The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[original Hank@judged.com]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Would someone explain this sock to me? If there's a joke, it's lost on me.

a silent protest for enforcement of the property rights of the oppressed. I don't see what's so revolutionary about suggesting that the board administration ought to comply with the law.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And I'm backing Frist. Weird day all around.

I don't see what's so revolutionary about suggesting that the administration ought to comply with the law.*




*man, I crack me up.

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I wouldn't want to smack down the UAE and jeopardize their cooperation in the WOT (which, apparently, has been pretty good of late). On the other hand, there is something instinctually disconcerting about a foreign government owning a company that controls our ports. If nothing else, I don't see why an investigation into this matter is problematic. If the deal does not adversely affect security, that will be proven in the investigation process.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I'll "admit" that liberals are hypocritically exploiting an issue with a national-security angle to beat up on an unpopular president in an election year, and I gather you admit that the Republicans who were backing the president on the wiretapping thing were selling out the Constitution.

I'm not sure why it's an "admission" coming from me, since I was the first person on this board to back the President, but whatever.

Why would I admit that backing the legal (and necessary) wiretapping is selling out the Constitution?

And yes, anyone in either party that is against the port sale because of "Arab" concerns is just plain wrong.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why would I admit that backing the legal (and necessary) wiretapping is selling out the Constitution?

"legal"

Are you suggesting that FISA does not apply, that the AUMF somehow amended FISA, or that FISA does apply but that Article II somehow gives the President the power to ignore federal statutes?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'll "admit" that liberals are hypocritically exploiting an issue with a national-security angle to beat up on an unpopular president in an election year, and I gather you admit that the Republicans who were backing the president on the wiretapping thing were selling out the Constitution.

I'm not sure why it's an "admission" coming from me, since I was the first person on this board to back the President, but whatever.

Ty -

You do realize that the proper response to Slave calling liberals hypocrites is:

"Yes, all partisans are hypocrites."

There is no way to take a side and not wind up a hyopcrite on some issue, somewhere, someday. Its inevitable.

What riles people like me about the Left is that you all just can't admit you're hypocrites like the rest of us. The Right at least has the ability to laugh at its hypocrisy and/or the nerve to tell those tho'd call it hypocritical "So what? Go fuck yourself." People may not like that, but they can realte to such a human, flawed response.

The Left is super-annoying because it has this absurd belief that it is always 100% right, and is always telling everyon how it has the market cornered on morality. No one likes a Hall Monitor. Concede the moral superiority, stop being so damned perfect and your message will go a lot further.

SD

PS: And it'd do you a bit of good to stop having ninnies like Paul Begala or John Kerry pleading your case. The party needs more Carvilles - flawed, fucked up streetballers.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The Left is super-annoying because it has this absurd belief that it is always 100% right, and is always telling everyon how it has the market cornered on morality. No one likes a Hall Monitor.

Jesus Christ. I can't imagine you could even type this with a straight face if you really thought about it before you did.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch This leaves aside the obvious distinction between "the Saudis" owning a huge "cunk" of a corporation's stock and the gov't of Dubai actually controlling a company.

How was the sale of the British company to the Dubai entity structured? (I'm not setting you up: I honestly don't know.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'll "admit" that liberals are hypocritically exploiting an issue....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....What riles people like me about the Left is that you all just can't admit you're hypocrites....

Um, whatever.

Or are you annoyed that I'm defending Bush on this one instead of hypocritically attacking him, which would show that I'm really a hypocrite?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Jesus Christ. I can't imagine you could even type this with a straight face if you really thought about it before you did.

I can and I did. The Right is annoying, but its so bad at attempting to take the moral high road that its feeble attempts in that direction become self-parody.

The Left actually believes it has the moral high road, and it couches its arguments in professor-speak, which is not funny.

I try to laught at Maureen Dowd, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Paul Krugman, Hillary, but they're just not that funny. I don't get the sense I could elbow any of them in the side and say "Hey, who the fuck do you think you're kidding? You're so full of shit it hurts," and get a laugh the way I would from a Republican (with the exception of scary freaks like Brownback and Frist, who seem to be 'true believers'). There's something refereshing about people who play the game without pretension.

Both parties are about nothing but money. I respect the GOP for at least admitting it, directly and through sheer buffoonery in attempts to hide the fact.

[original Hank@judged.com]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
"Hey, who the fuck do you think you're kidding? You're so full of shit it hurts," .,,,,,Brownback ..........There's something refereshing about people who play the game without pretension.

so, you end up nailing the wife last night?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I can and I did. The Right is annoying, but its so bad at attempting to take the moral high road that its feeble attempts in that direction become self-parody.

The Left actually believes it has the moral high road, and it couches its arguments in professor-speak, which is not funny.

I try to laught at Maureen Dowd, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Paul Krugman, Hillary, but they're just not that funny. I don't get the sense I could elbow any of them in the side and say "Hey, who the fuck do you think you're kidding? You're so full of shit it hurts," and get a laugh the way I would from a Republican (with the exception of scary freaks like Brownback and Frist, who seem to be 'true believers'). There's something refereshing about people who play the game without pretension.

Both parties are about nothing but money. I respect the GOP for at least admitting it, directly and through sheer buffoonery in attempts to hide the fact.

2.

Evidence? ncs never felt the need to create a Club@50 sock to expose the pure hypocrisy of his act.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by original Hank@judged.com
so, you end up nailing the wife last night?

You nail SS?

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"legal"

Are you suggesting that FISA does not apply, that the AUMF somehow amended FISA, or that FISA does apply but that Article II somehow gives the President the power to ignore federal statutes?

It amuses me to no end that the "usual suspects" proponents of the "living, breathing Constitution" all become original intent-ers when Bush's terrorism policy is at issue.

BTW, where was all the outcry over surveillance during Camelot II*?

*'93-'01

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
BTW, where was all the outcry over surveillance during Camelot II*?

You mean Ken Starr spending $50mil searching to get to the bottom of a blow job? I recall being outraged.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It amuses me to no end that the "usual suspects" proponents of the "living, breathing Constitution" all become original intent-ers when Bush's terrorism policy is at issue.

BTW, where was all the outcry over surveillance during Camelot II*?

*'93-'01

Civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff were constantly complaining about various and sundry Camelot II policies at the time. Like the "roving wiretaps" issue. See http://www.enterstageright.com/archi...499hentoff.htm or http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001010.html