• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The Official Paracast Political Thread! — Part Two

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
An oped that appeared in the New York Times from John W. Dean, who as White House counsel for President Richard Nixon was deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and subsequent cover-up. Dean pleaded guilty to a single felony count in exchange for becoming a key witness for the prosecution, which ultimately resulted in a reduced prison sentence. Here's his oped:

NO, 'EMAILGATE' IS NOT WORSE THAN WATERGATE
By John W. Dean

"Donald J. Trump wasted no time in seizing on the unprecedented letter that the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, sent to Congress on Friday, regarding the bureau’s investigations into Hillary Clinton’s emails. 'This is bigger than Watergate,' Mr. Trump’s team tweeted just a few hours after the letter was made public.

"It’s not the first time Mr. Trump has made the Watergate comparison. In fact, he’s been saying it regularly since the arrival of his new campaign manager, Stephen Bannon, in August. And that’s fitting — Mr. Bannon came from Breitbart, the conspiracy-minded right-wing news site, and his Hail Mary strategy seems to be to paint Mrs. Clinton as a criminal mastermind. And who better a measuring stick than America’s most infamous president, Richard M. Nixon?

"But these comparisons are nonsense. Only someone who knows nothing about the law, and the darkest moment of our recent political history, would see a parallel between Nixon’s crimes and Mrs. Clinton’s mistakes.

"The Watergate scandal, for the record, began on June 17, 1972, as a bungled burglary by men working out of Nixon’s re-election committee, who were arrested in the Democratic National Committee offices at the Watergate complex in Washington.

"It ended more than two years later, with Nixon’s resignation on Aug. 9, 1974, followed by the criminal trial of his former attorney general, John Mitchell; his former White House chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman; and his top domestic adviser, John D. Ehrlichman, who were found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice on Jan. 1, 1975. Along the way, some four dozen Nixon aides and associates were convicted of or pleaded guilty to criminal misconduct, including me.

"Taken together, these investigations revealed astounding abuses of presidential power by Nixon, which included other illegal break-ins and burglaries; illegal electronic surveillance; misuses of agencies of government like the I.R.S., C.I.A. and F.B.I.; the practice of making political opponents into enemies and using the instruments of government to attack them; and then employing perjury and obstruction of justice to cover it all up.

"Whatever mistakes Mrs. Clinton made, her actions bear no similarities whatsoever to Nixon’s criminalization of his presidency, and his efforts to corrupt much of the executive branch. As Nixon’s secretly recorded conversations show, he rejected the advice of his lawyers at every stage of Watergate; he was determined to do it his way. When he was forced to resign, or be removed from office by the impeachment process, he never truly apologized. Once out of office, he claimed he did not need the pardon he accepted that precluded his criminal prosecution, and he went to his grave claiming he was innocent of criminal behavior, absurdly asserting when the president does it, that means it is legal.
Contrast that with Mrs. Clinton, whose 'scandal' is the result of her desire — like that of many, including President Obama — not to give up her Blackberry email account when she entered the executive branch. Only slowly did she come to appreciate the security risk of not using the antiquated State Department system.

"She was unaware that a few classified items — some of which were classified after the fact — were in her private email system. Unlike Nixon, she has apologized. The F.B.I. record also shows that — again, unlike Nixon — she had no criminal intent in any of her actions.

"First, they show how little they understand about Watergate itself. Take Mr. Trump’s recent speech at the Al Smith Dinner. When delivering one of his worst jokes, the first of many to draw boos, he said: 'Hillary is so corrupt, she got kicked off the Watergate Commission. How corrupt do you have to be to get kicked off the Watergate Commission? Pretty corrupt.'

"But there was never a Watergate commission (presumably he means the House Judiciary Committee), and she wasn’t fired — I know, because I asked the man who supposedly did the firing.

"This is more than an innocent mistake. The idea that Mrs. Clinton was fired from the committee during its impeachment inquiry of Nixon is a mainstay among right-wing conspiracy-mongers. Restating it is playing to Mr. Trump’s base, even if it fell flat to the Al Smith audience.

"Second, Mr. Trump’s insistence that 'Emailgate' is worse than Watergate serves to divert attention from the fact that, in my opinion, Mr. Trump is remarkably Nixonian, perhaps even more so than Nixon himself.

"I say that because while Nixon’s dark and nasty side, largely hidden from public view, got him in trouble, he was also a man of intelligence, with a strong understanding of government, a deep knowledge of the world and a heartfelt vision for lasting peace. If Mr. Trump has such positive qualities, he has kept that side of him well hidden, while giving free rein to his dark and nasty worldview.

"None of this is to say that Mrs. Clinton did not make mistakes with her email server. But to compare them to Watergate is more than historical ignorance. It distorts our understanding of what actually constitutes an abuse of power, and raises the risks that we will someday install another leader who is all too happy to misuse historical memory to indulge a dark and nasty nature."

Fmr. Nixon Lawyer on Trump: "He's Just Dead Wrong." (w/Guest: John Dean)
TEXT: "Published on Nov 1, 2016: Thom speaks with John Dean, Fomer Nixon White House Counsel, about Donald Trump calling Hillary's email a bigger scandal than Watergate."
 
Many are not aware of how long-standing the legal action around Jeffrey Epstein goes back. Last year it was getting some air-time because England's Prince Andrew was being implicated. Bill Clinton's name was tossed around, etc. It's pretty seamy with a large arc - international in scope. The possibility of blackmail - that this was a kind of sting to get dirt on a wide scope of people - is a question. But more, why such a light hand slap for Epstein for what amounts to an underage sex ring?

Make no mistake it is taking considerable courage for the women to be coming forward. Threats have been made - the mention of the 'disappearance' of a 12 year old (in the court docs) was used as a threat against the 13 year old. By any standard this is a very nasty story that was in the pipe-line long before Trump decided to run for president.

I have a hunch - and this is pure speculation on my part - that this Jeffrey Epstein situation is so wide-spread and goes so deep, that it's got everyone nervous (which is why it has not been 'played' by anyone in the political arena). The women coming forward in the Epstein situation - and particularly the woman in the Trump rape case (which involves Epstien) - are genuinely putting themselves at risk. That I believe. Trump threatened the 13 year old (and we know Trump threatens - we've seen him do it in public with everyone watching). We have the (female) pimp (what amounts to) having turned state's evidence (looks like). She witnessed it all. It is a seriously nasty situation - but Trump is going to trial - it's gotten that far.

Papantonio: The Plot Thickens in the Dershowitz-Epstein Story
TEXT: "Published on Jan 23, 2015: The Jeffrey Epstein / Alan Dershowitz child sex scandal has mainly fallen through the cracks of mainstream media’s attention, but the story has the potential to become the Bill Cosby scandal on steroids. America’s Lawyer, Mike Papantonio, discusses the case with Thom Hartmann."
 
Last edited:
Here's a good run-down of the Epstein situation - long before Trump decided to run for president.

Epstein Scandal Just Got Crazier: Enter Ken Starr
TEXT: "Published on Feb 7, 2015: The mainstream media has largely ignored the Jeffrey Epstein child sex scandal, even though the details of the case keep getting crazier and crazier."
 
For those who believe FOX News is the bellwether of truth, here is Ann Coulter on Hannity talking about the Epstein case. Though it says published in August of this year, I suspect it's actually from over a year ago as are the other videos.

This will be my last posting on this. The point I am making is the rape case against Trump is from out the Epstien situation and has been in the pipe-line for a very long time, long before Trump announced he was running for president.

LiveLeak com Ann Coulter On Jeffrey Epstein
TEXT: "Published on Aug 10, 2016: LiveLeak com Ann Coulter On Jeffrey Epstein"
 
This thread i hope will insure that overtly sexist and homophobic comments are dealt with publicly so that you can confirm for your forum members that this is a safe environment for everyone who posts here or who reads here and thinks about posting. If you want to welcome everyone and grow this environment then you, the forum owners and moderators, need to insure that hateful and homophobic language is treated in a firm and appropriate manner and not just respond to the comment like it's innocuous, as happened at the close of the last political thread.

When you do that you legitimize homophobia and hate and you chase away a lot of people that might want to participate and dialogue on any issue here without fear of your personhood being demeaned or devalued. It's not too late to deal with that comment publicly. Or you can ignore it and side with the homophobes making this space no better than Trump's hateful and divisive rhetoric. Some might not see this as important but actually it is. Homophobia only ends when straight people take responsibility for the language used here.
 
Burnt State said:
This thread i hope will insure that overtly sexist and homophobic comments are dealt with publicly so that you can confirm for your forum members that this is a safe environment for everyone who posts here or who reads here and thinks about posting. If you want to welcome everyone and grow this environment then you, the forum owners and moderators, need to insure that hateful and homophobic language is treated in a firm and appropriate manner and not just respond to the comment like it's innocuous, as happened at the close of the last political thread.

When you do that you legitimize homophobia and hate and you chase away a lot of people that might want to participate and dialogue on any issue here without fear of your personhood being demeaned or devalued. It's not too late to deal with that comment publicly. Or you can ignore it and side with the homophobes making this space no better than Trump's hateful and divisive rhetoric. Some might not see this as important but actually it is. Homophobia only ends when straight people take responsibility for the language used here.
Click to expand...
You have to wonder if they are similar to David Chalmers’ philosophical zombie.
 
Burnt State said:
This thread i hope will insure that overtly sexist and homophobic comments are dealt with publicly so that you can confirm for your forum members that this is a safe environment for everyone who posts here or who reads here and thinks about posting. If you want to welcome everyone and grow this environment then you, the forum owners and moderators, need to insure that hateful and homophobic language is treated in a firm and appropriate manner and not just respond to the comment like it's innocuous, as happened at the close of the last political thread.

When you do that you legitimize homophobia and hate and you chase away a lot of people that might want to participate and dialogue on any issue here without fear of your personhood being demeaned or devalued. It's not too late to deal with that comment publicly. Or you can ignore it and side with the homophobes making this space no better than Trump's hateful and divisive rhetoric. Some might not see this as important but actually it is. Homophobia only ends when straight people take responsibility for the language used here.
Click to expand...


I agree with your intention, but I would go further.
This is not about homophobia or sexism or racism etc, it is about Humanity. When people are dehumanised, labeled and catagorised we are divided.

Everybody is prejudiced in some way. It is normal, the only way to coexist is to live and let live, we need to embrace our own freedom but allow others theirs.
I am as sceptical of humanity reaching "utopia" as anybody, but we should aim as high as we possibly can.

It is understandable that any crime or injustice is bearable when it doesn't happen to you or those you care about. But history shows us that when you "dehumanise" one "group" others follow and at some point you will inevitably fall into one these dehumanised groups.

I love catagorizing things, or studying their classification, and I have learned that there is always a bigger category as well as a smaller one, it goes on to infinity either way.
People need to accept that we are all human, have a common ancestor, and want the same things.

United we stand, divided we fall.
 
 
Walter Bosley said:
I'd have to see them to decide for myself. Might it be a case of hypersensitivity?
Click to expand...
Oh please Walter, you should know better than to minimize hatred. When you refer to a woman as a "Clit" that's what u call hyper sexism and calling any woman a "carpet muncher" is beyond derogatory when it comes to talking about sexuality. You can tolerate that if you like just as some parts of America can tolerate Trump's overt hatreds for many but I think if you are running a forum and you want everyone to feel comfortable about being here then you actually have to hold a moral and human line. It's called respect for diversity. Some like Han would call it human decency. No one's free when hatred is allowed to have its way. And I did point to where it was nut now I make the point of repeating it for forum owners to take a moral stand. Thanks for opening it up.
 
Burnt State said:
Oh please Walter, you should know better than to minimize hatred. When you refer to a woman as a "Clit" that's what u call hyper sexism and calling any woman a "carpet muncher" is beyond derogatory when it comes to talking about sexuality. You can tolerate that if you like just as some parts of America can tolerate Trump's overt hatreds for many but I think if you are running a forum and you want everyone to feel comfortable about being here then you actually have to hold a moral and human line. It's called respect for diversity. Some like Han would call it human decency. No one's free when hatred is allowed to have its way. And I did point to where it was nut now I make the point of repeating it for forum owners to take a moral stand. Thanks for opening it up.
Click to expand...

I have been thinking about this: I should have written a PM to Gene to complain about the language on display.
Or I should have said something more in the thread.
My experience has been that Gene always try to resolve things in a fair way, but do we really need a moderator?

So I am personally requesting that we all refrain from using divisive and hurtful language from this point forward.

I believe Matthew was misguided in what he said, and didn't intend to hurt anybody. He has now been made aware of how his words could be interpreted.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how "wrong" it may seem to somebody else, but we need a set of standards the we collectively enforce to ensure that we don't intentionally or unintentionally hurt other people.

In other words I don't want to see any retrospective action, I am more concerned about how we move forward.

We have to work together no matter how hard it is, but that means we have to speak out when we see something wrong.

I am guilty of not speaking out, and probably would not be writing this unless "Burnt state" took a stand.

For me the single most repugnant comment in the entire thread did not come from either Jeff or Matthew and the person that said it had the best will in the world, I am convinced of that. I don't want to start an endless moral argument, but I think the mentality that writes off people as fractions or percentiles or numbers is far more dangerous than anything.

As Tyger so eloquently said we need to recognise the signs of fascism when we see them.


Now back to the Election as I said before I wish it was not clinton that was running against trump. There is too much baggage, but not enough to make trump a viable alternative in my consideration.

Whatever the result I hope and pray that it is handled in a peaceful and calm way.
 
Han said:
Yes @matthew1977 and @Jeff Davis have made comments that could be considered "homophobic".

No "curse"/"swear" words were used, it was more innuendo than blatant.
Click to expand...

Total and complete BULLSHIT! Quote where I even once remotely denounced or insulted homosexuals. You are LYING!! :mad: Prove it or APOLOGIZE NOW! Burnt State should be ashamed of himself, typical liberal spin puppy without a single fact to back himself up. Here Hillaryous stands NEARLY charged in connection with outright pedophilia and Burnt State and fish breath concentrate on what are clearly JOKES. Hillary *is* a carpet munching hypocrite!!
 
Jeff Davis said:
Total and complete BULLSHIT! Quote where I even once remotely denounced or insulted homosexuals. You are LYING!! :mad: Prove it or APOLOGIZE NOW! Burnt State should be ashamed of himself, typical liberal spin puppy without a single fact to back himself up. Here Hillaryous stands NEARLY charged in connection with outright pedophilia and Burnt State and fish breath concentrate on what are clearly JOKES. Hillary *is* a carpet munching hypocrite!!
Click to expand...

ok:

Jeff Davis said:
Hillary *is* a carpet munching hypocrite!!
Click to expand...

Here is what the Oxford Dictionary of modern slang says about "Carpet Muncher"

carpet muncher noun
derog and offensive A lesbian. 1992–. Cf. rug muncher noun. [From carpet noun 4.] *

*Carpet muncher - Oxford Reference

I hate to break it to you but you are not funny.
Well read and intelligent, articulate maybe, but funny no.
The fact that you didn't know that it was offensive language speaks volumes.
maybe I am wrong and you are in fact much funnier than I recognised because you must be being ironic when you demand that I apologise.

there is a time and a place for comedy, a serious political discussion is not it.

I have absolutely nothing to apologise for.

churchill.jpg
 
Han said:
ok:



Here is what the Oxford Dictionary of modern slang says about "Carpet Muncher"

carpet muncher noun
derog and offensive A lesbian. 1992–. Cf. rug muncher noun. [From carpet noun 4.] *

*Carpet muncher - Oxford Reference

I hate to break it to you but you are not funny.
Well read and intelligent, articulate maybe, but funny no.
The fact that you didn't know that it was offensive language speaks volumes.
maybe I am wrong and you are in fact much funnier than I recognised because you must be being ironic when you demand that I apologise.

there is a time and a place for comedy, a serious political discussion is not it.

I have absolutely nothing to apologise for.

churchill.jpg
Click to expand...

Those that exemplify the type of politically correct hypersensitivity that you and others have here is nothing short of disgusting. Why don't both you and Burnt go home and iron your skirts?

Would it have been more acceptable to call Hillary a pedophile that's also a BIMBO DYKE? I'll save you the trouble. Dyke (slang) - Wikipedia Let me tell you what you're not Han. In a word, intelligent. Take a flying leap off your nearest favorite peer "buddy". You have about as much a clue about US politics, as you do me. I happen to have great friends (family) that are gay, they know that I love and respect them, and you know what ol' boy? They know how to have a good laugh, and take a joke without acting like some teenage hoity toity prom queen.



And here's one for old Burnt Snake as well.

 
Jeff Davis said:
Those that exemplify the type of politically correct hypersensitivity that you and others have here is nothing short of disgusting. Why don't both you and Burnt go home and iron your skirts?

Would it have been more acceptable to call Hillary a pedophile that's also a BIMBO DYKE? I'll save you the trouble. Dyke (slang) - Wikipedia Let me tell you what you're not Han. In a word, intelligent. Take a flying leap off your nearest favorite peer "buddy". You have about as much a clue about US politics, as you do me. I happen to have great friends (family) that are gay, they know that I love and respect them, and you know what ol' boy? They know how to have a good laugh, and take a joke without acting like some teenage hoity toity prom queen.



And here's one for old Burnt Snake as well.

Click to expand...
Once again your own language and homophobia does you in the way that Trump's language identifies him as a racist misogynst homophobe. The critical comments were about the language used and not about people. You make it personal and insult people. If you have no moral standards to carry on an adult debate without resorting to insults and, like Trump claiming his hateful language is just a joke, then I can offer you no support or option. You are set in your ways.

The phrase "politically correct" language is often used as a red herring argument for college kids to claim the right to be racist and sexist and homophobic because after all it's just jokes right? I find that an immature position. Either we want a society where people don't use such language or we want to have our racism and sexism and homophobia front and centre.

And just before this thread explodes which is what will come next when people get all uncomfortable for being called out on their language I point to the role of forum owners and moderators to keep the space civil so that everyone can feel free to post here without having hate speech and insults thrown their way.

@Han I always admire your integrity and ability to call for calm and fwd direction. It's an excellent counterpoint to unapologetic hatred.

And now let the missives/missiles fly...
 
Burnt State said:
Oh please Walter, you should know better than to minimize hatred. When you refer to a woman as a "Clit" that's what u call hyper sexism and calling any woman a "carpet muncher" is beyond derogatory when it comes to talking about sexuality. You can tolerate that if you like just as some parts of America can tolerate Trump's overt hatreds for many but I think if you are running a forum and you want everyone to feel comfortable about being here then you actually have to hold a moral and human line. It's called respect for diversity. Some like Han would call it human decency. No one's free when hatred is allowed to have its way. And I did point to where it was nut now I make the point of repeating it for forum owners to take a moral stand. Thanks for opening it up.
Click to expand...

You're welcome! You're being hypersensitive when words ruffle your feathers so much as they obviously do. I've had this conversation many times with my adopted Asian-American transgender kid and her mixed transgendered best friend who happens to be visiting my home right now as we speak, so don't presume to lecture me on diversity or I shall laugh at you with my African-American brother-in-law and my mixed race niece. There is a HUGE difference between a threat or an act of violence and mere words. 'Hate speech' is a concept created and pushed by those who want to control the speech of those with whom they disagree. And before you label me further, keep in mind that part of my duties as a federal agent was to enforce civil rights laws which I would gladly do. My point of bringing all this up is to illustrate that many of us who do embrace diversity still think that you're somewhat full of crap. Perhaps the terms used by others were not dignified, but for you to react like a wounded little cherub over someone else's poor choice of words (whether true or not) is silly. Unless you like to be silly, therefore proceed. (Here's where Gene comes in and tells me I'm wrong. F___ it.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top