Am I missing something? Nearly a whole page about the Republicans failing to beat a dead candidate, only to be cancelled out by a sentence at the bottom pointing out that a Democrat failed to beat a dead Republican.:blink:
Printable View
Am I missing something? Nearly a whole page about the Republicans failing to beat a dead candidate, only to be cancelled out by a sentence at the bottom pointing out that a Democrat failed to beat a dead Republican.:blink:
Name a better TV mag. Dateline? The Catch-A-Perv episodes were great.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
60 Minutes hasn't done anything of note for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™Wow I can't believe you don't watch 60 Minutes (very often)!:OQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
60 Minutes gets stories that I don't normally hear about or rather, they delve and get the meat of a story and get interviews that no one else comes close too.
They have gone from being the oldest and best to merely the oldest.
I don't find any of them compelling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™Name a better TV mag. Dateline? The Catch-A-Perv episodes were great.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k460 Minutes hasn't done anything of note for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
They have gone from being the oldest and best to merely the oldest.
At all (at all).
Let me describe this to you in a way you can understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Politics in the United States is conducted by the two primary parties par the Soviet/U.S. Cold War, 1960's specie, with an occasional third-party acting the role of China.
If you remember anything at all about that period, you should recall that mutually-assured destruction was the modus from which all decisions were considered or made.
Small leap, now:
While government in the U.S. doesn't actually function, it's spasmodic urge to commit politics occasionally allows it to, um.....happen.
As an unfortunate side-effect, each loaf of product contains a wee bit of Frankenstein's monster.
Fact.
BTW-
How's that for a brilliant and succinct summation.
Well I was wondering just how it could be legal to run a dead candidate at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I think both campaigns were disgraceful for doing so. Although one has to wonder about the voters that knowingly voted for a dead candidate :unsure:
We have some incredibly bad election rules, Foley's name and delay should not have been on the ballot for example, it's bad for democracy, but I really find it hard to believe that it's legal to run a dead candidate.
In a way you can understand? :huh: I hereby challenge you to express the sentence above in a more confusing way.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
It is of utmost importance for those with nary a point to talk indirectly and try and sound intelligent when they are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilwIn a way you can understand? :huh: I hereby challenge you to express the sentence above in a more confusing way.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Insofar as you did not cite the latter sentence of my post I will assume you had no problem understanding it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilwIn a way you can understand? :huh: I hereby challenge you to express the sentence above in a more confusing way.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Overlay the first (quoted) with the second (unquoted) and you will discover the only relevant condition bearing on American politics.
Would that you could adequately manage the part about "sound (-ing) intelligent..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™It is of utmost importance for those with nary a point to talk indirectly and try and sound intelligent when they are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
??????Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
How about "and try to"?
Honestly...:whistling
Would this particular Frankenstein monster happen to come from Texas? If so, I cant believe that you wrote the above quote.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Let me describe this to you in a way you can understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Politics in the United States is conducted by the two primary parties par the Soviet/U.S. Cold War, 1960's specie, with an occasional third-party acting the role of China.
If you remember anything at all about that period, you should recall that mutually-assured destruction was the modus from which all decisions were considered or made.
Small leap, now:
While government in the U.S. doesn't actually function, it's spasmodic urge to commit politics occasionally allows it to, um.....happen.
As an unfortunate side-effect, each loaf of product contains a wee bit of Frankenstein's monster.
Fact.
BTW-
How's that for a brilliant and succinct summation.
It would appear that for Congress one has to be above a certain age, a citizen of the US for a certain time and resident in the state you represent. Given that being dead sort of precludes you from being resident anywhere I tend to concur that it would be illegal to put forward a dead person as a candidate for election.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccWell I was wondering just how it could be legal to run a dead candidate at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I think both campaigns were disgraceful for doing so. Although one has to wonder about the voters that knowingly voted for a dead candidate :unsure:
We have some incredibly bad election rules, Foley's name and delay should not have been on the ballot for example, it's bad for democracy, but I really find it hard to believe that it's legal to run a dead candidate.
Do you think something is going to be done about this, or will it be just another example of something the rest of the World can pour scorn on, in relation to your political system.
:rod:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Would that you could adequately manage the part about "sound (-ing) intelligent..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
??????Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
How about "and try to"?
Honestly...:whistling
I figured it out on about the 3rd attempt, after having looked up what specie meant, but i still don't think its technically good english (or even merkin) and its a completely unnecessarily complicated way of expressing the sentenceQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Insofar as you did not cite the latter sentence of my post I will assume you had no problem understanding it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
Overlay the first (quoted) with the second (unquoted) and you will discover the only relevant condition bearing on American politics.
Also which is the latter sentence? your original post had half a dozen sentences in it.
It would appear that for Congress one has to be above a certain age, a citizen of the US for a certain time and resident in the state you represent. Given that being dead sort of precludes you from being resident anywhere I tend to concur that it would be illegal to put forward a dead person as a candidate for election.
Do you think something is going to be done about this, or will it be just another example of something the rest of the World can pour scorn on, in relation to your political system.
:busyrod: QualityQuote:
Originally Posted by Busyman:rod:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Would that you could adequately manage the part about "sound (-ing) intelligent..."
??????Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
How about "and try to"?
Honestly...:whistling
I must confess I built it for JP's edification; perhaps that will suffice as explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilwI figured it out on about the 3rd attempt, after having looked up what specie meant, but i still don't think its technically good english (or even merkin) and its a completely unnecessarily complicated way of expressing the sentenceQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Also which is the latter sentence? your original post had half a dozen sentences in it.
Actually, I am surprised I hooked you, Ian-Busyman much less so.
He's always ready and willing. :cool:
:fixed:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul:busyrod: QualityQuote:
Originally Posted by Busyman:rod:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
No, by that I meant systemic flaws will not allow any legislation which might be described as brilliant, pure, or even focused.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabWould this particular Frankenstein monster happen to come from Texas? If so, I cant believe that you wrote the above quote.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Instead we get massive, pork-laden waste, or incredible stinginess, pseudo-enlightenment, or utter stupidity.
Example:
Our government is absolutely flummoxed by an out-of-control illegal immigrant problem.
How fucking dumb is that.
Would that you could adequately manage to fix it.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You are arrogant for no reason.
Maybe the Dems can do something about that....all a dat.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4No, by that I meant systemic flaws will not allow any legislation which might be described as brilliant, pure, or even focused.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Instead we get massive, pork-laden waste, or incredible stinginess, pseudo-enlightenment, or utter stupidity.
Example:
Our government is absolutely flummoxed by an out-of-control illegal immigrant problem.
How fucking dumb is that.
Not while you have a Republican Executive.
Only when confronted with baffling and willful thickness, as in your case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
You don't need to be the way you are with me, nor me with you, but there it is, nonetheless.
If you took a different tack, perhaps I would as well...did that ever occur to you.
Political gridlock can be comforting as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Dems sense a great advantage to "getting nothing done" in this situation, as responsibility for the gridlock diffuses amongst the members of Congress, while it is concentrated in the case of the Executive.
He is blameworthy, they are not.
Well if he consistently vetoes bills that pass then he would get the blame....and he should get the blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Political gridlock can be comforting as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Dems sense a great advantage to "getting nothing done" in this situation, as responsibility for the gridlock diffuses amongst the members of Congress, while it is concentrated in the case of the Executive.
He is blameworthy, they are not.
The Dems have the majority in the Senate by a cunt hair and almost the same for the House (I think that's a little over 52%) so they don't have veto override power.
The saving grace would be if some moderate Repubs vote with the Dems or if Bush decides the changes are good.
I mean the Dems said that they wouldn't impeach and he should be appreciative of that.:smilie4: I mean I've seen a President impeached for as little as a dick suck. I think lying to get America (among other countries) into the current stink we are in with almost 3,000 soldiers dead fits the impeachment ticket a bit better.
Jeff was just on Bill Maher last night too.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerI think he's referring to Jeff Flake (R-Az), profiled on 60 Minutes last week.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
A Republican making sense, amazing.
It can't be just me but I hate politics ,so boring the rich plick always wins .
Put a woman in the White House with convictions maybe I'll pay better attention
she does n't even have to be good looking by the way . :dabs:
The veto over-ride must be a fairly rare thing, as Congress has to agree by two thirds to do it. It can't be all that common for POTUS to have as low as a third of Congress in his own party, or supporting his point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
You'll see how it looks bizarre from the outside. For at least the next two years the Legislative branch of your Government can put forward ideas, debate them and vote on them. For someone else to just say "nah", I don't fancy that.
Re the impeachment issue, were there many Democrats who supported the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. If so they would be on fairly shakey ground trying to impeach him for going ahead. I don't know how many supported it, or failed to speak out against it, you chaps will know.
:blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
What part don't you understand? Is this going to be a boring moment again?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4:blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
If he does get impeached I think it may be for something else. It's debated depending on what political side one is, but there are several things he has done that are unconstitutional. Warrentless wiretaps as an example and these signing statements are questionable.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I don't think it serves any good for the U.S. impeaching Bush, but he probably deserves censuring at the very least.
When the system was designed they wanted to ensure that they weren't replacing a foreign king/dictator country with a local dictator. So they set up the 3 branches to be seperate but equal to ensure checks and balances would prevent this happening.
Our so called freedoms are protected best when there is at least one branch held by a different party. As we have seen just recently, when one party holds all the power the country suffers and we lose freedoms as the oversight disappears.
Of course this system can lead to stalemate so usually a compromise is reached..........if only I could say that they usually reach good compromises:dry:
Good points, well made.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccIf he does get impeached I think it may be for something else. It's debated depending on what political side one is, but there are several things he has done that are unconstitutional. Warrentless wiretaps as an example and these signing statements are questionable.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I don't think it serves any good for the U.S. impeaching Bush, but he probably deserves censuring at the very least.
When the system was designed they wanted to ensure that they weren't replacing a foreign king/dictator country with a local dictator. So they set up the 3 branches to be seperate but equal to ensure checks and balances would prevent this happening.
Our so called freedoms are protected best when there is at least one branch held by a different party. As we have seen just recently, when one party holds all the power the country suffers and we lose freedoms as the oversight disappears.
Of course this system can lead to stalemate so usually a compromise is reached..........if only I could say that they usually reach good compromises:dry:
The only similar situation I can think of in the UK is when one party does not get a majority of seats in the commons. As such they are unable to form a Government.
The last time I remember that happening resulted in the LibLab pact. The Labour party and the 3rd largest party (Liberal Party) formed a coalition Government. They basically added their seats together to make a majority. The idea was then to have Government based on compromise
It didn't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4:blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I understand it fine, I just can't believe you think he ought to "be appreciative' of the fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Big bad Democrats.
I hope Conyers tries it, I really do. :yup:
It's a joke, jay.:ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I understand it fine, I just can't believe you think he ought to "be appreciative' of the fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Big bad Democrats.
I hope Conyers tries it, I really do. :yup:
I personally think it would be a waste of time. There are more pressing issues on the table like running the country.
I just hope the Dems keep to the high road and don't fuck up. They have a massive clean-up to handle.
I wouldn't count on the high road or not fucking up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
As to the "massive clean-up" they'll have to remember to lay aside their obstructionist tendencies.
What should Bush do if he sees they're about to fuck-up.
You say this like it's only the democratic party that obstructs. The repubs are just as bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
But to your suggestion that the democratic party obstructed the republican agenda......They say "you're welcome". ;)
Both sides have obstructionist tendencies. Now in the case of case Repub rule if the Dems really thought a bill to be rather idiotic they should be obstructionist and vice-versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4I wouldn't count on the high road or not fucking up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
As to the "massive clean-up" they'll have to remember to lay aside their obstructionist tendencies.
What should Bush do if he sees they're about to fuck-up.
Bush really should STFU. I mean he had his party ruling congress and did squat.
I said it all along, what good came of the Bush reign?
They spent like fuck while cutting taxes during a war. Dumb.
The jobless rate is at it's lowest since '01. Is that because of the tax cut or just because because?
Meanwhile, jobs are moving overseas like crazy and pensions are getting cut.
The average joe is having a threat to his livelihood on his heels and it benefits the few.
I never thought about stuff like earmarks leading to corruption but earmarks get lumped inside of bills like for instance the prescription drug bill.
A congressman would more likely vote for it since his state would benefit from the earmark.
How the fuck does shit like that even exist?
Oh cos congress made the rules. That's fuuuuucked up.
They need to fucking axe all that shit out.
No gifts for congressman. They are civil fucking servants and not rock stars.
Earmarks and "gifts" sound like a fucked up "tradition" but it leads to corruption. It was painful seeing Jeff Flake argue his stance and then some other congressman argue theirs with a straight face.
I remember some bitch politician from Alaska saying with a straight face how Alaska needed that fucking 200 million dollar bridge to an island of 50 people.
Everyone in congress is out to get there's while they systematically fuck up everywhere else.
Did you just upload that to YT?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
The video you have requested is not available.
If you have recently uploaded this video, you may need to wait a few minutes for the video to process.
yes just, but it is showing as live here
Apparently Youtube has McAfee busyblocker
Oh yeah I saw that on Bill Maher last night.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
You should upload the "farewell" as well (as well).
You've got some good vids like the Foley Spin one. :lol:
edit:Oh man! I just saw the Hackett vs. Taylor clip from Hardball.:pinch:
I like Chris Mathews. He backs people into corners and cuts through bullshit.
Usually folks can't give straight answers.