En attendant Bloomberg.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
He is a rabid social conservative, and in the intraparty wars he considered everything fair game. He loved "opposition research" and when that didn't work out he just made stuff up.

Going only on his Wikipedia entry (which admittedly is little to go on) I don't see how he's remotely a libertarian. How can a party that has only principle (and not main-stream acceptance) going for it nominate him when wiki' lists as among his accomplishments supporting the war on drugs and pushing the defense of marriage act?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
He is a rabid social conservative, and in the intraparty wars he considered everything fair game. He loved "opposition research" and when that didn't work out he just made stuff up.

I was under the impression he was more libertarian than social conservative.

eta: Admittedly, I hadn't looked at Wikepedia. Maybe they were trying to find a (once or current) Congressman more palatable than Ron Paul?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I love reading your analyses of criticisms of the actions of elected officials or implementation of unpopular laws passed by elected officials. You repeatedly default to the notion, "well, it was done by vote, or by someone voted into office, thus the people got what they deserved. If they want it changed, they can vote to change it by throwing out those who passed it next election."

Indeed, Justice Scalia.

Couldn't the same be said of Iraq or the tax cuts? Couldn't I use the general gist of your snarky (I assume they're partly tongue-in-cheek) comments in this area to tell Ty to shut the fuck up when he criticizes Iraq?

You're an odd literalist.

Just because I disagree with a policy doesn't mean I have to either rail against the method which led to its adoption and the people behind it, or shut up. I disagree with about 80% of what is proposed by the GOP and about 60% of what is proposed by the Democrats, and that makes me a Democrat in this dirty ol' world. One of the things about which the GOP is right is the idea that judges don't have policy mandates. Their job is solely to apply the law to facts and to get the fuck out of the way of the political branches unless a law clearly conflicts with a core value enumerated in the Constitution that reasonable college educated folks would agree is impossible to reconcile with the product of the political branches. Things like free ice cream are stupid but rarely unconstitutionally enacted, and if it's what 51% of my neighbors want, I'm not going to cry about it. That doesn't mean I'll again vote for the dumbshit who came up with the idea.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Just because I disagree with a policy doesn't mean I have to either rail against the method which led to its adoption and the people behind it, or shut up. I disagree with about 80% of what is proposed by the GOP and about 60% of what is proposed by the Democrats, and that makes me a Democrat in this dirty ol' world. One of the things about which the GOP is right is the idea that judges don't have policy mandates. Their job is solely to apply the law to facts and to get the fuck out of the way of the political branches unless a law clearly conflicts with a core value enumerated in the Constitution that reasonable college educated folks would agree is impossible to reconcile with the product of the political branches. Things like free ice cream are stupid but rarely unconstitutionally enacted, and if it's what 51% of my neighbors want, I'm not going to cry about it. That doesn't mean I'll again vote for the dumbshit who came up with the idea.

So your basic, general position is anti-complaining, on a chat board of lawyers arguing about the political moves of their elected officials? I actually agree with the sentiment, but what would you have everyone here do? Actual legal work?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
So your basic, general position is anti-complaining, on a chat board of lawyers arguing about the political moves of their elected officials? I actually agree with the sentiment, but what would you have everyone here do? Actual legal work?

I learn quite a lot about policy on these boards. To me, the only form of real injustice is when Person A convinces Person B to vote for a policy that is demonstrably not in B's interest based on anything less than total transparency on A's part. If B thought he was voting for ice cream but instead discovers he volunteered to be ass-raped, that qualifies as an injustice.

I come to this board for erudite banter about which party is the party of undisclosed ass-rapes.

(Mostly I am posting this because it will cause Slave to post something he thinks is witty, but will actually come off as genuinely embittered.)

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
[Ostensibly witty, but genuinely embittered]

New Board Motto!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I learn quite a lot about policy on these boards. To me, the only form of real injustice is when Person A convinces Person B to vote for a policy that is demonstrably not in B's interest based on anything less than total transparency on A's part. If B thought he was voting for ice cream but instead discovers he volunteered to be ass-raped, that qualifies as an injustice.

I come to this board for erudite banter about which party is the party of undisclosed ass-rapes.

(Mostly I am posting this because it will cause Slave to post something he thinks is witty, but will actually come off as genuinely embittered.)

I'm just impressed with your party- you tell people you'll give them a scoop of ice cream but then they have to let themselves be ass-raped. Was it a dem that bought NYC from the indians?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
New Board Motto!

2!!!!!!!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I learn quite a lot about policy on these boards. To me, the only form of real injustice is when Person A convinces Person B to vote for a policy that is demonstrably not in B's interest based on anything less than total transparency on A's part. If B thought he was voting for ice cream but instead discovers he volunteered to be ass-raped, that qualifies as an injustice.

I come to this board for erudite banter about which party is the party of undisclosed ass-rapes.

I understand that the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect American citizens from being ass-raped now if national security is involved, but I think you can make a strong argument that the Third Amendment applies, even if metaphorically, see as how it applies to soldiers and all.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I learn quite a lot about policy on these boards. To me, the only form of real injustice is when Person A convinces Person B to vote for a policy that is demonstrably not in B's interest based on anything less than total transparency on A's part. If B thought he was voting for ice cream but instead discovers he volunteered to be ass-raped, that qualifies as an injustice.

I come to this board for erudite banter about which party is the party of undisclosed ass-rapes.

(Mostly I am posting this because it will cause Slave to post something he thinks is witty, but will actually come off as genuinely embittered.)

I hate marketing as much as the next guy, but where do we stop? Should we also rail against the people at Enzyte and 15 Minute Abs?

You get ass raped with either. The argument's over degree of lubrication.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I hate marketing as much as the next guy, but where do we stop? Should we also rail against the people at Enzyte and 15 Minute Abs?

I just ordered a become a millionaire in real estate kit, so can we drop the negativity for a few months?

[bling trade]

This is a link to recent episode of the NPR show This American Life regarding subprime. So many caricatures in one episode.

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355

[Tyrone Slothrop]

It takes Republican lies to make Obama anti-Israel.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It takes Republican lies to make Obama anti-Israel.

so when a congressman allegedly takes an actual fragment of a statement and gives his take on what obama means it is a lie. Okay.

Then when Obama takes a fragment of McCain's 100 year thing, that must be a lie too. Difference is, of course, you want the liar to be President

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so when a congressman allegedly takes an actual fragment of a statement and gives his take on what obama means it is a lie. Okay.

Then when Obama takes a fragment of McCain's 100 year thing, that must be a lie too. Difference is, of course, you want the liar to be President

Oh, Hank. If only you had read the rest of the article.

• When Obama twisted Sen. John McCain's "100 Years" comment, it was pretty dishonest as well.
  
  But this may be worse, because Boehner et al are falsely accusing Obama of besmirching a nation and a people. They are accusing him of being anti-Israel, even anti-Semitic. It is false.
  
  This kind of twisting is unbecoming a party that claims to have superior ideas to Obama's fairly orthodox liberal record. Voters may conclude that Republicans think they have to make things up to beat Obama. Which they don't.

Don't give up on being the Party of Ideas, Hank. I'm sure the GOP has a gas tax holiday or something left to offer.