong newsgroup by mistake. My apologies.

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:09:18 -0600, Robert wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:42:49 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> 
>
> Posted to the wrong newsgroup by mistake. My apologies.

Still, without knowing anything about this case, it's always good fun to
see a hypocrite go down.

Tim

tim wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:09:18 -0600, Robert wrote:
> 
>
> Still, without knowing anything about this case, it's always good fun
> to see a hypocrite go down.
>

I dunno. Hypocrisy gets a bad rap.

The sign that says: "This way to Chicago" doesn't actually GO to Chicago
itself (thereby demonstrating the sign's superior intellect).

90% of gynecologists are male.

Virtually every parent says their 13-year old should not have sex.

There're other examples.

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:51:06 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>tim wrote: 
>
>I dunno. Hypocrisy gets a bad rap.
>
>The sign that says: "This way to Chicago" doesn't actually GO to Chicago
>itself (thereby demonstrating the sign's superior intellect).

Dickens' description of Sam Pecksniff (Martin Chuzzlewit): "Some people like
ned him to a
direction-post, which is always telling the way to a place, and never goes t
here".

>There're other examples.

Here's one:

Paterson compared Spitzer’s leadership style with that of Ronald Reagan. “He
’s very
directed. Very decision-oriented.” A Spitzer spokeswoman says the Reagan ana
logy “hits the
nail on the head,” adding that Spitzer “knows when to be hands on, knows whe
n to be hands
off.”
http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/23491/

Whoops. Strike that last remark.

"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
 news:03lbt3pivhlcl8o3ccdq9u5iqhg33rkhaf@
4ax.com...
> Zero tolerance, no compromise, no mercy.
>
> Bye bye, hypocrite.

Well, he *has* been working tirelessly for twenty-plus years to keep his
name at the center of public attention....

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:51:06 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>I dunno. Hypocrisy gets a bad rap.
>
>The sign that says: "This way to Chicago" doesn't actually GO to Chicago
>itself (thereby demonstrating the sign's superior intellect).

The sign doesn't go?

>90% of gynecologists are male.

90% of computer programmers are made out of flesh.

>Virtually every parent says their 13-year old should not have sex.

Nor full-time jobs.

>There're other examples.

What makes these examples of hypocrisy?

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:27:02 -0500, Michael Mattias wrote:

> "Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
>  news:03lbt3pivhlcl8o3ccdq9u5iqhg33rkhaf@
4ax.com... 
>
> Well, he *has* been working tirelessly for twenty-plus years to keep his
> name at the center of public attention....

This saga prompts a thought...

I was wondering why the Democratic majority in congress has been so tame
and has basically gone along with just about everything George W. Bush has
wanted for the past year. This case may actually offer a clue.

With the massive expansion of monitoring of emails, financial
transactions, credit card records, phone calls, Internet accesses and s
forth by the government since the 9/11 attack, there must
be a huge amount of material available to the administration.

They could then use that material to pressure all sorts of people to do
their bidding. This sort of thing is not without precedent. J. Edgar
Hoover was able to stay in charge of the FBI for many years when he
should have gone, reportedly in large measure because he had a dossier on
most of the decision makers in government. Similarly Richard Nixon used the
IRS to put pressure on his enemies.

There are so many laws and they are so complex that it is just about
physically impossible to avoid some infractions.

Tim

"tim" <TimJ@internet.com> wrote in message
news:13tm9o3r09to21f@corp.supernews.com...
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:27:02 -0500, Michael Mattias wrote:
> 
>
> This saga prompts a thought...

> With the massive expansion of monitoring of emails, financial
> transactions, credit card records, phone calls, Internet accesses and s
> forth by the government since the 9/11 attack, there must
> be a huge amount of material available to the administration.
>
> They could then use that material to pressure all sorts of people to do
> their bidding...

When you brought up the late Mr. Hoover a little later in your title I was
reminded of a story about the President often associated with him, Lyndon
Johnson. Johnson once 'leaked' a news story that Hoover was about to be
fired, allowed the paper print it, then later that day announced Hoover
would be director essentially forever. (later coarsely suggesting the
newpaper engage in an intimate act with itself).

Anyway,  the point is you don't really need a lot of documentation to
'influence' others...

When LBJ was Senate majority leader, a member of his party was in a tough
re-election campaign and came to Johnson for advice. After reviewing the
campaign and the numbers, Johnson said, "What you have to do is leak to the
newpapers that your opponent is cheating on his wife."

The candidate quickly protested: "But sir, we have no evidence he's doing
that; we could never prove it."

Johnson replied, "Hell, you don't have to prove it;  you just have to get
him denying it on the record!"

MCM







This

tim wrote:
>
> This saga prompts a thought...
>
> I was wondering why the Democratic majority in congress has been so
> tame and has basically gone along with just about everything George
> W. Bush has wanted for the past year. This case may actually offer a
> clue.

I wouldn't say they've been "tame." In the past year, there have been
seventeen resolutions, bills, and whatnot introduced, debated, and voted
upon requiring the U.S. to leave Iraq. All have failed. On the other hand,
prior to the Democrats taking over the Congress, there were 24 consecutive
quarters of economic growth. This, in spite of 9-11, Katrina, the war, and
other significant events. It took the Democrats less than a year to XXXX it
all up.

>
> With the massive expansion of monitoring of emails, financial
> transactions, credit card records, phone calls, Internet accesses and
> s forth by the government since the 9/11 attack, there must
> be a huge amount of material available to the administration.

Republicans don't do that sort of thing.