Comments on: Blowback http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/02/21/blowback/ The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy! Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:22:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Justthisguy http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/02/21/blowback/comment-page-1/#comment-423798 Justthisguy Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:32:47 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/02/21/blowback/#comment-423798 Skippy, WTF? "Because we believe that there is no need for as many handguns as are in circulation..." Mine aren't in circulation, they're securely stored, and occasionally taken out and exercised. And yes, I have more than one. Unlike Condi, I actually _am_ a Second Amendment Absolutist, and that's how I vote. Skippy, WTF? “Because we believe that there is no need for as many handguns as are in circulation…”

Mine aren’t in circulation, they’re securely stored, and occasionally taken out and exercised. And yes, I have more than one.

Unlike Condi, I actually _am_ a Second Amendment Absolutist, and that’s how I vote.

]]> By: Maggie http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/02/21/blowback/comment-page-1/#comment-423797 Maggie Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:37:44 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/02/21/blowback/#comment-423797 The answer to why the NYT published the McCain story is simple. They had a story and they were sitting on it. Fine. The New Republic gets wind of it and decides to write a story about the NYT newsroom sitting on a story. So now Keller faces a dilemma - Publish the story with little substance and lots of innuendo. The right will be up in arms that you took a cheap shot. Continue to sit on the story while the New Republic writes about you sitting on it. The left will be up in arms that you are giving McCain a pass. Clearly, peeving conservatives is the lesser of two evils to the NYT. Who here couldn't have called that one? As far as the allegation of the affair, The Corner had the best take on it. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWNkZmIwN2I3MzdhZWRlYjAwNGNiMzIyYTJiOWFlYzU= **For some reason, I can't think what, that story in the New York Times brings to mind one of the classic anecdotes about Disraeli. The background to it was that the Tory leader's principal political opponent, the 70-something Lord Palmerston had (as a writer in the Daily Telegraph put it a couple of years ago) "been caught with a chambermaid on a billiards table in a stately home in Suffolk" (as it happens, I've read other, marginally less colorful versions of what it was that Lord Palmerston had been doing, but let's just say that all of them would have been disappointing to Lady Palmerston). One of Disraeli's advisers then suggested that the story be spread around, to which the great man replied: "Good heavens, no! If this gets out, he will sweep the country!"*** Of course, I didn't need any help deciding to vote for McCain, I was WMBNH. The answer to why the NYT published the McCain story is simple. They had a story and they were sitting on it. Fine. The New Republic gets wind of it and decides to write a story about the NYT newsroom sitting on a story.
So now Keller faces a dilemma –
Publish the story with little substance and lots of innuendo. The right will be up in arms that you took a cheap shot.
Continue to sit on the story while the New Republic writes about you sitting on it. The left will be up in arms that you are giving McCain a pass.
Clearly, peeving conservatives is the lesser of two evils to the NYT. Who here couldn’t have called that one?
As far as the allegation of the affair, The Corner had the best take on it.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWNkZmIwN2I3MzdhZWRlYjAwNGNiMzIyYTJiOWFlYzU=

**For some reason, I can’t think what, that story in the New York Times brings to mind one of the classic anecdotes about Disraeli. The background to it was that the Tory leader’s principal political opponent, the 70-something Lord Palmerston had (as a writer in the Daily Telegraph put it a couple of years ago) “been caught with a chambermaid on a billiards table in a stately home in Suffolk” (as it happens, I’ve read other, marginally less colorful versions of what it was that Lord Palmerston had been doing, but let’s just say that all of them would have been disappointing to Lady Palmerston). One of Disraeli’s advisers then suggested that the story be spread around, to which the great man replied: “Good heavens, no! If this gets out, he will sweep the country!”***

Of course, I didn’t need any help deciding to vote for McCain, I was WMBNH.

]]> By: Skippy-san http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/02/21/blowback/comment-page-1/#comment-423795 Skippy-san Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:57:25 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/02/21/blowback/#comment-423795 You can insert in the comments on my blog. I'm not a Dobson fan for a lot of reasons though that have nothing to do with politics. You can insert in the comments on my blog. I’m not a Dobson fan for a lot of reasons though that have nothing to do with politics.

]]> By: Jim C http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/02/21/blowback/comment-page-1/#comment-423796 Jim C Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:43:46 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/02/21/blowback/#comment-423796 Skippy, I'm a little hesitant to use our host's bandwidth for preaching without his permission. Needless to say, I disagree with your characterization of Dobson. If you'd like to continue the conversation (and I would), perhaps there's some way I can get you my email address, and we can continue it that way. As far as the tax cut, the fact that paying alimony cut into what you would have recieved doesn't change the fact that we were all given a tax cut. Let me know if you'd like to continue the discussion about Dobson and his right to be involved in the political process. Jim C Skippy,

I’m a little hesitant to use our host’s bandwidth for preaching without his permission. Needless to say, I disagree with your characterization of Dobson. If you’d like to continue the conversation (and I would), perhaps there’s some way I can get you my email address, and we can continue it that way.

As far as the tax cut, the fact that paying alimony cut into what you would have recieved doesn’t change the fact that we were all given a tax cut.

Let me know if you’d like to continue the discussion about Dobson and his right to be involved in the political process.

Jim C

]]> By: Skippy-san http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/02/21/blowback/comment-page-1/#comment-423792 Skippy-san Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:56:19 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/02/21/blowback/#comment-423792 I just did my taxes. Thanks to the wonders of alimony I am at a loss to see what the tax cut did for me, they are essentially the same as they were last year and if it were not for the IRA deduction they are actually more than I paid last year due to lack of ability to exclude a couple months income because of no trips to the middle east. My taxable earnings are in the middle range. I don't see any effect-save for the increased standard deduction. Here is the difference between Dobson and Sheehan-Sheehan does not tell you that you are going to hell if you do not agree with her. Dobson does. That is a big difference. I just did my taxes. Thanks to the wonders of alimony I am at a loss to see what the tax cut did for me, they are essentially the same as they were last year and if it were not for the IRA deduction they are actually more than I paid last year due to lack of ability to exclude a couple months income because of no trips to the middle east. My taxable earnings are in the middle range. I don’t see any effect-save for the increased standard deduction.

Here is the difference between Dobson and Sheehan-Sheehan does not tell you that you are going to hell if you do not agree with her. Dobson does. That is a big difference.

]]> By: Jim C http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/02/21/blowback/comment-page-1/#comment-423793 Jim C Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:46:25 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/02/21/blowback/#comment-423793 That last paragrapg should read "At the <em>time</em> of the initial tax cuts..." Sorry about that. Jim C That last paragrapg should read “At the time of the initial tax cuts…”

Sorry about that.

Jim C

]]>