Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Jeb Bush refuses to admit that he was wrong.

Jesus fucking christ.

Good. I hope Frist and a few other Wahhabi Repubs join him in his crusade.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The man is really not stupid. This is reprehensible political grandstanding.

But so transparent that you've gotta think people will understand it for the calculated politics that it is. And here I thought that Jeb was the more mainstream of the brothers. Guess I was wrong. Whatta fuckwad.

If Jeb doesn't get bitch-slapped for this one, I'm gonna be really pissed at the people of Florida.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Gattigap
But so transparent that you've gotta think people will understand it for the calculated politics that it is. And here I thought that Jeb was the more mainstream of the brothers. Guess I was wrong. Whatta fuckwad.

If Jeb doesn't get bitch-slapped for this one, I'm gonna be really pissed at the people of Florida.

I checked. He's not eligible for re-election. In good news, though, I learned that Katherine "Kingmaker" Harris is running for a US Senate seat in Florida next year.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I checked. He's not eligible for re-election. In good news, though, I learned that Katherine "Kingmaker" Harris is running for a US Senate seat in Florida next year.

Jeb in '08?

*sigh*

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Jeb in '08?

*sigh*

Bush v. Clinton? She actually might have a chance in that battle.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Bush v. Clinton? She actually might have a chance in that battle.

I should hope so. However, it would eliminate the Dems ability to pull the "dynasty" card on Bush.

I unfortunately think the Dems seriously overestimate anti-Hillaryism. Or at least they serious underestimate the possibility of every female in America, left or right, saying "you know what, you guys have done nothing but prove that you are all just complete fuckups." Which gets increasingly likely when the alternative is someone as clearly competent as Hillary has been in the Senate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did you support the war when you thought there were weapons of mass destruction?

No. But I never thought there were WMD presenting a meaningful threat to us. The very term was cooked up to blur significant distinctions between, e.g., tactical chemical weapons and nuclear bombs.

It seems to me that the people that didn't support the war even when we thought there were weapons of mass destruction are the ones complaining about the evidence. What does the evidence matter if you were against the war either way.

I'm not complaining about the evidence. I'm complaining about the misrepresentation.

And the people that were for the war don't seem to mind that there were not weapons of mass destruction (I certainly don't care). The only ones that have a gripe are the ones that only supported the war because they thought there were weapons of mass destruction.

Some do and some don't. I believe that Bush and others wanted to take Hussein out for other reasons (reasons which were not without plausible merit), but played up the WMD angle to gain public support. This suggests that the WMD were crucial for many people. It took the purported WMD to persuade people that Iraq was a threat to us, and most Americans would not have supported invading another country for other reasons.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The people being tortured are not citizens. The people whose property rights are protected are. Certainly, you don't suggest that we adopt a policy that everyone be treated as though he was a citizen of this country? That'd be very Bushian, in line with his "everyone needs to live in an American democracy" message. People of various countries have their unique cultures, freedoms and rights. And when we catch them engaging in terrorist acts, they don't suddenly acquire the rights of a US citizen in custody.

You're comparing apples and oranges, but you knew that. Thats why you wrote "individual" instead of "citizen."

So the Takings Clause only protects citizens? I think you will find Supreme Court decisions that say otherwise. I am happy to have an argument with you about when citizenship distinctions should warrant strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, but I don't think you want to go there.

Anyway, I would be very surprised if club thinks that an individual's basic rights -- to be free of torture or to possess property -- turn on citizenship.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I hope you read about this.

Because if you actually watched this, I'm kicking you in the nads the next time I see you - on mere principle.

You don't find it funny?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
You don't find it funny?

If you like the Daily Show, that is conclusive proof that your persona on here is some kind of sociology experiment. Because based on what you project, you would never get any of the humor on the Daily Show.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If you like the Daily Show, that is conclusive proof that your persona on here is some kind of sociology experiment. Because based on what you project, you would never get any of the humor on the Daily Show.

Come on, whose persona on here isn't some kind of sociology expierement, really.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Come on, whose persona on here isn't some kind of sociology expierement, really.

Why all the hate today? Did I shit on your parade or something?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Anyway, I would be very surprised if club thinks that an individual's basic rights -- to be free of torture or to possess property -- turn on citizenship.

The strength of that argument is somewhat weakened when dealing with people from a society, culture, and/or country who don't share in seeing the value of some of those fundamental rights.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If you like the Daily Show, that is conclusive proof that your persona on here is some kind of sociology experiment. Because based on what you project, you would never get any of the humor on the Daily Show.

Can you imagine Spanky being interviewed by Ed Helms? That would rock.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The strength of that argument is somewhat weakened when dealing with people from a society, culture, and/or country who don't share in seeing the value of some of those fundamental rights.

"People from our culture believe in fundamental rights, but people from yours do not, so we're going to torture you."

Hmm...