Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono

3. Speaking of Blanco or Nagin, I have been looking for but have so far been unable to find similar statements.

Don't hold your breath.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Say if the beer was warm at the UK pavillion, would you mostly blame the manager there, or would expect Eisner to step down?

My answer depends on the length of Eisner's summer vacation.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Don't hold your breath.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ironweed
So Bush is responsible but it's the Dems fault. So simple and elegant. Is it your view that Blanco or Nagin mouthing the words "I take responsibility" would improve anything about the facts of this disaster?

As for the "fixing" bit, when can we expect the Republican babyjesus to start resurrecting those who died waiting for federal assistance to arrive? Sometimes "sorry" just isn't good enough.

Bush took responsibility for the fed failure, the loss of life was directly primarily caused by Nagin's and Blanco's failures. The fact that you cannot see the difference once again exposes the lack of any objectivity on the left. Otoh, Ty is responisble for the failure, he said so.

Ty, when will you be stepping down from your mod post? RT, can Hank take his place?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I don't know what this is supposed to mean? Do you agree or disagree that Ty should step down for Blanco's and Nagin's failures?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
IMpressive that you are so lacking in objectivity that you can not give him requisite credit when he does the very thing that for 5 years you have criticised him for not doing. Thanks for exposing the hypocrasy of the left. Again.

So, Ty, the record of leftist transgression starts anew, so quickly on the heels of the cleansing of the decades of earlier sin, or do you want to take responsibility for this BS?

Hey, I think it's great. I just figured you guys would be concerned that somebody fell out of line.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't know what this is supposed to mean? Do you agree or disagree that Ty should step down for Blanco's and Nagin's failures?

I:

(a) thought it was funny;
(b) thought it applied to your entire collection of posts (which, just like Michael Bolton's collection, I celebrate).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Did I read the paper correctly this morning? Did Roberts really find a right to privacy in the Constitution, or did he merely say he would not undo precedent finding that right?

The fucking media sucks; they totally misinterpret and misreport everything said.

I think he said there's one in there, but he did not say how extensive it was and in what circumstances the government could abridge that right. No rights are absolute, so absent a definition of the contours of the right, it's an empty statement

As for Roe, he said it was precedent and entitled to respect as such. He didn't outline (or at least I didn't see it) in what circumstances stare decisis doesn't carry the day. Lochner was good law once too.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Captain
On sovereign immunity, other than the limited sovereign immunity that is set out in the 11th amendment, where do you view sovereignty, and any powers relating to it, as arising? Sovereign immunity is not mentioned in the constitution itself. And what powers might be included in this concept of "Sovereignty".

You complained yesterday about the vagueness of the 9th amendment rights reserved to the people. Does the vagueness of some extra-constitutional powers (one of which is "Sovereign immunity" but I see an implied and broader "sovereign" set of powers as soon as you do that) being reserved to the government bother you? I'm not sure where you came down on the right to privacy, but I find it much easier to understand a concept of a right to privacy from a quick skim through the Federalist Papers than I do the concept of "sovereign powers" beyond those enumerated in the constitution.

Are you talking state sovereign immunity or federal sovereign immunity? With states, a lot of it is now defined by statute under state law, so for the most part it's irrelevant. As for federal laws abrogating state sovereign immunity, while it was once an interesting question, now it's essentially a statutory drafting question (isn't it?) and Congress can either abrogate it or not, with courts deciding only whether they did or didn't, and applying a default rule of it didn't. Don't get me started on the 11th amendment, because 11th amendment jurisprudence has almost nothing to do with the 11th amendment's text or purpose. Instead it's judicial activism used to strike down laws on a basis for which there are 5+ votes to do so (whereas the proper basis--the 10th amendment--has supplied, at least most recently, only 4 votes, at best).

[nononono]

Originally posted by ironweed
So Bush is responsible but it's the Dems fault. So simple and elegant. Is it your view that Blanco or Nagin mouthing the words "I take responsibility" would improve anything about the facts of this disaster?

As for the "fixing" bit, when can we expect the Republican babyjesus to start resurrecting those who died waiting for federal assistance to arrive? Sometimes "sorry" just isn't good enough.

No, of course not, and that's disingenuous. There's fault all around, and I haven't yet said anything about the relative faults here. But only one of fed, state and local has yet to admit any of that, much less take responsibility.

You prefer that leaders go the route we see far too often, parsing words and doling out blame while never quite doing anything either productive, useful or remedial?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Hey, I think it's great. I just figured you guys would be concerned that somebody fell out of line.

No, I always expect Bush to fulfill his role as a responsible adult leader and so far he has not let me down. I know he is doing the hard work, and it is hard. He's working hard. I have faith.

Originally posted by nononono
You prefer that leaders go the route we see far too often, parsing words and doling out blame while never quite doing anything either productive, useful or remedial?

I'd prefer they did their jobs and got kicked the fuck out when they didn't. But hey, I'm just kooky like that.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I:

(a) thought it was funny;
(b) thought it applied to your entire collection of posts (which, just like Michael Bolton's collection, I celebrate).

Ha. It's posts like this and that which ensure that on the day when we finally race, just prior to going by you (and dropping you hard), I will give you a pat on the shoulder and say "nice job, keep it up, you're almost there".

[nononono]

Originally posted by ironweed
I'd prefer they did their jobs and got kicked the fuck out when they didn't. But hey, I'm just kooky like that.

You mean like Michael Brown? Who at state and local has gotten fired yet?

[Southern Patriot]

Originally posted by ironweed
What exactly is he "stepping up" to? If he is truly responsible for the failure of his administration to adequately respond to this disaster, he should be stepping down. Or perhaps I have been unclear on the definition of the word "responsibility" as used by neocons all these years. Is there some definition of responsibility that does not involve consequences for actions?

As much as I believe the man has already suffered enough by losing his precious Brownie, I would be willing to advocate throwing the Vice President to the wolves as well if someone will write me that reparations check for those slaves you Northerner's "freed".