Sounds good to me. As Smash says, there are real issues to worry about - and they are a lot more important then re-hashed 30 year old mudslinging.

Amen.

[raising hand]

"Is duck-hunting with a Supreme Court Justice in Louisiana a felony?"

Bush is a good president-+

I did not know AWOL was a crime. A little trouble with the military, but is it a crime? Second, Rosemary, I heard of the supposed desertion (bullshit, I know), but what is this about murder and rape? Huh? Maybe not being a Democrat, I don't even know what you are talking about! Is there any black helicopters involved?

Sadly the QOAE can't make it to the primary states, the DNC, and the White House briefings.

So saith the QOAE.

So let it be written.

So let it be done.

I couldn't get this across on another thread because it wouldn't let me, but since I'm fuming with the need to share my knowledge, here is a quick rant.

DON'T give the giant group of "Muslims" the credit for everything,

"So. Do you like science? Math? Free market economics? Reach over and kiss the nearest Muslim."

this was said in an old thread.

I am going to warn you that everything I'm about to say may sound incorrect, but you will never be able to find anything to disprove me with.

The Arabs use a lunar system for their months, and thus they have a very innaccurate year.
AND YOU SAY THAT THEY INVENTED ALGEBRA!

The Persians knew that the earth was round at the same time that the Greek Homer connoted in "The Odyssey" that it was flat. Persians also had a calender slightly more accurate than today's system. The "Arabic" number system was actually very Persian, but incompetent British explorers (Britain calls the Persian Gulf the "Arabian Gulf") recognize all of the middle east as Arabic, and their books governed world knowledge before the last century.

Now, Muslims (at the time all Muslims were Arabic) invaded Persia and slaughtered anyone who spoke Persian and forced the Arabic language onto the people. It became prestigious in Persia for scholars to write in Arabic, in fact, many Persians enhanced it and became better at reading and writing in Arabic than Arabs themselves. I very well believe that the term "Algebra" is Arabic, but nevertheless a Persian translated the term from an Old Persian text.
THEREFORE, MUSLIMS DIDN'T INVENT ALGEBRA, THEY GOT CREDITED FOR IT BECAUSE OF MUSLIM PERIANS.

Bush has been called a murderer, so has Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton has been called a rapist.

People lob charges all the time and I'm tired of it. It is my understanding that AWOL is a criminal offense in the military. Even if it isn't, I'm sick of hearing about it.

Ara,

"Is duck-hunting with a Supreme Court Justice in Louisiana a felony?"

Nope. Have at it!

Can I say Ted Kennedy killed somebody?

"Is duck-hunting with a Supreme Court Justice in Louisiana a felony?"

No. They only shot the soddomite ducks...

Patterico,

Not unless Ted did it in self-defense, or in another way where you conclude justifiable homicide.

Rosemary has spoken.

Yours,
Wince

"Can I say Ted Kennedy killed somebody?"

The Hero of Chappaquiddick proved that he was no marathon swimmer, but murder?

Sounds too strong.

Maybe negligent manslaughter at best.

HAIL TO THE KING AND TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL!!!! HAIL TO THE KING AND TO THE QUEEN OF ALL GOOD!!!! HAIL TO THE KING AND TO THE QUEEN OF THE BLOGOSPHERE!!!! HAIL TO THE KING AND TO THE QUEEN OF ALL!!!!

Rosemary

Could you possibly get this rule passed blogosphere wide? I know it would be well received where thoughtful readers go to comment. I cannot believe what passes for rational discussion in some circles.

Anyway, this is the best idea I've heard this year. Way to go. and thanks a bunch.

Oops,

Thought you said, "I'm not going to spend the next 9 months duck hunting bullshit on this blog."

Sorry.

Aw c'mon Rosemary. Can we at least just be normal conspiracy theorists. By that I mean we don't accuse people of crimes just accuse people of shadowy operations in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, 25000 feet down, in a box of titanium legos??

C'mon?!? Purty please with a set of pilates? :)

C'mon?!? Purty please with a set of pilates? :)

Oh sure, you know Pilates is my weakness! Darn you!

Okay normal conspiracy theories are okay. No criminal accusations though...

Here's another rule I'd like to see: Put an end to all these stupid disputations over whether or not George W. Bush is the President of the United States. George W. Bush is the President if the United States! Because: The United States Supreme Court says so!! Stop trying to overthrow the United States Supreme Court!!!

Addendum: He's a bad President in certain ways in my opinion, and, if he continues in the direction he's going, he will not get my vote to be the next President. But, the cold, hard fact is that right now: he _is_ the President. Because the Supreme Court said so.

....drat! And I had worked out a whole new conspiracy theory...

Does Tim-the-Soldier's confession about the eels count as "proof"?

Who is Bush supposed to have raped and/or killed? I am unaware of these charges. Who claims this, Noam Chomsky? We are not a court, and as long as we discuss something reasonable sounding that was has not been proven as such, not proven that is, is there any problem?

There should be sufficient evidence to settle the claims of AWOL. If someone is reasonable enough, that should answer his or her questions. Some people already have conspiracy theories ready in case the evidence in this claim does not support their accusations. Try out www.democrats.com if you want some REAL fun! Her Majesty will love it!

The person that I believe advances civil liberties, market-based programs, government for purely temporal purposes, as well as supporting the rights of workers, that is the person I wish to support.

I have to find out who is the closest, since no one is that exactly. Perot wasn't, but the other two I couldn't stand. I'm not the only one to vote for him! (Perhaps, the only one to admit it!)

AWOL is a crime, and can lead to prison time.

Yes Rosemary, eliminate as much BS as posible, lets have talks, discussions, let truth be known.

My position has been stated here, George Bush is the only man available who can do the job needed to be done at this time. We are at war, listen up people, we are at war with an ideology which wants to destroy our way of life!

Let's not nitpick and bullshit like little children in the school yard. WE ARE AT WAR!!!

I nearly voted for Perot. I voted for Clinton instead in order to get the incompetent Bush Sr. out, and I'm still glad I did. Clinton was corrupt but at least far more effective. I still like Ross Perot. Too bad Buchanan took over his Reform Party.

Rosemary;

I can always count on you to be the voice of sanity in a cacophony of madness. Speculation and slander will always be effective weapons in the war for the little hearts and little minds, but this isn't a gathering place for small minds.

By the way, when are YOU going to start a novel? I would love to see where your imagination takes us.

E.

Aw, come on.
"beyond reasonable doubt" is only necessary for a conviction. If the government can arrest you just on a reasonable suspicion, why can't we talk about it?
Being smeared by Dean is less painful (usually) than being arrested!

My imagination...my novel would end up being pornographic.

Aw, come on.
"beyond reasonable doubt" is only necessary for a conviction. If the government can arrest you just on a reasonable suspicion, why can't we talk about it?

If we give in and continue to feed slander it will do more than convict. It may cost a good man more than his reputation and by default cost many of us a good president. I won't have it continue here. There is much more to discuss, as QuantumThnk mentioned - we are at war.

If the government can arrest you just on a reasonable suspicion, why can't we talk about it?

Because it isn't a reasonable suspicion.

<bangs gavel>

The murder and rape references are obviously to Clinton. Rather than run afoul of the new rule I will keep my opinions to myself. Overall, such a rule is probably salutory in this medium but let's not make "beyond reasonable doubt" a fetish. Discussion of OJ's biography would not be possible in such a milieu. "Reasonable Doubt" is the threshold for criminal conviction and rightly so. An enforced disability on any evidence that does not rise to that level makes adversarial inquiry impossible. Few murders not photographed in the act would face justice under such a mantle.

Is it a crime to have "poopey pants" and an "empty head"? There is a link on your site making such accusations against Dean.

Nope.

Criminal accusations are off limits. Everything else is fair game.

Did Kerry cheat on his wife? Fair game. Is Howard Dean a poopy head? Fair game.

Criminal accusations without proof are off limits.

John Kerry boffed an intern. Evidence forthcoming.

:-)

No need for evidence, boffing isn't a crime. WooHoo!

Can I say O.J. killed somebody?

Allison, can you prove that the eels weren't consenting? I'm certainly not going to testify against myself, the Patriot Act doesn't apply, because they were highly patriotic eels.

If the intern looked like Lewinsky, it is worse than a crime, it's a blunder. I hope Kerry has better taste than Clinton.

Rosemary, Rosemary, Rosemary. You know I love you, "man," but this has got to be one of the silliest rules I've encountered in some time. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is a legal standard that is designed to do one thing and one thing only: keep innocent people out of prison, even at the expense of allowing some known guilty people to go free. The standard is not good for anything else, not even in other legal contexts. For example, if I sue to get out of a contract, the standard of proof is preponderance of evidence. Period. It doesn't magically ratchet itself up to proof beyond reasonable doubt solely because my theory for getting out of the contract depends on facts which, if true, would also make the other party a criminal. Whether he goes to jail or not is for a different court to decide; it has nothing to do with my civil case against him. To do otherwise would, in effect, reward illegal behavior.

As to arguments made in the court of public opinion, it makes no difference whether a Bush detractor falsely accuses Bush of going AWOL, or whether he falsely accuses him of flicking a booger on someone. Either way, the charges are designed to prove he's a jerk and hurt his chances of re-election; they are not designed to him behind bars (my guess is that they couldn't, anyway, as the statute of limitations ran out some time ago). So it makes no sense to demand no proof for one, and a very high level of proof for the other. Better to demand some evidence for both.