Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[mainiac]

Please be specific about what I am accused of misinterpreting, and avoid an ambiguous situation where question my intelligence. Because the latter is an ad hominem, as per the dictionary definition.

You said my post was about a topic that I haven't mentioned this conversation.  Was it really that hard to figure out, what with me quoting your statement about what I said, then quoting what I said?

[FearfulJesuit]

I'm feeling pretty laissez-faire towards this thread, mostly because a) people do tend to act like adults almost all the time and b) these sorts of arguments tend to only develop when news from Washington is slow (which it is, right now, in the worst possible way). If there were progress on the debt ceiling or some Tea Party nutcase unseated Boehner, we'd be all over it.

I mean, I dunno. I'd say "tone it down", but I myself don't even really have much trouble with causticness (I'm of the opinion that people should have thick skins, maybe more than some other people on the board). Just, uh...If either of y'all feel that this would infringe on your relationship as board members, then please regain your chill composure.

[wierd]

Persnally, I would like to drop the argument. This thread's energy is better spent elsewhere, and not arguing over the semantics of what does or does not constitute an ad hominem, or other logical fallacy. It is better spent discussing the current political situation in general.

I don't have to be nice in regard to my opinions. Nor does Mainiac. Being nice is tangental to being correct, and is just a perk of civility. One can be perfectly, impeachably correct, and still be a complete asshole. I make no reservations about openly admitting to being an asshole. I am.

I do take exception to being called disingenuous, and toward the invocation of fallacious rhetorical statements being uttered at the same time, and in the same breath, however.

I will call those out without reservation nor hesitation. I have no issue with being called out on any I may make either. However, if a specific thing is cited, then a specific thing needs to be addressed.  A specific thing, namely that I am a liar about the war powers acts being indicative of the slippery slope being presented, was cited. I cited that the 1973 war powers resolution makes no sense to implement if no abuse of power is happening. This went unaddressed. If P=!P, then why is there a war powers resolution of 1973?

Answer.

Additionally, if the creation of legislation to halt the use of such powers is indicative of successful repeal, why does the wikipedia article mention numerous violations by the executive?

[mainiac]

I cited that the 1973 war powers resolution makes no sense to implement if no abuse of power is happening.

I was never talking about them.  The hint was that I never once mentioned them.

You might want to talk about them.  That's nice.  I wasn't talking about them and neither was GlyphGryph.  Hence why we kept saying "stop talking about non-sequitors" and talking about the actual thesis we were supporting.

[wierd]

Please state, clearly, concisely, and without any vitriol or malign intent, exactly what that thesis was.

[misko27]

Blame is not something that need be assigned unless you have already given up on fixing. I dispute the chill of this discussion. I propose Mr. Freeze be the moderator at this point.

People, relax, it's alright. It is a argument on the internet. I promise the government will still be closed tomorrow no mater what. This thread should be open in the event of a Default so foreigners can angrily ask why their lives are collapsing for a reason they can't control.

On that, the House has no plans to raise any clean CR bills or Debt-ceiling raises over the week. Among other things, this virtually guarantees the eventual fight will be over the Budget and the Debt Ceiling rolled into one package. It will pass as one, or it will not pass. Additionally, It becoming increasingly possible Boehner will attempt a short term increase, a plan the White House has agreed with but some Democrats are-not only going against-but actually attempting to go in the other direction. The Idea is they would have time to argue over these things without a cliff looming. They wouldn't likely pass anything, but a Fiscal Meltdown would be averted.

[mainiac]

This is the problem with ceding power to central government, with the expectation that it will be "temporary".  IT NEVER IS.

This statement was incorrect.  There are many examples of temporary powers being temporary.

[wierd]

Misko:

Shh. we at least *are* attempting to reach mutual resolution, which is something that our currentleaders seem completely incapable of doing at the moment.

This is the problem with ceding power to central government, with the expectation that it will be "temporary".  IT NEVER IS.

This statement was incorrect.  There are many examples of temporary powers being temporary.

Please state a specific incidence of this occuring. If the above was incorrect, (which is not supported by several centuries of political rhetoric, and with the foundational thesis behind the seperation of powers to begin with, namely that liberty is an "eternal struggle" against tyrrany. If it could be resolved, then it would not be "eternal".) Then you can show how it is incorrect, and how all such conditions can be resolved.

Please demonstrate.

[mainiac]

Habeas corpus was suspended in 1861, giving the government vast new powers due to the emergency of the civil war.  In 1865, the emergency was over and the powers were revoked.  The temporary powers were temporary in this one particular instance.  Thus the statement that temporary powers never are temporary is wrong.  In this one instance, temporary powers were temporary.

[wierd]

An yet, habeus corpus was partially suspended by the patriot act, and the lawmakers who penned it felt it was safe to do so.

Did they do so, at least in part, because of this "temporary" suspension being given and recinded in the past, making it appear more legitimate?

[wierd]

Double the pleasure. Double the fun. T-Mobile's dataplan is double plus schlum!

[misko27]

Resolutions don't happen when mixing Water and Oil. You both come from opposite POV, and the odds of a moment where someone simply concedes is somewhere between nil and zero. Given that, you are arguing for arguing's sake. I bet that could be accomplished by PM.

An yet, habeus corpus was partially suspended by the patriot act, and the lawmakers who penned it felt it was safe to do so.

Did they do so, at least in part, because of this "temporary" suspension being given and recinded in the past, making it appear more legitimate?

An yet, habeus corpus was partially suspended by the patriot act, and the lawmakers who penned it felt it was safe to do so.

Did they do so, at least in part, because of this "temporary" suspension being given and recinded in the past, making it appear more legitimate?

It amuses me how far apart those time-stamps are.

[SalmonGod]

Habeas corpus was suspended in 1861, giving the government vast new powers due to the emergency of the civil war.  In 1865, the emergency was over and the powers were revoked.  The temporary powers were temporary in this one particular instance.  Thus the statement that temporary powers never are temporary is wrong.  In this one instance, temporary powers were temporary.

And just how relevant do you think this is to the sentiments you're addressing?  There are many more examples in more recent history of similar powers that were intended to be temporary being renewed indefinitely.  And this all started with an expression of doubt at Obama's willingness to dismantle any suspension of rights or imbalance of power that he might push through under the pretense of being temporary.  He was the most enthusiastic supporter of Patriot Act renewal this last time around, after all.

[wierd]

Resolutions don't happen when mixing Water and Oil. You both come from opposite POV, and the odds of a moment where someone simply concedes is somewhere between nil and zero. Given that, you are arguing for arguing's sake. I bet that could be accomplished by PM.

Unlike the people in the congress and senate, I am not beholden to what I believe to be true. I do not make the mistake that just because I believe something, it is indisputably so. As such, I am will and able to reach a conclusion other than the starting one, if convincing arguments can be given. I simply require that those arguments not be based on opinion alone. faith and opinion are not fact.  The TEA party's faith in its opinion that ACA is evil and must be abolished at all costs is not grounds to kill the world economy. Likewise, the "we do not compromise with terrorists" belief does not warrant the same either. Because neither is willing to concede the possibility that it can be wrong, no resolution can be made.

Again, I *am* willing to concede that I am wrong, and even to apologize publicly. (The latter is not possible with PMs.) I simply require very good, solid proof of the incorrectness of the opinion first.

An yet, habeus corpus was partially suspended by the patriot act, and the lawmakers who penned it felt it was safe to do so.

Did they do so, at least in part, because of this "temporary" suspension being given and recinded in the past, making it appear more legitimate?

An yet, habeus corpus was partially suspended by the patriot act, and the lawmakers who penned it felt it was safe to do so.

Did they do so, at least in part, because of this "temporary" suspension being given and recinded in the past, making it appear more legitimate?

It amuses me how far apart those time-stamps are.

This unfortunately happens frequently when using this antique froyo phone to post. It will time out during the posting process, then resubmit the form, creating a double post. Sometimes up to 10 seconds apart. This is beyond my control, and I would prefer that it did not happen. It does all the same, in defiance of my wishes. The only sure-fire way to prevent it, is to not post at all. I am sure that censorship of that nature is something that the two of us can agree is not tolerable.

[misko27]

Those are a minute apart though. 1 minute, 34 seconds actually. That's impressive delaying.