Explain this Please
 

I had. Until now. :D

Explain this Please
 

I don't practice google fu well, but:

http://www.florida2000election.com/sections/9.htm

Explain this Please
 

Come on, Wonk. It was almost 2 hours.

It's not quite Levitra-brand performance, but give the guy some fucking credit.

Explain this Please
 

"We invaded Afghanistan and less than 3 years later, they have held the first democratic elections there without barely a hitch."

So, if we invade any country, and they later hold the first democratic elections there, it's justified? (This all ignores the fact that it's just abusrd to expect that Afghanistan will be a functioning democracy after the US military leaves.) I agree that we did the right thing by going into Afghanistan to go after AQ, but the whole democrary-building argument is a joke. Are we going to go into every country in the world which doesn't have democracy the way the current administration likes it, or just the ones that have powerful people in them who want to kill us, like Iran and North Korea?

"We invaded Iraq - removed a brutal tyrant (and correcting the mistakes of trusting him 20 years earlier as a buffer to Iran) - and liberated its people - who are on there way to similar democratic elections. Also benefitting the citizens of Israel, who have fewer Iraqi-paid assassins to worry about."

The Israel angle is interesting. I wonder if Israel would really be benefited by any other US military action in the region. Maybe while we were there, but I worry that it would just make the rest of the region want to kill them even more as soon as we left.

As for removing brutal tyrants, sure, that's good. Are you claiming that SH was the most burtal tyrant in the world and that's why we went in? I recall something about some weapons he supposedly had.

"Countries like Libya have gotten in line. Pakistan is shaping up its act."

Are we going to use the result of countries getting in line to justify going after a bunch of other nations, too?

"We are removing our troops (and all of the benefits that flow therefrom) from such non-Allies as Germany, Saudi Arabia and South Korea.

We have revealed the corruption at the heart and soul of the UN."

Ooh, John Birch stuff! This is getting fun.

"You happy, ratface?"

Come on, say what you REALLY want to say about my avatar. You know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, I just want you to actually describe your standards for pre-emptive war, and frame them in a way that justifies what we did in Iraq. The model should justify what we did and what we are doing in Afghanistan, too, even though that's not really pre-emptive.

I'll start for Afghanistan: if someone attacks us, and there is good evidence of it, we should go after them and bring them to justice, no matter what country they are in. If the attacker is so horribly intertwined with the government (even putative in nature) of a state, we should remove them as well. We should try to establish a stable government, including the building of infrastructure and the encouragement of the internal exploitation of natural resources. We should do little to impose our morays beyond basic human rights. We should be honest about the reality of building an American-style democracy there. We should have bought Bush a copy of SimWorld. It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than this pipe dream of a real democracy in a country like Afghanistan.

Now, you go. Tell me why we are in Iraq and why we aren't in fifteen other countries. Tell me why the poor planning and political war-mongering was justified.

Explain this Please
 

Yeah, you're gonna have to forgive me in advance for not giving you all the internet cred you have coming to you. If you want to point to specific posts that answer my questions, feel free.

Explain this Please
 

OK, we get your point. You think challenging a vote, through the system, is a bad thing and should not be done except where there is an obvious fraud problem. I trust you would, if given absolute power, overturn the statutes that provide for an automatic recount in cases like Floridas (there are many such statutes). It strikes me this is a minority report even in your own party, but so be it.

And I trust you think the Republican Party's actions in 1960 were inappropriate as well.

I don't share such views - the challenge and recount process is there to ensure one of the fundamental pillars of people's faith in the process, which is certainty. The court balanced finality and certainty, but did not reject certainty as an important goal. Using that process, as it was intended to be, should help keep people's faith in the system.

Explain this Please
 

Who are you again? This is not the FB honey. You've got to do more than come around flashing your tits to get respect here.

Is it Just Me
 

Trade in your balls for a nice box of potpourri right now, you fucking traitor.

I don't care which party you belong to. Every guy should be tripping over themselves to pat him on the back for landing a billionaire wife. And it doesn't matter what she fucking looks like.

TM

Explain this Please
 

In a perfect world, where no fraud occured, I would agree with you. But there is a degree of fraud in every election in every county in this country - meaning that there is nearly always colorable grounds under which a challenge can be made. It seems to me that this is just the system we have to live with, until both sides are ready to get serious about fixing it.

eta: I wasn't aware of them until you posted that but yes I think they were inappropriate.

Explain this Please
 

In many places, recounts are automatic if the margin of victory is within a certain range. The reason that this is done is because the chief role is not finality, but to make sure that the person who gets the office was actually the choice of a majority (or plurality) of the voters. I understand that this concept may strike you as odd, but there it is. The fact is that in any large election, things will go wrong -- there will be mistakes in the sorting, counting and reporting of ballots -- and these glitches may affect the bottom line. This is common, although it had not affected a presidential election (but see 1876?). Rest assured that the GOP is doing everything the Dems are this time around, but that either they are keeping better care of their plan or Drudge is doing them a favor by not leaking it as well.

Is it Just Me
 

I thought it was clear he meant me.

Thurgreed(I'll meet you at the Plahza, of course, for tea)Marshall

Explain this Please
 

Since Posner is renowned for bending the law to where he thinks it should be, he is not the most convincing person to make this sort of argument. Read the Vanity Fair article and you will be reminded of what we all knew at the time -- the equal protection argument ultimately accepted by the 5 members of the Court who ended the recount was ridiculously weak on its face (so much so that Ted Olson didn't even get to it until page 43 or so his brief) but the Court was intent on ending the litigation and was willing to fashion new law for that limited purpose to do so. (Find me another Supreme Court decision which says that it's not to be considered as precedent in future cases.)

Is it Just Me
 

I have two aunts and an uncle that were Catholic clergy. 35 Irish cousins, almost none of who went to parochial grade schools. If I had known your parents, I would have warned them. Some of the high schools are a completely different story. Yada yada yada.

On another note (relating to the Santorum thing earlier), the only good O'Reilly show I ever saw was when Dan Savage kicked his ass.
They were talking about legalization and O'Reilly asked (seemingly rhetorically) something like:
"so you think anybody should be able to use any drugs;
Savage: well, actually no, I have a personal problem ever allowing people to use (I think he mentioned heroin and something else);
O'Reilly: so you don't believe that 14 years olds should be able to buy any drug at any time;
Savage: uhm, yeah, I guess you've exposed me as a fraud (or something like this).

O'reilly didn't know what to say, but Savage was so handsome and so well composed that you could tell O'Reilly sort of had a crush on him. jk obviously, but I think even O'Reilly seemed to admire him, or maybe my volume was just turned down too much.

Explain this Please
 

Why doesn't anyone ever ask the reverse question, namely, becasue we cannot intervene in ALL the worlds ills and help ALL the world's downtrodden, then why should WE ever intervene???

Why Pat Buchanan, Why?

I'm claiming he was a threat to the world. And whether or not he had the weapons in his possession or not (which everyone believed he did), he fully intended to build them once the sanctions ended (per the Duelfer report).

I don't know, are we? If we did, I take it you wouldn't be in favor?

Did John Birch write the parts in the Duelfer report exposing all of the UNs complicity in the Oil-for-Food scandal?

What, that Sarah Silverman looks like a rat? I just did now. Twice.

I want to address your more important points - but I'm getting killed here. Try to respond more later

Explain this Please
 

Doesn't that give him credence in your circles?