[Right, Bush never held anyone that he couldn't put on trial.
I mean look at all the terror trials we got.
We were having terror trials left and right with Bush!
Jesus, Deacon at least TRY not to be a fucking parody of the Right.
Well, I very clearly remember a bunch of Obama stump speeches wrt Gitmo about how the right thing isn't always easy, and the rule of law should always be followed.
I also remember McCain taking a pragmatic approach and getting skewered for it.
So, while reading the Constitution is kind of a stunt and probably deserving of a few snarky responses, I'm not about to let a comment go by that implicates the left has the moral high ground when it comes to consitutional issues.
Because you don't have it.
Sure we do, mainly because the GOP has been occupying the gutter for so long and steadily making it deeper.
Deacon's been beating the "Look, Obama isn't the messiah!" horse for a while now. It's pretty much his only thing. Oh, and being a black Republican, though I may be getting him confused with someone else that no longer posts here.
He was outed awhile ago as a white guy.
Yeah, someone PMed me that, I just wasn't sure if it was Deacon that it was about. I always thought it was odd that there was a black Republican that was not either ex-military, wealthy, or straight up crazy.
I'm trying to remember the name of that freshman from Florida that is, in fact, all three so I can google up an ironic picture.
Well, I very clearly remember a bunch of Obama stump speeches wrt Gitmo about how the right thing isn't always easy, and the rule of law should always be followed.
I also remember McCain taking a pragmatic approach and getting skewered for it.
So, while reading the Constitution is kind of a stunt and probably deserving of a few snarky responses, I'm not about to let a comment go by that implicates the left has the moral high ground when it comes to consitutional issues.
Because you don't have it.
Sure we do, mainly because the GOP has been occupying the gutter for so long and steadily making it deeper.
"Less Unconstitutional" isn't as catchy as "Hope" but maybe you could bring the font size down and squeeze it in there under that picture.
Deacon's been beating the "Look, Obama isn't the messiah!" horse for a while now. It's pretty much his only thing. Oh, and being a black Republican, though I may be getting him confused with someone else that no longer posts here.
He was outed awhile ago as a white guy.
Yeah, someone PMed me that, I just wasn't sure if it was Deacon that it was about. I always thought it was odd that there was a black Republican that was not either ex-military, wealthy, or straight up crazy.
I'm trying to remember the name of that freshman from Florida that is, in fact, all three so I can google up an ironic picture.
But for some reason its escaping me.
Alan West. He's like Clarence Thomas, except from the military and ten times the crazy.
Deacon, I'd be delighted if you'd explain what the point was of your deception. Like, what did you stand to gain from doing that? Feel free to PM me.
Deacon's been beating the "Look, Obama isn't the messiah!" horse for a while now. It's pretty much his only thing. Oh, and being a black Republican, though I may be getting him confused with someone else that no longer posts here.
He was outed awhile ago as a white guy.
Yeah, someone PMed me that, I just wasn't sure if it was Deacon that it was about. I always thought it was odd that there was a black Republican that was not either ex-military, wealthy, or straight up crazy.
I'm trying to remember the name of that freshman from Florida that is, in fact, all three so I can google up an ironic picture.
But for some reason its escaping me.
Alan West. He's like Clarence Thomas, except from the military and ten times the crazy.
Well, I very clearly remember a bunch of Obama stump speeches wrt Gitmo about how the right thing isn't always easy, and the rule of law should always be followed.
I also remember McCain taking a pragmatic approach and getting skewered for it.
So, while reading the Constitution is kind of a stunt and probably deserving of a few snarky responses, I'm not about to let a comment go by that implicates the left has the moral high ground when it comes to consitutional issues.
Because you don't have it.
Sure we do, mainly because the GOP has been occupying the gutter for so long and steadily making it deeper.
"Less Unconstitutional" isn't as catchy as "Hope" but maybe you could bring the font size down and squeeze it in there under that picture.
When your bad behavior and ridiculous posturing has shifted the debate so much that "less unconstitutional" is the high ground, you can take your righteous indignation and stick into a bodily orifice of your choosing.
Deacon's been beating the "Look, Obama isn't the messiah!" horse for a while now. It's pretty much his only thing. Oh, and being a black Republican, though I may be getting him confused with someone else that no longer posts here.
He was outed awhile ago as a white guy.
Yeah, someone PMed me that, I just wasn't sure if it was Deacon that it was about. I always thought it was odd that there was a black Republican that was not either ex-military, wealthy, or straight up crazy.
I'm trying to remember the name of that freshman from Florida that is, in fact, all three so I can google up an ironic picture.
But for some reason its escaping me.
Alan West. He's like Clarence Thomas, except from the military and ten times the crazy.
Ah, yes.
The Congressional Black Caucus invited him and another black Republican to join them. Strom Thurmond is more appropriate than those guys to be in that Caucus.
When your bad behavior and ridiculous posturing has shifted the debate so much that "less unconstitutional" is the high ground, you can take your righteous indignation and stick into a bodily orifice of your choosing.
That's exactly what I'm saying!
Feel free to make fun of this as a publicity stunt, I certainly won't defend it. But you don't get to ride on the high horse anymore.
When your bad behavior and ridiculous posturing has shifted the debate so much that "less unconstitutional" is the high ground, you can take your righteous indignation and stick into a bodily orifice of your choosing.
That's exactly what I'm saying!
Feel free to make fun of this as a publicity stunt, I certainly won't defend it. But you don't get to ride on the high horse anymore.
Yes we do, because we're better than you guys when it comes to following the Constitution. Riding a high horse is not synonymous with being perfect all the time, nor does the fact that our side isn't 100% perfect mean that we can't hold you guys up as examples of bad defenders of the constitution. Because your side is demonstrably shitty at upholding the things outlined in the document that you act like is a religious text.
[Right, Bush never held anyone that he couldn't put on trial.
I mean look at all the terror trials we got.
We were having terror trials left and right with Bush!
Jesus, Deacon at least TRY not to be a fucking parody of the Right.
Well, I very clearly remember a bunch of Obama stump speeches wrt Gitmo about how the right thing isn't always easy, and the rule of law should always be followed.
I also remember McCain taking a pragmatic approach and getting skewered for it.
So, while reading the Constitution is kind of a stunt and probably deserving of a few snarky responses, I'm not about to let a comment go by that implicates the left has the moral high ground when it comes to consitutional issues.
Because you don't have it.
I never implied we did. YOU made the point that Obama was holding a bunch of guys we couldn't put on trial but had no real cases on. When, in fact, this was the defining factor of Bush's presidency.
But you edited out the posts above mine for a reason, I imagine.
But go ahead and call me when the Left pulls a stunt that is only to waste time and parade around that they pretend to give two shits what the constitution says about a weak before they crap all over it in a show of cognitive dissonance.
Especially when they get to the parts about equality.
Or how they insist we're a Christian nation and get to the part about "no National Religion" being established.
I don't really think that's accurate, warranted, or salient Thanatos.
As a (former?) mod, it seems strange that you'd just pop into the thread and contribute nothing other than poking at me, but whateves.
Jokepost: Well now you know why it was preceded with "former".
Seriouspost: A position of power does not make him infallible OR more mature than anyone else. Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh to Than, but there are a lot of mods/admins/whatever who are still gigantic assholes. For a neutral non-PA example, Amirox at Neo-GAF is a mod/admin and pretty much an awful human being.
And you really should not talk about popping in to make snide remarks and contributing nothing. Shit, as much crap as I give Modern Man at least he has the balls to make an argument before he (and, in all fairness, almost everybody) devolves into snide one-liners that don't go anywhere.
Feel free to make fun of this as a publicity stunt, I certainly won't defend it. But you don't get to ride on the high horse anymore.
Then why are you in the thread about this publicity stunt if not to defend or discuss it?
And no we totally do get to ride the high horse until the Dems pull a stunt this hilariously stupid.
I don't really think "I'm totally not a racist, I just like to wear internet blackface" is that long of a story.
I don't really think that's accurate, warranted, or salient Thanatos.
As a (former?) mod, it seems strange that you'd just pop into the thread and contribute nothing other than poking at me, but whateves.
Given that for years you put on the modern version of a minstrel show, I couldn't possibly care less what you think. i just wanted it made clear that you aren't a person, you're a caricature, and that nothing you say should ever be taken as anything remotely resembling the truth.
I never implied we did. YOU made the point that Obama was holding a bunch of guys we couldn't put on trial but had no real cases on.
The post from page 1 that I was responding to was full of smarmy partisan honkey-tonk.
But you edited out the posts above mine for a reason, I imagine.
I always edit because I hate multi thread trees!
But go ahead and call me when the Left pulls a stunt that is only to waste time and parade around that they pretend to give two shits what the constitution says
Can I go back in time and call you when Obama made his big "HEY GUYS WE CLOSED GITMO WOOO" press conference?
Sure are a lot of self righteous geese in this thread.
Anyhow, I don't know if anyone actually is buying that them reading the constitution is any more than a publicity stunt. At least, I hope not.
I'm sure the right-wing wurlitzer is hailing it as the beginning of a new era, that only incidentally happens to use exactly the same language as the last several Republican "new eras."
Sure are a lot of self righteous geese in this thread.
Anyhow, I don't know if anyone actually is buying that them reading the constitution is any more than a publicity stunt. At least, I hope not.
I'm sure the right-wing wurlitzer is hailing it as the beginning of a new era, that only incidentally happens to use exactly the same language as the last several Republican "new eras."
The really ironic thing about each of those "new eras" is that the were hailed by and for the same group of people.
The GOP voting block hasn't substantially changed since the late 1970s.
Sure are a lot of self righteous geese in this thread.
Anyhow, I don't know if anyone actually is buying that them reading the constitution is any more than a publicity stunt. At least, I hope not.
I'm sure the right-wing wurlitzer is hailing it as the beginning of a new era, that only incidentally happens to use exactly the same language as the last several Republican "new eras."
I read that its something that has never been done in the House before, so there's that.
Maybe they'll establish a precedent where every new house starts with a public reading of the Constitution.
January 20 - Today is Inauguration Day, though it was not always so. Prior to 1936, presidents were inaugurated in a private ritual in the Capitol rotunda. The president-elect would be blindfolded and stripped to his waist. The chief justice would then tattoo the text of the Constitution onto his chest, so that he might never forget it. While this process would begin on January 20, it typically did not end until March or April, factoring in blood loss and occasional comas, at which point the president would give a two-day speech.
As he approached his second inauguration in 1936, Franklin Roosevelt decided to toss out this old tradition. "I ask you," he said to the Inaugural Committee, "how many times must a man be tattooed with the entire Constitution in his life?"
If he had bothered to read the writing below his own left nipple, Roosevelt would have known the answer was "only twice." But all the same, he condensed the proceedings to a simple oath on a single cold, miserable, January day, and he thoughtfully moved the ceremony outside, so that everyone could hate it as much as he did.
I like how Deacon tried desperatley to derail this thread.
Honestly though, I'm in the same boat as most of you, in that republicans are totally unfit to act as "defenders of the constitution" based on there actions throughout the new millenium.
I like how Deacon tried desperatley to derail this thread.
Honestly though, I'm in the same boat as most of you, in that republicans are totally unfit to act as "defenders of the constitution" based on there actions throughout the new millenium.
Well, how can you expect them to defend it until they read it?
Johnny on the spot after this, though.
Burtletoy on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I like how Deacon tried desperatley to derail this thread.
Honestly though, I'm in the same boat as most of you, in that republicans are totally unfit to act as "defenders of the constitution" based on there actions throughout the new millenium.
Well, how can you expect them to defend it until they read it?
Johnny on the spot after this, though.
I expect a fit of coughing to overcome the reader during amendments 14-16.
I like how Deacon tried desperatley to derail this thread.
Honestly though, I'm in the same boat as most of you, in that republicans are totally unfit to act as "defenders of the constitution" based on there actions throughout the new millenium.
Well, how can you expect them to defend it until they read it?
Johnny on the spot after this, though.
course these are the people who claimed they couldn't read a 500 page bill in 6 months
Sure are a lot of self righteous geese in this thread.
Anyhow, I don't know if anyone actually is buying that them reading the constitution is any more than a publicity stunt. At least, I hope not.
I'm sure the right-wing wurlitzer is hailing it as the beginning of a new era, that only incidentally happens to use exactly the same language as the last several Republican "new eras."
I read that its something that has never been done in the House before, so there's that.
Maybe they'll establish a precedent where every new house starts with a public reading of the Constitution.
I'm not sure why it needs to be read aloud to start a session. It's pointless and only serves to turn it even further into a religious style doctrine. We don't start every business year with the public reading aloud of our company documents.
That said, I'm terribly amused that they're just skipping all the parts we've decided were Wrong over the years. Can't we just read them anyways and acknowledge that over the decades we've decided the founding fathers got a few things wrong?
kildy on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2011
I see a reading of the Constitution that strips out all the uncomfortable stuff they don't want to get caught reading.
I see a vote to disenfranchise people for no compelling reason that in effect does nothing but royally piss people off. (Please note, these places still get to elect delegates to the Republican National Convention and help pick the party nominee.)
Of these two actions, I know which one I give more weight to.
EDIT: That is not going to be a precedent. Most Houses with parties that have just taken power would like to spend this time rattling off quick, easy votes on nice-sounding legislation. When Pelosi took power, she was using this time to get off a vote on raising the minimum wage. All the GOP's doing here is wasting any honeymoon period they may have and making easy legislative fights that much harder.
And here's the other thing. Most Houses with parties that have just taken power would like to spend this time rattling off quick, easy votes on nice-sounding legislation. When Pelosi took power, she was using this time to get off a vote on raising the minimum wage. All the GOP's doing here is wasting any honeymoon period they may have and making easy legislative fights that much harder.
And the choice of a first legislative act? Yikes. Your first legislative act is going to get headlines no matter what it is, so you need to pick something that's going to look good splashed across the front page. Minimum wage raised looks good. Lilly Ledbetter looks good. 'NEW CONGRESS DISENFRANCHISES TERRITORIES' does not.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
This is absolutely ridiculous. These people were elected to legislate, not read to their colleagues.
Actually, the federal government not doing anything to exercise its power and just sitting around tugging one out probably suits their constituents right down to the ground.
I'm waiting for the part afterwards where they get to enjoy their handful of non-buttered popcorn on a paper napkin before settling down for nap time on their carpet squares.
I'm waiting for the part afterwards where they get to enjoy their handful of non-buttered popcorn on a paper napkin before settling down for nap time on their carpet squares.
Sir, are you implying that these Republicans are acting like toddlers? Because that's awfully unkind to toddlers.
I'm waiting for the part afterwards where they get to enjoy their handful of non-buttered popcorn on a paper napkin before settling down for nap time on their carpet squares.
Sir, are you implying that these Republicans are acting like toddlers? Because that's awfully unkind to toddlers.
Oh no no no, you misunderstand entirely; I was implying that John Boehner is acting like a kindergarten teacher in the middle of story time.
I'm waiting for the part afterwards where they get to enjoy their handful of non-buttered popcorn on a paper napkin before settling down for nap time on their carpet squares.
Sir, are you implying that these Republicans are acting like toddlers? Because that's awfully unkind to toddlers.
I'm waiting for the part afterwards where they get to enjoy their handful of non-buttered popcorn on a paper napkin before settling down for nap time on their carpet squares.
Sir, are you implying that these Republicans are acting like toddlers? Because that's awfully unkind to toddlers.
Oh no no no, you misunderstand entirely; I was implying that John Boehner is acting like a kindergarten teacher in the middle of story time.
This is absolutely ridiculous. These people were elected to legislate, not read to their colleagues.
Actually, the federal government not doing anything to exercise its power and just sitting around tugging one out probably suits their constituents right down to the ground.
"elect us to show you that government can't do anything right" always amuses me.
I wonder how I'd react to an interview candidate showing up and telling me if I hire him, he'll make it so none of my systems work.
Posts
Sure we do, mainly because the GOP has been occupying the gutter for so long and steadily making it deeper.
But for some reason its escaping me.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Long story short... totally white.
"Less Unconstitutional" isn't as catchy as "Hope" but maybe you could bring the font size down and squeeze it in there under that picture.
Alan West. He's like Clarence Thomas, except from the military and ten times the crazy.
Deacon, I'd be delighted if you'd explain what the point was of your deception. Like, what did you stand to gain from doing that? Feel free to PM me.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
When your bad behavior and ridiculous posturing has shifted the debate so much that "less unconstitutional" is the high ground, you can take your righteous indignation and stick into a bodily orifice of your choosing.
The Congressional Black Caucus invited him and another black Republican to join them. Strom Thurmond is more appropriate than those guys to be in that Caucus.
That's exactly what I'm saying!
Feel free to make fun of this as a publicity stunt, I certainly won't defend it. But you don't get to ride on the high horse anymore.
Yes we do, because we're better than you guys when it comes to following the Constitution. Riding a high horse is not synonymous with being perfect all the time, nor does the fact that our side isn't 100% perfect mean that we can't hold you guys up as examples of bad defenders of the constitution. Because your side is demonstrably shitty at upholding the things outlined in the document that you act like is a religious text.
I don't really think that's accurate, warranted, or salient Thanatos.
As a (former?) mod, it seems strange that you'd just pop into the thread and contribute nothing other than poking at me, but whateves.
I never implied we did. YOU made the point that Obama was holding a bunch of guys we couldn't put on trial but had no real cases on. When, in fact, this was the defining factor of Bush's presidency.
But you edited out the posts above mine for a reason, I imagine.
But go ahead and call me when the Left pulls a stunt that is only to waste time and parade around that they pretend to give two shits what the constitution says about a weak before they crap all over it in a show of cognitive dissonance.
Especially when they get to the parts about equality.
Or how they insist we're a Christian nation and get to the part about "no National Religion" being established.
Jokepost: Well now you know why it was preceded with "former".
Seriouspost: A position of power does not make him infallible OR more mature than anyone else. Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh to Than, but there are a lot of mods/admins/whatever who are still gigantic assholes. For a neutral non-PA example, Amirox at Neo-GAF is a mod/admin and pretty much an awful human being.
And you really should not talk about popping in to make snide remarks and contributing nothing. Shit, as much crap as I give Modern Man at least he has the balls to make an argument before he (and, in all fairness, almost everybody) devolves into snide one-liners that don't go anywhere.
Then why are you in the thread about this publicity stunt if not to defend or discuss it?
And no we totally do get to ride the high horse until the Dems pull a stunt this hilariously stupid.
The post from page 1 that I was responding to was full of smarmy partisan honkey-tonk.
I always edit because I hate multi thread trees!
Can I go back in time and call you when Obama made his big "HEY GUYS WE CLOSED GITMO WOOO" press conference?
Anyhow, I don't know if anyone actually is buying that them reading the constitution is any more than a publicity stunt. At least, I hope not.
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
Yeah, assuming you can actually find when he said that. Go ahead and google for it, we'll wait.
What's that, he didn't actually say that? Huge surprise, you're wrong again.
The GOP voting block hasn't substantially changed since the late 1970s.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I read that its something that has never been done in the House before, so there's that.
Maybe they'll establish a precedent where every new house starts with a public reading of the Constitution.
Better yet, let's bring back this old tradition:
Honestly though, I'm in the same boat as most of you, in that republicans are totally unfit to act as "defenders of the constitution" based on there actions throughout the new millenium.
Well, how can you expect them to defend it until they read it?
Johnny on the spot after this, though.
I expect a fit of coughing to overcome the reader during amendments 14-16.
course these are the people who claimed they couldn't read a 500 page bill in 6 months
I'm not sure why it needs to be read aloud to start a session. It's pointless and only serves to turn it even further into a religious style doctrine. We don't start every business year with the public reading aloud of our company documents.
That said, I'm terribly amused that they're just skipping all the parts we've decided were Wrong over the years. Can't we just read them anyways and acknowledge that over the decades we've decided the founding fathers got a few things wrong?
I see a vote to disenfranchise people for no compelling reason that in effect does nothing but royally piss people off. (Please note, these places still get to elect delegates to the Republican National Convention and help pick the party nominee.)
Of these two actions, I know which one I give more weight to.
EDIT: That is not going to be a precedent. Most Houses with parties that have just taken power would like to spend this time rattling off quick, easy votes on nice-sounding legislation. When Pelosi took power, she was using this time to get off a vote on raising the minimum wage. All the GOP's doing here is wasting any honeymoon period they may have and making easy legislative fights that much harder.
And here's the other thing. Most Houses with parties that have just taken power would like to spend this time rattling off quick, easy votes on nice-sounding legislation. When Pelosi took power, she was using this time to get off a vote on raising the minimum wage. All the GOP's doing here is wasting any honeymoon period they may have and making easy legislative fights that much harder.
And the choice of a first legislative act? Yikes. Your first legislative act is going to get headlines no matter what it is, so you need to pick something that's going to look good splashed across the front page. Minimum wage raised looks good. Lilly Ledbetter looks good. 'NEW CONGRESS DISENFRANCHISES TERRITORIES' does not.
3DSFF: 5026-4429-6577
Actually, the federal government not doing anything to exercise its power and just sitting around tugging one out probably suits their constituents right down to the ground.
General Welfare is the military funding for contractors that have retired Flag officers / generals hired as consultants. :P
MWO: Adamski
Sir, are you implying that these Republicans are acting like toddlers? Because that's awfully unkind to toddlers.
Oh no no no, you misunderstand entirely; I was implying that John Boehner is acting like a kindergarten teacher in the middle of story time.
It's an entirely different thing, altogether.
Toddlers don't have mistresses.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
"elect us to show you that government can't do anything right" always amuses me.
I wonder how I'd react to an interview candidate showing up and telling me if I hire him, he'll make it so none of my systems work.