Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 117

taxwonk · 10-05-2005, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I will take issue with your lox. You've screwed up that franchise royally. The Scottish cured stuff is kicking your ass. For shame... you sat on your laurels and look what happened.

What do you know from lox, Goyishekop? The best smoked salmon these days is coming out of Norway

Penske_Account · 10-05-2005, 03:36 PM

I am ready to come home. The dims tent is too small, parochial and inhospitable for me.

I apologise for leaving the reservation, sts. No more crazy Cantwell talk.

I trust Bush did us right with Miers.

Please take me back.

Yours in Free-market loving Patriotic fiscal conversatism,

Penske

Penske_Account · 10-05-2005, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you miss the point. Go back and reread the eggshell plaintiff case from torts. if you assult, you take the risk that you've assulted someone unexpectedly fragile. I'm with Sidd on this one.

Thanks for getting my back. Just wait, they will be calling you out next.......

Hank Chinaski · 10-05-2005, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
What do you know from lox, Goyishekop? The best smoked salmon these days is coming out of Norway

Why do you people act like fried matzoh is good? my FIL is like, "every year I can't wait for Passover for the fried Matzoh." And I'm like, do you look forward to prostrate exams?

And if you really like them (either of them) why only do them annually? there is no religous reason not to indulge more frequently is there?

Spanky · 10-05-2005, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't get this, you think that there are 4M republicans living in NYC but not voting? Or voting D? I am unconvinced, but perhaps some day I will be proven wrong. I still don't see the last time moderates won an election. Maybe Carter, but that's factoring the Watergate backlash. Clinton didn't win because of moderates, he won because of a third party candidate. He didn't get a majority of the vote, either time, not really even close (as say Bush was in 2000). If he relied on moderates, that shows moderates can't carry the day.

Here in California we ran a pro-life conservative against Davis. He lost. We then ran a pro-choice Republican against him and he won by a massive land slide. I believe the difference was over 3 million votes. And it was not all that high of a turnout.

So there is 3 million of your voters right there.

Penske_Account · 10-05-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Why do you people act like fried.......... prostrate exams?

?

What do you mean by "you people"?

robustpuppy · 10-05-2005, 03:42 PM

Has anyone seen this? Apologies if it's been discussed already, I don't have time to ketchup on the PB.

I don't read Will's column very often, but when I do, I never find myself wishing I had written it myself (although I would have left out the peevish mention of the McCain-Feingold bill).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100400954.html

Quote:

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

Sidd Finch · 10-05-2005, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you miss the point. Go back and reread the eggshell plaintiff case from torts. if you assult, you take the risk that you've assulted someone unexpectedly fragile. I'm with Sidd on this one.

If I'm exceptionally fragile, Hank, why do I think that you are just a run-of-the-mill dick, and not someone who hold Dems in disgust?

Penske_Account · 10-05-2005, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Here in California we ran a pro-life conservative against Davis. He lost. We then ran a pro-choice Republican against him and he won by a massive land slide. I believe the difference was over 3 million votes. And it was not all that high of a turnout.

So there is 3 million of your voters right there.

I am okay with that. I think California is probably an anamoly. I am not sure there are 4-5M others around the country, just waiting for the religious right to leave. If there had been, Reagan wouldn't have needed to cozy up to Falwell.

Spanky · 10-05-2005, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
People who drive 55 in the passing lane?

There should be an exception to the cruel and unusual limitation for these people.

Penske_Account · 10-05-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If I'm exceptionally fragile, Hank, why do I think that you are just a run-of-the-mill dick, and not someone who hold Dems in disgust?

It's sad that you have to resort to the politics of personal destruction against me, in order to attempt to discredit my criticism of empty and immoral leadership of the demo party. You intentionally twist my words, despite my clearly asserted rebuttal of such falsehoods.

And ftr, I would rather be a big-dick, than a run of the mill dick. Hank's wife is more accommodating to the former.

Replaced_Texan · 10-05-2005, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
There should be an exception to the cruel and unusual limitation for these people.

2. They should be shot on site, and if they survive, they should have their licenses revoked.

Spanky · 10-05-2005, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am ready to come home. The dims tent is too small, parochial and inhospitable for me.

I apologise for leaving the reservation, sts. No more crazy Cantwell talk.

I trust Bush did us right with Miers.

Please take me back.

Yours in Free-market loving Patriotic fiscal conversatism,

Penske

OK. However, I think we must acknowledge that the DLC is a group that we can work with and respect. The DLC supported CAFTA even with huge pressure from their own party. They sacrificed political gain for the good of the country. We need to separate the reasonable Dems from the unreasonable dems.

Penske_Account · 10-05-2005, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
OK. . We need to separate the reasonable Dems from the unreasonable dems.

Exactly, that's what I have been trying to do all along. I am glad someone gets the message.

taxwonk · 10-05-2005, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Dissent. Its divinity.

It's only divinity because you choose to believe it. In this little game of metaphysical chess, I believe that would constitute a check. But let's not get sidetracked here.

You said:

Quote:

The babyjesus or his dad, as applicable, guides the universal moral compass.

That statement doesn't answer the question of whether or not there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs. It only defines what belief set you choose to point to. If God, as you call him, establishes what is right and what is wrong, then are you suggesting that everything God declares to be wrong is absolutely wrong?