# Sandy Berger No Longer An Attorney



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

He admits to stealing documents and destroying them. He says in the article how he had planned to no longer practice law, so here's my license. This guy should have a cell right next door to Scooter Libby IMO.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> He admits to stealing documents and destroying them. He says in the article how he had planned to no longer practice law, so here's my license. This guy should have a cell right next door to Scooter Libby IMO.


I think he ought to have Scooter Libby's cell and Libby should be gone.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Part of the inquiry by the bar was that he provide a detailed explanation of what he took, and the circumstances under which he took them. 

By surrendering his license at this point in time, these questions cease.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Part of the inquiry by the bar was that he provide a detailed explanation of what he took, and the circumstances under which he took them.
> 
> By surrendering his license at this point in time, these questions cease.


Good point. I do not think he should be allowed to surrender it, I think the investigation should be allowed to continue to its conclusion. However, that might be embarrassing to two of the Bar Association's most powerful and most famous members.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Bergler continues to fall on his sword.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

I believe that Bill Clinton had to surrender his law license as well. As I have said many times before, Republicans are no more virtuous than Democrats but they do at least own up to their sins and suffer the consequences, from Trent Lott resigning his Majority leader post after some stupid remarks about Strom Thurmond to Rep. Janklow serving prison time for killing someone while speeding. Compare that to Chris Dodd's remarks saying that former KKK member Senator Robert Byrd's counsel would have welcomed during the Civil War and Ted Kennedy's being overwhelmingly re-elected in MA seven times since his driving killed Mary Jo Kopecne - well in all fairness, Ted didn't literally get away with murder as he was fined for leaving the scene of an accident.

If anyone one of us had committed the felonies that Berger did it is very possible we would be facing charges of treason since he allegedly stole documents pertaining to national security. But then again the Democratic party would lose much of its raison d'etre if double standards didn't exist.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AlanC said:


> Bergler continues to fall on his sword.


Yep. They all have their willing sacrifices.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Berger said he hasn't practiced law in 15 years and wasn't planning on it, so I think "falling on his sword" is more than a bit overstated.

Some context to the story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger

Not to minimize what Berger did or might have done, but it appears to be a trend in presidential administrations. The prize for "fessing up" still has to go to Fawn Hall, Oliver North's secretary during the Iran-Contra Scandal:

"Sometimes you have to go above the law."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_Hall


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Just a little perspective here.​

Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference 
Courtesy of FDCH e-MEDIA
Friday, October 28, 2005; 3:57 PM​
"FITZGERALD: And I'd say this: I think people might not understand this. We, as prosecutors and FBI agents, have to deal with false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury all the time. The Department of Justice charges those statutes all the time.

When I was in New York working as a prosecutor, we brought those cases because we realized that the truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost.

In Philadelphia, where Jack works, they prosecute false statements and obstruction of justice.

When I got to Chicago, I knew the people before me had prosecuted false statements, obstruction and perjury cases.

FITZGERALD: And we do it all the time. And if a truck driver pays a bribe or someone else does something where they go into a grand jury afterward and lie about it, they get indicted all the time.

Any notion that anyone might have that there's a different standard for a high official, that this is somehow singling out obstruction of justice and perjury, is upside down.

If these facts are true, if we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice and perjury, we might as well just hand in our jobs. Because our jobs, the criminal justice system, is to make sure people tell us the truth. And when it's a high-level official and a very sensitive investigation, it is a very, very serious matter that no one should take lightly."


----------



## Kent Wang (Aug 2, 2005)

His son Alex Berger competed at the national championship level in collegiate policy debate.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Why are people so obsessed with Sandy Berger?

Yes he should be held to account for his actions, but I've never seen anything that indicates he was acting with ill intent...aside from a little arrogance.

-spence


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Clinton's license was merely suspended for 5 years and is active again now. That one was the dumbest, because if he had kept his head he would have simply said that it isn't any of the jury's business and left it at that, because legally it wasn't.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Why are people so obsessed with Sandy Berger?
> 
> Yes he should be held to account for his actions, but I've never seen anything that indicates he was acting with ill intent...aside from a little arrogance.
> 
> -spence


Going into a secured document room of the National Archives and then shoving those documents down your socks and trousers so that you can sneak them out to an unsecure are where you stash them to be smuggled out later doesn't indicate intent beyond arrogance? He made several trips and they never found everything and won't tell us what is missing.

I don't see your view. It was the 9/11 commission investigation. What was he so desperate to destroy and hide? That's what people are obsessed with.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I don't see your view. It was the 9/11 commission investigation. What was he so desperate to destroy and hide? That's what people are obsessed with.


But he didn't destroy anything, and given his past role he certainly would have known he wouldn't be able to anyway. That's floated as a motive but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

-spence


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> But he didn't destroy anything


There is no way to know that.

By surrendering his license in the MIDDLE of the disciplinary process, he will _*never *_have to answer these still-unanswered questions.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Phinn said:


> There is no way to know that.


According to the Govt investigation he never had access to single copies of any documents.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> But he didn't destroy anything, and given his past role he certainly would have known he wouldn't be able to anyway. That's floated as a motive but it doesn't make a lot of sense.
> 
> -spence


You simply don't know that. I don't know that. However, he was caught transfering from the secure to a non-secure area, crumpling up papers and stashing them in odd places to later retrieve them. As I understood the testimony of the NA-guy they don't know what is missing because they weren't done cataloguing them, but he's pretty sure some things are missing and Berger took them that's why he called security/police in the first place.

Anyway, the reason people are obsessed is they want to know. There is no evidence that his moving them out to an unsecured area did not or would not enable him to destroy them. That's just being conveniently blind IMHO.

Anytime someone is caught, people want to know what they got away with before they were caught. That seems normal and not so hard to understand.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> According to the Govt investigation he never had access to single copies of any documents.
> 
> -spence


I don't believe that's supported by the facts of the investigation. I think that's what someone said probaby Berger and from what I read that is not true.

The NA-guy says some things are missing and as long as there was a guy caught red-handed he's going to remain prime suspect in peoples' minds.

I haven't heard a reasonable explanation of his actions that doesn't include ill intent.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I don't believe that's supported by the facts of the investigation. I think that's what someone said probaby Berger and from what I read that is not true.


From Wikipedia



> Critics suggest Berger destroyed primary evidence revealing anti-terrorism policies and actions, and that his motive was to permanently erase Clinton administration pre-9/11 mistakes from the public record. Public statements to this effect have been made by talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh,[16] former Clinton campaign advisor Dick Morris,[17] USA Today reporter Jack Kelley,[18] multiple times by Fox News correspondent John Gibson (the last as recently as December 2006[19]), and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Republican-Illinois), who said: "What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation's most sensitive secrets?"[20]
> 
> After a long investigation, the lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.[21] His and the FBI's opinion of the case initially led The Wall Street Journal to editorialize against the allegations.[22]
> 
> ...


-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

And; isn't the point that after all that the NA-guy finally spoke out publicly and said that wasn't the full story?



> Under this version of events -- which Breuer denied -- documents were returned the following day from Berger's office to the Archives. Not included in these papers, the government official said, were any drafts of the document at the center of this week's controversy.
> 
> The documents that Berger has acknowledged taking -- some of which remain missing -- are different drafts of a January 2000 "after-action review" of how the government responded to terrorism plots at the turn of the millennium. The document was written by White House anti-terrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke, at Berger's direction when he was in government.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> And; isn't the point that after all that the NA-guy finally spoke out publicly and said that wasn't the full story?


Is there any real reporting on that? I've only heard it referenced casually...

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So Spence, what you are saying, is that in your view, this is much ado about nothing, Sandy is really a good guy (as he never had "ill intent"), and the fact he was willing to turn over his license to stop the investigation is not to be wondered at? Basically, it's all just part of the VRWC?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Is there any real reporting on that? I've only heard it referenced casually...
> 
> -spence


Real reporting - like Wikipedia? Umm, no 

But, there is the Washington Post

and an article in National Review

and there's google. knock yourself out.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Real reporting - like Wikipedia? Umm, no


Well, the Wiki bit was well organized and footnoted. It seems to be pretty credible given everything else I've read.

Both links you posted are from just after the event (i.e. pre-investigation) and don't really contain anything that justifies an assertion that the NA staff is discrediting the Government investigation.

That's what I was trying to search for, I've never found anything.

And Way, I'm not standing up for Berger's actions. But I do think this is one of those stories where the pundits have made it into something it isn't.

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> And Way, I'm not standing up for Berger's actions. But I do think this is one of those stories where the pundits have made it into something it isn't.
> 
> -spence


And now we'll never know because Sandy effectively stopped the investigation. As many times as the story changed, I have to say I am still curious.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Reading above it would seem that this only stops the investigation by the DC Bar into his actions. This has nothing to do with the official and lengthy Government investigation that's already concluded.

Does anyone really care if the Bar concludes Berger should loose his license, or if he just gives it up?

This sounds like more of the same, manipulation of the news...

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

There's a lot of recent doubt to the validity of the claims post investigation. If I run across the article I read I'll post it. Honestly, I don't even know the name of the guy that spoke out, but it was recent. I guess this came from an investigation by this Rep. Davis.

https://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070311/19barone.htm

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/sandy_berger_what_did_he_take.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/sandy_berger_and_the_clinton_c.html


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Does anyone really care if the Bar concludes Berger should loose his license, or if he just gives it up?
> -spence


It's because he made some stupid comment that he wasn't planning to use it anyway. So, it's not like he was really punished.

If he was being smartly managed he would have said, "I've been forced to give up my license which will significantly damage and alter my future career, earning power, and reputation."

Instead he publicly expressed how he wouldn't feel any pain about his license because he hadn't practiced and wasn't planning to practice anyway. So, it seems like he got off free.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> There's a lot of recent doubt to the validity of the claims post investigation. If I run across the article I read I'll post it. Honestly, I don't even know the name of the guy that spoke out, but it was recent. I guess this came from an investigation by this Rep. Davis.


I'd like to read it...and know what new information Rep. Davis had access to that the investigation didn't. According to the Wiki summary it was the same.

But there's nothing new in the links below either. The USNews story references the claim that there might have been unique documents taken, but doesn't offer anything to justify this. It appears they're just restating the same pre-investigation assertion.

So I guess the question is, why don't people want to believe the findings of the official investigation? Is there good evidence it wasn't handled properly, or perhaps it's just because the pundits can't use it to tar Clinton 

-spence


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> There's a lot of recent doubt to the validity of the claims post investigation. If I run across the article I read I'll post it. Honestly, I don't even know the name of the guy that spoke out, but it was recent. I guess this came from an investigation by this Rep. Davis.


How is Berger (or anyone for that matter) supposed to prove a negative? If he's saying there was nothing sinister about it, that he took only copies of documents and no handwritten notes were on them, and the investigation moreless agrees with these claims, the rest is just silly conspiracy theory.

Really, this sounds like one of the last vestiges of House Republican persecution of Bill Clinton and his administration.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> How is Berger (or anyone for that matter) supposed to prove a negative?


Yea, like the classic Dick Cheney assertion that Atta may have indeed met with Iraqi agents in Prague because the claim hadn't been completely shot down!

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Yes there is, the distinction between notes, drafts, and documents. It's the same old Clinton parsing that bothers people. Apparently, they may have a document and five or six drafts and some notes. And Berger and Co. are saying as you said, "there were not any notes in the margins of any documents and all documents are there", but what people are worried about is drafts of documents and notes in those drafts which are missing. So, people want to know what was it that was in a draft or a note which didn't get in the final document. See what I mean? Some of the drafts or notes are missing. That seems to be a fact of the investigation. So drafts vs. notes vs. documents and there is a convenient blurring of the denials. It makes people suspicious, and reminds them of the parsing that went on and makes people obsessed to find out what is missing and why; and why Berger did what he did seeing that there is no reasonable explanation.

I said, I don't know, but what I also said was you didn't know. No one knows probably except Berger, Breuer, and Clark. There may be nothing, but some things are missing and when you get caught with papers in your clothes you have made your bed.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Some of the drafts or notes are missing. That seems to be a fact of the investigation.


According to the DOJ investigation or the House Republicans staff report?

So the House Republicans issue a blistering 61 page report, and all they can muster is a letter to Alberto Gonzales asking to put Berger under a polygraph?

This is a joke.

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> ...the rest is just silly conspiracy theory.
> 
> Really, this sounds like one of the last vestiges of House Republican persecution of Bill Clinton and his administration.


There we go, just like I said above. VRWC.

Two types of people: the one that thinks Berger and Libby should be sharing cells. The other thinks "their guy" is innocent yet the other is not.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Two types of people: the one that thinks Berger and Libby should be sharing cells. The other thinks "their guy" is innocent yet the other is not.


The difference is there's plenty of evidence to justify Libby's conviction, his defenders do so only to protect the President's policy.

While there's little evidence to claim Berger was attempting to change the record, and I don't know many who would side with Berger just to protect Clinton.

-spence


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> How is Berger (or anyone for that matter) supposed to prove a negative?





Spence said:


> Yea, like the classic Dick Cheney assertion that Atta may have indeed met with Iraqi agents in Prague because the claim hadn't been completely shot down!


Or Iraq's WMDs. We (and I don't mean just Republicans) keep falling for the same bad joke, over and over.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> The difference is there's plenty of evidence to justify Libby's conviction, his defenders do so only to protect the President's policy.
> 
> While *there's little evidence to claim Berger was attempting to change the record,* and I don't know many who would side with Berger just to protect Clinton.
> 
> -spence


I think there is zero evidence he was trying to change the record. I think it appears he was certainly trying to remove some information however.

Either way, again, those that think both guys were dirty, those that think "their guy" is clean, maybe even victim of a VR/LWC, but the guy from "the other side" is dirty.

YMMV.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I have a problem with both of them, although in the Libby case, I have less of a problem.

If Mr. Berger was so innocent, why was he messing with any documents?

Mr. Libby should not have lied to the prosecutors, although I am getting weary of prosecutors not having a chargeable crime, while trying to net someone they disagree with in a perjury trap.

(This is my big problem with the Clinton BJ situation.)

Republicans hurt themselves badly with this nonsense. (I truly believe that this is when their domination of America's politics started to crumble. I lost respect for them after that. Bush and his stupidity completed the process.)

Geez. They get power and fumble it away before they have time to do any real things with it. Oh well. And to all who say Gingrich is so brilliant, - - -

However, we'll see if the Democrats learned anything from this, or if they will tie government in knots looking for ways to blame Republicans for anything that has ever gone wrong (instead of trying to work out real situations to real problems like health care and the terrorism situation.)


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I think there is zero evidence he was trying to change the record. I think it appears he was certainly trying to remove some information however.


Same difference...if he's trying to permanently remove information he's trying to change it.

That being said, there's not much that indicates he was trying to do this.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Same difference...if he's trying to permanently remove information he's trying to change it.
> 
> That being said, there's not much that indicates he was trying to do this.
> 
> -spence


I'm laughing here, but seriously what do you think he was trying to do? I have yet to hear anything remotely plausible.

I agree that with Forsberg for the most part, maybe 85%. The 15% is the Clinton thing. I feel that KS got sidetracked on the lurid details, but the original complaint was important against Clinton and some of the stuff on Mrs. Clinton (according to Bernstein) should have gone further than it did. The Republicans certainly seem to constantly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I think it comes from being a Republican vs. a Conservative. Self-serving politics crops up just as it does with Dems. The difference is then the Reps are hypocrites where the Dems aren't because they make no such moral claims. Although Pelosi seems to have screwed that up with her attacks on corrupt Republicans and how she handled Jefferson.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> If Mr. Berger was so innocent, why was he messing with any documents?


Berger admitted guilt. His story of why he was removing classified material, while incredibly stupid, isn't that far fetched when put in context.



> Mr. Libby should not have lied to the prosecutors, although I am getting weary of prosecutors not having a chargeable crime, while trying to net someone they disagree with in a perjury trap.


This doesn't bother me given the facts in the case.

Libby told lies before Fitzgerald was even appointed, it's not like they forced him into it. Now that we know Plame was indeed covert, and that her identity was leaked by three Admin officials it seems clear the investigation was quite justified. For there to have been a crime under the identity protection act would have meant the leakers knew of her status, which appeared to be impossible to prove. Given that Libby's obstruction of justice had a part to play in this...it all makes some sense.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Libby told lies before Fitzgerald was even appointed, it's not like they forced him into it. Now that we know Plame was indeed covert, and that her identity was leaked by three Admin officials it seems clear the investigation was quite justified. For there to have been a crime under the identity protection act would have meant the leakers knew of her status, which appeared to be impossible to prove. Given that Libby's obstruction of justice had a part to play in this...it all makes some sense.
> 
> -spence


HUH? You live in an alternative universe. In the GOP Debate all 10 Republicans were specifically asked if Libby should be pardoned. All said some version/form of Libby should be pardoned, the underlying crime never happened. It didn't even raise eyebrows in the news which I'm sure would have jumped all over it, if anyone thought it wasn't an accurate statement.

Anyway you clearly have your mind made up. Perhaps you should have tagged your OP as simply rhetorical and moved on. Cheers!


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I'm laughing here, but seriously what do you think he was trying to do? I have yet to hear anything remotely plausible.


Berger's own claim, that he was under tremendous pressure to relive 8 years of national security issues in a short amount of time and therefore felt he needed to cheat is certainly remotely plausible.

Is it strange? Should it demand scrutiny? Certainly...

But there was a long investigation. If there was any cover up you'd think Bush would have to have been in the loop 

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Berger's own claim, that he was under tremendous pressure to relive 8 years of national security issues in a short amount of time and therefore felt he needed to cheat is certainly remotely plausible.
> 
> Is it strange? Should it demand scrutiny? Certainly...
> 
> ...


It's plausible that he needed to review the documents, not that he needed to crumple them up and hide them in his clothes and stash them under a trailer.

Sorry, and that's a nice try, but I'm not going to agree that's a plausible or reasonable explanation.

FWIW, I don't think Libby has given one either as to why he lied or why he didn't lie, but he's going to jail for his failure to adequately explain the void to a jury.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> HUH? You live in an alternative universe. In the GOP Debate all 10 Republicans were specifically asked if Libby should be pardoned. All said some version/form of Libby should be pardoned, the underlying crime never happened. It didn't even raise eyebrows in the news which I'm sure would have jumped all over it, if anyone thought it wasn't an accurate statement.


What? Partisan pandering in a presidental debate?

What's this world coming to.

Didn't Tommy Thompson say employers should be able to fire workers for being gay as well? 

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> What? Partisan pandering in a presidental debate?
> 
> What's this world coming to.
> 
> ...


I dunno. He might have. I think he's a moron and I usually go get something to eat while he's talking. What does that have to do with this?

Does everything boil down to gay marriage in your political spectrum like it does FraudDCs?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> Didn't Tommy Thompson say employers should be able to fire workers for being gay as well?


Why should private employers not be able to do that?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I dunno. He might have. I think he's a moron and I usually go get something to eat while he's talking. What does that have to do with this?


Oh he did! It just illustrates that people will say some silly things to pander to the base...granted, he may even agree with what he said.

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> It's plausible that he needed to review the documents, not that he needed to crumple them up and hide them in his clothes and stash them under a trailer.
> 
> Sorry, and that's a nice try, but I'm not going to agree that's a plausible or reasonable explanation.
> 
> FWIW, I don't think Libby has given one either as to why he lied or why he didn't lie, but he's going to jail for his failure to adequately explain the void to a jury.


I think that just goes to show how much Berger knew what he was doing was wrong...

As for Libby, he's going to jail (maybe) because he's still lying!

-spence


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Spence said:


> Didn't Tommy Thompson say employers should be able to fire workers for being gay as well?





Wayfarer said:


> Why should private employers not be able to do that?


Because it's silly, pointless, ignorant and mean spirited. And currently in 17 States & the DofC, it's also against the law both for public and private employers.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Because it's silly, pointless, ignorant and mean spirited.


If that were the grounds for making something illegal, then the entire Democrat leadership would already be in jail.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Because it's silly, pointless, ignorant and mean spirited.


So are many things. Does not mean they should be illegal. Happy happy joy joy.



FrankDC said:


> And currently in 17 States & the DofC, it's also against the law both for public and private employers.


Again, the appeal to the legal is about the sorriest form of logic there is.

If a gay person bought a company and wanted to fire all the heteros, I would be 100% behind him (no pun intended!). I do not expect you to agree with (or understand) why I think any organization, other than government ones, should be able to determine their own employment practices, but the position is one based in freedom. It is becoming a very passe concept.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Again, the appeal to the legal is about the sorriest form of logic there is.


I agree. "Defense of marriage" laws, anyone?



Wayfarer said:


> If a gay person bought a company and wanted to fire all the heteros, I would be 100% behind him (no pun intended!). I do not expect you to agree with (or understand) why I think any organization, other than government ones, should be able to determine their own employment practices, but the position is one based in freedom. It is becoming a very passe concept.


Do you feel the same about racial discrimination and laws against it? The idea that sexual orientation is any more changable than race is a distant remnant of past ignorance and bigotry.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I agree. "Defense of marriage" laws, anyone?


Yes, it is a shame Clinton signed that. Edit: and do not think I did not notice your bad logic here.



FrankDC said:


> Do you feel the same about racial discrimination and laws against it? The idea that sexual orientation is any more changable than race is a distant remnant of past ignorance and bigotry.


I have said this many times before, in fact, I am fairly sure directly to you at least once, possibly more times. I think a black guy that owns a company, should be allowed to employ only black people, if that is what he wishes. I think a Chinese woman that owns a company should be allowed to hire only Chinese people if that is what she wishes. Again, it is called "freedom". The only organizations that should reflect the general population's make up are governmental ones. Of course, they usually do not.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I have said this many times before, in fact, I am fairly sure directly to you at least once, possibly more times. I think a black guy that owns a company, should be allowed to employ only black people, if that is what he wishes. I think a Chinese woman that owns a company should be allowed to hire only Chinese people if that is what she wishes. Again, it is called "freedom". The only organizations that should reflect the general population's make up are governmental ones. Of course, they usually do not.


I respect the consistency in your view, but again IMO it's a throwback to the last century (and the one before that). Does your opinion also hold true in other areas (e.g. private housing) as well?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I respect the consistency in your view, but again IMO it's a throwback to the last century (and the one before that). Does your opinion also hold true in other areas (e.g. private housing) as well?


You could not have said it better Frank. Freedom is a throwback.

What do you mean by private housing though? An apartment building owned by anything other than a government agency should have freedom. Should I be able to sell my property only to who I wish to? Of course. It might cost a property owner or seller money, but again, good decision making is not something that can be legislated.

Frank, for someone who talks of "shadow governments" and in many ways seems to hold the government is great contempt, it is very illogical that you would be ready to accept this same entity attempting to legislate moral and ethical issues. It makes zero sense. If an apartment complex is demonstrating rental practices you do not like, do not go crying to the nanny state, take some action. Apply economic pressure. That's how Imus finally lost his job, not through any action of the FCC.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You could not have said it better Frank. Freedom is a throwback.
> 
> What do you mean by private housing though? An apartment building owned by anything other than a government agency should have freedom. Should I be able to sell my property only to who I wish to? Of course. It might cost a property owner or seller money, but again, good decision making is not something that can be legislated.
> 
> Frank, for someone who talks of "shadow governments" and in many ways seems to hold the government is great contempt, it is very illogical that you would be ready to accept this same entity attempting to legislate moral and ethical issues. It makes zero sense. If an apartment complex is demonstrating rental practices you do not like, do not go crying to the nanny state, take some action. Apply economic pressure. That's how Imus finally lost his job, not through any action of the FCC.


We've been there and done that. It was called the first 150 years of U.S. history. The "freedom" to racially discriminate for things like employment and housing isn't only immoral, today it's an economic impossibility. In case you weren't aware, European Protestants are not the ones who're harvesting our fields and bussing our restaurant tables. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's view) there aren't enough of you good 'ol boys to go around.

Think hard about what you wish for.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> We've been there and done that. It was called the first 150 years of U.S. history. The "freedom" to racially discriminate for things like employment and housing isn't only immoral, today it's an economic impossibility. In case you weren't aware, European Protestants are not the ones who're harvesting our fields and bussing our restaurant tables. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's view) there aren't enough of you good 'ol boys to go around.
> 
> Think hard about what you wish for.


Frank, thank you very much for the insults. Of course, they are completely off base, but again, many thanks for showing your real character yet again. And trying to paint me a good 'ol (sic) boy....umm, again, good luck. Hell, I am not even Protestant.

Frank, you are thinking in very simplistic terms, nothing new there. Merely because I think people should be free to do something, does not mean I think they should do it. I also think adults should be free to take all the hard drugs they want, but I wish no one would. However, unlike you, I do not want to force my choices and personal standards on others, as you so shrilly constantly want to do.

Above, you insinuate (yet again) I am racist. I am in a bi-racial marriage. Really, good luck painting me a bigot. Keep going for it as you always do. In no way let reality intrude on your little speeches, m'kay? The difference between you and me is I do not want to legislate my morality on others. For a guy so, so interested in gay marriage (why don't you just come out of the closet and get it done with?), I just have to laugh at your narrow and simple view of these issues.

You think hard about what you wish for, in your simple minded little way. You currently have the government legislating morality in regards to civil unions and you sure do not seem too pleased with that. Hypocrite.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Get with the program, Wayfarer -- the State doesn't "legislate morality," and certainly not when FrankDC is cheering it on. No, the State acts when it has a "legitimate governmental interest." 

(P.S. We have always been at war with Eastasia.)


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Above, you insinuate (yet again) I am racist. I am in a bi-racial marriage.


Don't you believe that's an example of forced social progress? Your specific type of marriage was illegal for 200+ years in the U.S. and former British colonies, until our Supreme Court finally corrected the injustice.



Wayfarer said:


> You currently have the government legislating morality in regards to civil unions and you sure do not seem too pleased with that. Hypocrite.


DOM laws have zilch to do with legislating morality, their sole purpose and intent is to bash gay people. The claim that homosexuality is not as basic an orientation for gay people as heterosexuality is for heterosexuals, and instead is some kind of moral failing has been thoroughly disproven.

Also, no one seems able to explain what specific benefits these laws are supposed to bestow, who (specifically) they're supposed to protect or defend, or explain what benefits we as a society are supposed to accrue by denying marriage rights to gay couples. I've asked these questions before both here and elsewhere and so far no one has ventured a response. I'm genuinely interested to know.

Anyway this is a long long way from Sandy Berger (and several other topics) so I'll finally get off my soap box on this issue. Finis.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Don't you believe that's an example of forced social progress? Your specific type of marriage was illegal for 200+ years in the U.S. and former British colonies, until our Supreme Court finally corrected the injustice.


Frank, Frank, Frank. Forced social progress? *sigh* It would be forced if the government forced couples to racially intermarry. Just removing a restriction is employing that thing I keep talking about: freedom. Just as government should be out of defining what parties can have a legal domestic union, so too should it be out of defining employment relationships, and any other thing that restricts a person's freedom of association. I still cannot fathom though how you, of all people, can justify the ban on polygamy.

Not coming out of the closet in this thread?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Get with the program, Wayfarer -- the State doesn't "legislate morality," and certainly not when FrankDC is cheering it on. No, the State acts when it has a "legitimate governmental interest."
> 
> (P.S. We have always been at war with Eastasia.)


Phinn:

You are right on target. See you at the next Minute of Hate.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> forced social progress





> forced social progress





> forced social progress





> forced social progress





> forced social progress


Welcome to hell.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You think hard about what you wish for, in your simple minded little way. You currently have the government legislating morality in regards to civil unions and you sure do not seem too pleased with that. Hypocrite.





FrankDC said:


> DOM laws have zilch to do with legislating morality, their sole purpose and intent is to bash gay people. The claim that homosexuality is not as basic an orientation for gay people as heterosexuality is for heterosexuals, and instead is some kind of moral failing has been thoroughly disproven.


This needs to be addressed, although I am almost sure you are impervious to any sense here. Frank, do you not understand the people pushing DOM laws feel *they* are legislating morality? Given this, you would think it should be apparent to you that "the moral" differs amongst humans and therefore having the government stay out of legislating morality might be a good thing. You however are just like the extreme right wingers pushing DoM laws. You feel your morality is the sole arbiter of "the moral" and therefore should be codified into law. You have a great example here of why everyone should be leery of that yet blissfully keep propounding what should and should not be law in regards to curtailing a person's freedom of association. I should have given up long ago on trying to logic this through for you and it is probably about time I admit defeat. Your incredible ability to internalize double-think is impressive.


----------

