Waiting for Fitzgerald

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
. . . a reasonable person could determine that the legislature is asking us to eliminate marriage all together.

Ah, I gotcha.

Yeah, I think you're right.

If this passes as it is, there's gonna be a real estate boom all over Texas.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


I told you that I did not vote for Clinton in 1996. I also did not vote for Bob Dole, though -- despite the fact that I admire him greatly on a personal level, and as a competent pragmatist who could govern effectively. I just could not stomach or support the GOP of the mid to late 1990s.



S_A_M

2.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man



Nothing I have done or said has any bearing on your status as a tasteless asshole. Try not to confuse the issues.

PoPD. These attacks are beneath, you are better than this.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

However, I can see you're offended by the realization that I would rather have such a man run the government than someone who believes as your board persona purports to do. Its true.

How about neither of the above? In 2000, irl, I frequently despaired over Bush as a candidate. Unlike you I didn't think Gore was so hot, in part because of the taint of Clinton, but I still find it troubling to think any educated person in this country could assert that it's better to have a man who is a serial sexual criminal as President as opposed to someone who is just of a more extreme ideological position than them. Checks and balances takes care of the latter, it does nothing to mitigate the degradation of the office and the system of the former.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

My moral compass is awry in part because I sold my soul and mortaged my dreams to provide a very comfortable life for my family, and because I don't have the balls to risk changing that.

How about you?

S_A_M

The same. Merde!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
He's Cheney's hatchet man. Do you really need to ask the question?

I bet he never raped anyone.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My question wasn't about the analysis. My question was about the language that we're voting for. I do not think that the following language is any clearer than the language on the ballot, and I think, reading the language on its face, that a reasonable person could determine that the legislature is asking us to eliminate marriage all together.

Good. We should. Marriage should a private contractual right. The religious aspect should be wholly exclusive of that. If employers want to extend benefits to your private contract joint venture partner (aka [contractual] lover) then so be it, another private commercial arrangement.

State sanctioned marriage is an anachronism.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I bet he never raped anyone.

I bet if the Ds were willing to stoop as low as the Rs, they could find evidence that he raped someone as credible as the rape allegations against Clinton.

[nononono]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ah, I gotcha.

Yeah, I think you're right.

If this passes as it is, there's gonna be a real estate boom all over Texas.

I don't think so. Something is "identical" necessarily to something else.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by nononono
I don't think so. Something is "identical" necessarily to something else.

Had they included the words "other than marriage" or something to that effect, yeah. But I think her point is that they've left at least a colorable argument that marriage is gone, and I think she's correct.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by nononono
I don't think so. Something is "identical" necessarily to something else.

Yes, but marriage exists outside of Texas -- it's a generic concept. So "marriage" could be used as a reference point in outlawing marriage. They should have added ", with the exception of a marriage between a man and a woman as currently defined under Texas law" or something.

It's crap drafting.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I bet if the Ds were willing to stoop as low as the Rs, they could find evidence that he raped someone as credible as the rape allegations against Clinton.

So, if the D's were willing to listen to four women - was it four or five? - as they gave very detailed, corroborated testimony about being raped or abused, that would be "stooping low"?

Well, that explains a lot. Youz guyz were simply too principled to listen to those women!

They probably wore short skirts, and makeup. Sluts.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I bet if the Ds were willing to stoop as low as the Rs, they could find evidence that he raped someone as credible as the rape allegations against Clinton.

Good comeback. Yes, I'm sure you are right. Just waiting in the shadows, begging to come out, is a 25 year history of predatory sexually abusive behaviour. Unlike with Clinton there has not been a 25 year history of consistent allegations of sexual abuse and/or assault from women with whom Scooter Libby has worked against him, but certainly you are right, those allegations and the underlying acts which prompted them must be out there.

If only there was a liberal media establishment which had resources to devote to this story. Instead we are cursed with a media of record overrun by conservatively apologistic hacks like Mo Dowd.

Sad.

[nononono]

Originally posted by bilmore
Had they included the words "other than marriage" or something to that effect, yeah. But I think her point is that they've left at least a colorable argument that marriage is gone, and I think she's correct.

Well, I certainly agree the time to remove ambiguities is now, and not after the thing passes (which hopefully it will not do). My point, though, on the construction is that use of "identical" implies something other than marriage, so you don't need that additional language. I know we like to draft everything with belt and suspenders, but to make the reverse argument, if they had meant to eliminate marriage they should have said (I paraphrase) "will not recognize marriage or anything similar"; you would not need "identical" at all.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by nononono
I don't think so. Something is "identical" necessarily to something else.

As I noted before, from Merriam-Webster:

identical
1 : being the same : SELFSAME <the identical place we stopped before>


Does not require reference to something else. Ignore newish people much? Sheesh.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, if the D's were willing to listen to four women - was it four or five? - as they gave very detailed, corroborated testimony about being raped or abused, that would be "stooping low"?

It was at least 7, i.e. there were 7 Jane Does, plus who knows how many others, including but not limited to Kathleen Willey, who was not a Jane Doe.

Originally posted by bilmore


They probably wore short skirts, and makeup. Sluts.

If this is a PoPD shot at me, ftr, fwiw, fyi, I don't wear makeup and my skirt hits me at the knees.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by nononono
Well, I certainly agree the time to remove ambiguities is now . . .

Quiet. I'm closing on a San Antonio house right now. And I don't think it's ambiguous at all . . . .

[nononono]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Good. We should. Marriage should a private contractual right. The religious aspect should be wholly exclusive of that. If employers want to extend benefits to your private contract joint venture partner (aka [contractual] lover) then so be it, another private commercial arrangement.

State sanctioned marriage is an anachronism.

Mercy. If you believe in marriage as a benefit to society, you should want the government to sanction it and reward it. There are few things, perhaps, you might want the government to weigh in on, but don't you want it to be the essential, fundamental things? Or the opposite?

BTW, there's an article at NR today outlining some common points that conservatives may have re marriage. In th econtext of finding common ground re gay marriage.