Doubtless he can find a way to interpret the Constitution such that it’s not only acceptable, but a downright moral imperative. Then he’ll call every liberal in the country a hypocrit for disagreeing.
A nationwide epidemic of shin-kicking?
Seriously, I agree with you that we need the political process to forestall violence. I disagree that this episode is a cautionary tale.
This I agree with you on. It is shameful that third parties are excluded from the process, and I wish I knew a way to change this.
Daniel
Control-F brought up nothing when I searched for “appeal”. The report was marked as “3 minutes ago” when I opened it. You are mistaken when you say that I do not admit when I’m wrong, as you can document by searching through my posts. I will expect your apology.
You must’ve mistyped it or something, because that passage was in the article when I linked to it.
You can bugger flies all you want, but the fact remains that I did not say that. Live by the pedantry, die by the pedantry, Lib.
Daniel
It is, actually.
The judge ruled that the law permitting challengers was unconstitutional, since it did not permit a challenged voter time to appeal. Now, that ruling may be correct, or not - we’ll see. But up until that ruling was made, the law permitting challengers was presumptively valid. You cannot suggest that anyone following it was acting illegally.
Absolutely, as I have before. That was a highly improper tactic, and I cannot believe it was so much as attempted.
Actually, I am unaware of any Republican statement to the effect that they are trying to slow down lines. Challenge illegal voters - yes. That’s the intent. Slow down line? That’s NOT the intent. So yes, it is just spin for you to say otherwise.
Ok, I disagree, but this made me laugh.
From Daniel’s link:
Huh? You said that two judges ruled the plan was illegal. That’s what I said you said. If you point out an error, I’ll admit it.
I suspect that it all depends on what the meaning of “was” was. (That line never grows old!)
After I typed my message, I realized that people may misinterpret my use of the past tense to be saying that the judge was saying that prior to the judge’s ruling it’d be illegal for them to carry out their plan. That was not my intent: my intent was to say that the judge said that after the judge’s ruling it’d be illegal for them to carry out their plan. Their plan was, therefore, after the judge’s ruling, an illegal plan.
Perhaps I should have phrased it differently; perhaps it would have been clearer if I’d said that “two judges telling them that their plan is illegal.” While what I said was technically correct, it was ambiguous; I apologize for the confusion.
What I have not seen you do is to use it to impugn the entire Republican party, as you have used this incident in your first post in this thread to impugn the entire Democratic party. Personally, I think doing either is inappropriate (although it’s better to impugn a party based on the actions of its official members acting in their job capacity); I was just pointing out what I believe is a double-standard.
Daniel
Ah, yes - the psychological phenomenon known as “projection.”
Because you and your ilk are happy to re-interpret the Constitution every time the winds changes, naturally you assume that others are similarly inclined.
I believe in strictly and narrowly interpreting the Constitution. I know that’s a huge comprehension gulf to cross - that words mean wimply what they say, and no more - but try to focus your mind upon it until it becomes clear.
Thank goodness! 
I hope that, after tomorrow, we can all have a good laugh. The tyrant is dead. Long live the tyrant.
Yeah, but it wasn’t there at “3 minutes”. My Control-F still has “appeal”. (Copied and pasted.)
The Republicans are right, we need tort reform to protect us from frivolous lawsuits from Republicans.
I should know better than to enter into this hairsplitting contest. Take it as a lesson: your confusion at my abstruse post mirrors other folks’ confusion at your own abstruse posts.
I said: “you’re not famous for admitting when you overreach.”
You said: “You are mistaken when you say that I do not admit when I’m wrong.”
I said: “the fact remains that I did not say that.”
Got it? Unless you think you ARE famous for admitting when you overreach, you got no quibble with the denotation of my words.
As for the connotation of them–well, I think your behavior here bears it out.
Daniel
There are several explanations for this, the least likely of which is that Yahoo had the paragraph about appeals when I read the article, took it out when you read the article, and put it back in when I reread the article. Far likelier is that you didn’t search properly. Maybe you clicked somewhere near the end of the article, below the “appeals” paragraph, and it searched downward from there.
At any rate, you’re blaming technology for your own error. Had you read the article instead of Control+Fing it, you would’ve found the paragraph (assuming there’s not a leftist Yahoo plot out to discredit you, that is 
).
Daniel
Speaking only for me: I don’t want felons to vote if same is a violation of state law. I don’t want anybody who isn’t legally entitled to vote casting a vote. I don’t give a fiddlers fuck if they want to vote for Bush, Kerry, or C. Estes Kefauver, or if they are registered by the Democratic, Republican, or Naked Coed Keg party! Why is this such a goddamn brain-breaker?
I treat the checking and verification of true elegibility no differently than I do a DUI checkpoint. I’m not intox, my license and reg are valid, but I’ll submit to the inconvenience because the process catches people who shouldn’t be on the road.
Let both sides check to ensure that only those who are legally entitled to vote, cast a vote. Then perhaps we will have a final outcome which isn’t tainted. Is that an unreasonable request?
A superb observation derailed by a most amusing typo.
Of course, in a sense it still applies…if the words of the Constitution are to be so easily re-interpreted due to changes in the wind, they truly are “wimply.”
O Gaudere, how do I love thee . . .
Well, it’s harder to punch a ghost. By that I mean that by the time I came along to comment, the plan had already been withdrawn, so any comment along the lines of, “Ah, the party of ‘respect for the law’ strikes again” would simply seem like a lame attempt at a strawman – attacking something that the other side had already repudiated.
Perhaps not: if it’s done in a way that’s fair, and that doesn’t place significant unreasonable burdens on one segment of the population, it’s entirely reasonable.
For example, if Republicans had made it a hallmark of their tenure in control of the entire US government to streamline and clean up our elections, I would’ve been entirely behind it. Get rid of all the fraud and intimidation going on; make voting as simple and clean and efficient as possible.
But that’s not how it happened. What’s happening isn’t an attempt to clean up elections; what’s happening is an attempt to use loopholes in voting laws to influence an election.
Or do you think the Republican party is doing equal scrutiny of polls in Houston?
It’s a scummy partisan trick. Clean up the scummy tricks on all sides of the political equation, and you’ll get my support. Call for a specific trick, and you’ll gain my ire.
Daniel