Politics: J'accuse! - Page 300

Not Me · 05-14-2004, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yet another inexplicable Missouri rant.

Since when does a rant need to be explicable?

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-14-2004, 02:02 AM

"Anyone who's running around saying the Geneva Convention did not apply in Iraq is either terribly uninformed or mischievous."

-- Donald Rumsfeld, to reporters in Iraq

Atticus Grinch · 05-14-2004, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) The Constitution, by placing limitations on who may run for Senate (30, 9 year citizenship, etc), infers that one should be ALIVE to be seated;

2) Senate Rules as presently written make this abundantly clear;

That's nice. Inferences make the world go 'round. Any court challenges? What did the court say about your magic inferences?

Quote:

3) By leaving a dead guy on the ballot, they knew they would get the sympathy vote - and don't give me the "it was too late crap" - the Dems threw Frank Lautenberg on the ballot in a heartbeat when the loss of that NJ was assured.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you'd relegated realpolitik to the Dems. I thought you guys admired practicality and derided the egghead intellectuals with their immutable principles.

Quote:

4) Special election? Was there a special election?

Senators are replaced pursuant to state law, or (help me out, Ty) the amendment providing for direct election sez the Governor appoints. What was illegal about that?

Quote:

In sum, in Attorney General Ashcroft, you reap what you sow.

So, answer my question. Guy dies days before the election. His party does what? Keep in mind your party has some old guys, too. Are we responsible for the excesses of other members of your party because we lost those elections and should have put up better candidates? When you get in bar fights, do you sue the cops for not having arrested you sooner?

Not Me · 05-14-2004, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"Anyone who's running around saying the Geneva Convention did not apply in Iraq is either terribly uninformed or mischievous."

-- Donald Rumsfeld, to reporters in Iraq

Rummy has NEVER said anything else about Iraq. What is your fucking point?

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-14-2004, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Rummy has NEVER said anything else about Iraq. What is your fucking point?

If you were to read the subject line, it might occur to you that my post was somehow directed to bilmore. "Why?" I hear you wonder. Well, had you been reading other people's posts in the last few days, you might have noticed a post from bilmore suggesting that the Geneva Convention did not protect the prisoners in Iraq. Humorously enough, then, the quotation from Rumsfeld above could be taken as a response to bilmore. Hence, "Rumsfeld to bilmore."

Not Me · 05-14-2004, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you were to read the subject line, it might occur to you that my post was somehow directed to bilmore. "Why?" I hear you wonder. Well, had you been reading other people's posts in the last few days, you might have noticed a post from bilmore suggesting that the Geneva Convention did not protect the prisoners in Iraq. Humorously enough, then, the quotation from Rumsfeld above could be taken as a response to bilmore. Hence, "Rumsfeld to bilmore."

I take it you are not drinking tonight. To which I say, your loss.

Try having corn muffins and vodka for dinner. Then we can talk.

Secret_Agent_Man · 05-14-2004, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, but it will be for the forseeable future. We are still occupying, and funding our occupation in, Kosovo

That is sort of a non-sequitur. I trust you are not comparing the ongoing cost of the operations.

("Sure, we will have to pay for monthly parking of 50 cars at a garage in Manhattan for the forseeable future; we're still paying to park three cars monthly in Green Bay, Wisconsin.)

S_A_M

ltl/fb · 05-14-2004, 09:30 AM

Atticus, I'm ashamed of you. The Constitution is incapable of inferring anything. It might imply things from which we, as sentient beings, can draw inferences, but it's a fucking piece of paper.

Oh the humanity, etc.

Hank Chinaski · 05-14-2004, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Atticus, I'm ashamed of you. The Constitution is incapable of inferring anything. It might imply things from which we, as sentient beings, can draw inferences, but it's a fucking piece of paper.

Oh the humanity, etc.

Huh? I thought it was a "living" document, that must grow with the times*.

*acknowledging possibility of whiff.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 05-14-2004, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was just observing that if the 493,782 citizens of Wyoming deserve to get three votes in the Senate, the 570,898 citizens of Washington D.C. deserve to get two votes. Not Me is still ducking this question.

You're analyzing this as if we were setting up a national legislature on a blank slate. We're not. If we were, and wanted equity, we'd have a unicameral legislature elected without regard to state boundaries (other than incidentally). Unfortunately, neither that, or even one in which reps. were elected state by state, was sufficiently popular to allow the ratification of the constitution.

As for DC, why should they get two votes when Puerto Rico and none of the other territories get none? The simple answer is because they're not states.

Explain this, though: If democrats so strongly believe that DC citizens should have a real voice in the House and Senate, why are they generally opposed to retrocession of DC to Maryland, even if it takes a huge payoff?

Berry Hunter · 05-14-2004, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Try having corn muffins and vodka for dinner. Then we can talk.

AON, it should be mentioned that if this were the FB, a proper response to this post would be:

"I didn't know you were into corn, muffin!"

Carry on.

ltl/fb · 05-14-2004, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Huh? I thought it was a "living" document, that must grow with the times*.

*acknowledging possibility of whiff.

w-a-t-e-r

Go look up "infer" and "imply" in the dictionary. You can't possibly be 60. All the old biddies know the difference between the two words.

Not Me · 05-14-2004, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You're analyzing this as if we were setting up a national legislature on a blank slate. We're not. If we were, and wanted equity, we'd have a unicameral legislature elected without regard to state boundaries (other than incidentally). Unfortunately, neither that, or even one in which reps. were elected state by state, was sufficiently popular to allow the ratification of the constitution.

As for DC, why should they get two votes when Puerto Rico and none of the other territories get none? The simple answer is because they're not states.

Explain this, though: If democrats so strongly believe that DC citizens should have a real voice in the House and Senate, why are they generally opposed to retrocession of DC to Maryland, even if it takes a huge payoff?

2.

Hank Chinaski · 05-14-2004, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
w-a-t-e-r

I invented that.

ltl/fb · 05-14-2004, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I invented that.

YOU are like the bestest inventor EVER. And (unlike some other inventors) YOU never whine or act like a BSD for no discernable reason. If only all inventors could be like you.

Wait, you're not RT . . . we're not talking about administering . . .

I like the "w-a-t-e-r" phrase though. Did you check out Strunk & White or whatever?