I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t be asking Brutus about how something out of the mouth of a Republican isn’t crazytalk. Conflict of interest, you know.
Including his suggestion that DeLay’s correct spelling of “guarantee” is snorkworthy.
You do have to catch Unc before lunch, though. He gets belligerent after that, knowhatimean.
He was trying to gin up outrage, all right - among his base, for whom use of such advanced technology is beyond their educational attainments and is therefore at least vaguely suspicious, and next thing you know them dam’ libruls gonna be tryin’ to teach evolution instead of God in our skewls.
Depends on which of the Internets he’s talking about.
And just FYI, our law firm is moving to a new building and they’re getting rid of the Library because almost all the research is online now. The attorneys never have to leave their desks to access the vast majority of the information they need via one or other of the Internets.
Gotta admit, this train wreck pretty much explains why neither manny nor Unc are mods anymore: one expects mods to halt trainwrecks, not cause them.
Even by manny’s standards, this is an incredible pile of foam at the mouth over nothing.
- A word from Dylan, to accompany manny’s favorite accusation:
*The Undercover Cop pulled up and said “Every one of you’s a liar,
If you don’t surrender now it’s gonna go down to the wire.” *
- A syllogism:
You don’t start threads in GQ that are pretty much doomed to turn into political debates or flamefests.
A thread about something Tom DeLay said is pretty much doomed to turn into a political debate or flamefest.
This OP was about something DeLay said.
Hence, it shouldn’t have been started in GQ.
That should have been blindingly obvious even before Daniel explained why he started it here.
- Daniel had a perfectly legit cite. Unc seems to be hammering him because he left the door open to the possibility that it was less than a perfect description of what transpired. That’s more charitable than he needed to be.
But charitable or no, it’s up to DeLay’s defenders to find out whether Fox News Radio put an unfairly bad spin on DeLay’s remarks. (Seems unlikely, doesn’t it?) There’s no reason why Daniel needs to dig into the Internets to make their case for them.
- The quote sure makes it look like DeLay was outraged because either (a) Justice Kennedy was doing legitimate legal research on the Web (in which case the Bug Man’s an idiot), (b) he thought Justice Kennedy was doing his legal research both at legitimate legal sites, and at places like PowerLine or Little Green Footballs (in which case DeLay thinks he can do a better job than Justice Kennedy of distinguishing valid sources from invalid, in which case he’s an idiot), © DeLay had no idea that pretty much everything in the Supreme Court law library is also online, and then some (in which case DeLay’s just woefully ignorant, but mouthing off loudly out from the bottom of the deep well of his ignorance, and trying to get others outraged on the basis of stuff DeLay’s ignorant about, in which case DeLay’s an idiot), or (d) some possibly exculpatory reason that I honestly can’t imagine.
But it’s not my job to go to the ends of the Internet to come up with that reason, or verify that it couldn’t possibly exist, before saying DeLay’s an idiot. That role is for his defenders to play. Certainty can rarely be had in life, even with the resources of the Internets, and if we waited until we were 100% certain of our debating points before making them, we could shut down GD right now.
We should all attempt a bit of due diligence in terms of “Is this cite legit, or is it too good to be true?” or “What are the obvious counterarguments, and have I tried to address them?” and the more you do, the better your debating cred will be. But for the most part around here, we can rely on our adversaries to point up the problems with our cites and our arguments, since we aren’t living in Bush’s Bubble.
So Unc, have fun on the Internets.
Speaking of fucking stupid.
It wasn’t me, but LHoD himself, who suggested that finding what Kennedy actually said—and in context—might prove useful. All I did, at least initially, was suggest a possible source where LHoD might find that which he sought. Following that, I became increasingly angry that despite LHoD’s many protestations that he was indeed seeking Kennedy’s statement, he has failed to do so—apparently even cursorily. This then, leads to the obvious and rational conclusion that LHoD’s claims of seeking an answer are duplicitous.
Interactive, or iterative? Which do you mean?
Brilliant. Stunningly brilliant.
I suppose this is a waste of time because in my experience ElvisL1ves is generally more interested in being outraged than he is in being right, but I’ll give it a shot.
ElvisL1ves, several times in this thread, specifically in post 28 and especially in post 37, you take manhattan to task for defending Tom DeLay. The problem is, after having read this entire thread, AFAICT manhattan hasn’t said a single word that can be even remotely construed as a defense of Mr. DeLay. Upon which of manhattan’s posts are you basing these statements, could you quote them for me please so I’ll understand your position? Thanks.
Cite?
Regards,
Shodan
I thought NotMrK’s bit of sarcasm was spot on, given your apparent expectation of how far Daniel should look to see what DeLay’s quote was really about.
But to each his own.
Weirddave, please try to be more aware of context in your reading habits. It will help you in life in untold ways. Meanwhile, since you have neither substance nor relevant flaming to add to this thread, feel free to go blow yourself.
Shodan my boy, if you can’t find pornography or pederasty on the web, there’s just no hope for you.
Sorry to disillusion you Elvis. Go look at DeLay’s page which I linked for those too lazy to get there on their own. The word is misspelled there, knucklehead. What is it with you? You really enjoy gettin’ your pants yanked down in public by someone you consider your inferior? Or are you just a belligerent asshole?
Where the fuck did this come from and what possible bearing does it have on this particular (and more than 12 month later) trainwreck? Are you seriously suggesting that Manhattan and myself were asked to step down because we were too inflammatory? Got anything but your own stupid and unsubstantiated piece-of-shit opinion to back up that claim? Or are you attempting to knowingly spread a falsehood?
Not even a remotely accurate description of my position in this thread. I have nowhere suggested that DeLay’s comments as quoted in the linked news story are inaccurate in any sense.
Again dumbass, it was LHoD who suggested that knowing what Kennedy had said that prompted DeLay’s stupid remarks might be useful. Not me.
Cool. We should be near another screaming asshole flaming out in…5…4…3…
Do it, manhattan. You know you want to tell them damned libruls what you really think!
-Joe
Flashy titles are fine–up to the point flash obscures substance. Gilding the lily a little is different from spray painting a petunia and calling it a lily. We aren’t so lacking in controversial topics around here that we need to manufacture more.
Do not do this again, LHoD. Keep the argument and the title on the level.
TVeblen
Pit mod
I can’t for the life of me understand the persistence in this inaccurate statement. For the third and final time, LHoD is the first poster in this thread who suggested that knowing what Kennedy actually said might prove useful. See posts #12 & #24. If LHoD thinks it might prove useful, then it’s incumbent upon him to seek it out instead of bitching about how hard it might be.
Iterative. It was a typo, although I can see how either might have been made to fit.
I hope that helps.
It certainly appears that DeLay said that Kennedy, while in session, said he uses the internet for research.
I find that this furthers his previous thought, that Kennedy uses knowlege outside the Constitution, in order to judge. It is worded rhetorically as a continuing statement. A is Bad. B is Bad. Therefore, C is Bad.
I can’t see any reasonable interpretation that would read this as DeLay saying “He reads international law, and also goofs off in session” Especially when you consider he is saying that
It seems more likely that he’s saying “This judge is ruling from weird sources like international law and the internet. UN! One world rule! Furriners! Strange electronic people!” Also, he’s closer to God now.
Pardon, Tveb, but I believe my flashy title is a substantively correct interpretation of what DeLay was saying, for the following reasons:
-He was excoriating a judge in his role as a judge. generalizing his comments from Justice Kennedy to judges in general is not a leap, unless we assume that he wouldn’t criticize another judge for doing the same thing.
-He was criticizing a judge for researching on the Internet. I don’t know about you, but I can’t think of a more appropriate way for a judge to use the Internet in the course of his duties as a judge: I don’t think he would’ve been happy if Kennedy was, in his role as a judge, surfing webcomics. Therefore generalizing from “using the internet for research” to “using the Internet” is an appropriate generalization.
In other words, I was being on the level. I apologize if my flippant comments to Brutus made you think I wasn’t being serious, but mostly that was because he was behaving contemptibly, inasmuch as he was trying to win a debate on a technicality instead of on substance.
If I violated rules by putting quote marks around a paraphrase, I do apologize for that: I am unaware that there’s a rule against that, especially since the very first thing in my post was the quote that the title paraphrased. However, I’ll avoid doing that in the future.
If you’re warning me not to “spray a petunia and call it a lily” in the future, I disagree that I did anything of the sort: I think my paraphrase is substantively accurate, unless and until someone can show me a way of interpreting DeLay’s remarks otherwise.
Unclebeer, your misapprehension is that I didn’t research the issue: I did look into it, and looked at your cite. However, I quickly realized that it’d be only through extreme luck that 20 minutes, or two hours, of searching around your cite would give me the answer I wanted; and my Googling wasn’t turning anything up. If you can spend twenty minutes and find the relevant quote on your cite, I’ll gladly concede your superior research skills; but I don’t think you can. Your cite is made up of dozens upon dozens of thickly-worded, lengthy opinions; there’s little way of finding the needle in that haystack, especially when I’m not sure what the needle looks like or whether it exists.
Daniel
No, friend, if you want to make a point, you have to make it yourself.
But not where you underlined it, in the line you posted for our perusal, which unfortunately became our laughter instead.
You really like the thought of pulling my pants down, don’t you? You sure mention it enough.
Yup, it looks like it’s after your lunchtime, all right. Let us know when you’ve sobered back up.
Ahhh, if only I could. What a cruel, cruel tease you are. However, I knew you couldn’t provide any cites of Manny defending DeLay from this thread simply because there aren’t any. Undoubtedly this will not deter you from continuing to insist that he has done so. It’s so GOOD to know that some things never change. The sun rises, babies grow to adulthood, and ElvisL1ves continues to lie about anyone he doesn’t agree with. Thank God for the consistency!
Almost as often as you bring up your trite inanity about my supposed three-pint lunches.
a) The Constitution is on the Internet.
b) The entire U.S. Code is on the Internet.
c) A wealth of information regarding what those in the majority in Congress thought they were voting for when they passed those laws is on the Internet. The courts have been using such information for eons to help interpret the meaning of unclear statutes.
d) The text of treaties entered into (which, as Article VI reminds us, are the laws of the land) is readily available on the Internet.
e) Occasionally British common law has light to shed on the meaning of Constitutional and older statutory provisions. I bet a lot of that’s on the Internets too.
f) An incredible volume of learned legal commentary is available on the Internet too. Judges and Justices do occasionally look at such commentary when they’ve got to rule on gray areas of the law, rather than inventing the wheel from scratch.
g) Not everything has a cut-and-dried meaning, and “cruel and unusual punishment” is certainly one of those concepts. In an era where it’s almost as easy for me to fly from Baltimore to London as from Baltimore to Los Angeles, it’s pretty silly to pretend that our interactions with the rest of the world have no effect on our understanding of broad concepts such as this. One can argue how much weight our decent respect for the opinions of mankind should carry in our deliberations, and it’s fine to argue, for instance, that international standards shouldn’t carry decisive weight in the decisions of American courts, but should only be used to reinforce a decision already reached on the basis of American understandings of such a concept. But to say that an American court should pretend that the rest of the world doesn’t exist, when we know it all does, is pretty damned silly.
Of course, DeLay isn’t making any sort of argument. He’s just throwing shit around, hoping some of it sticks - to someone else, so that we’ll be distracted from his self-inflicted wounds.