It was worth it! Just to see Tom Daschle, looking like he swallowed a lemon! And that idiot Dick Gebhart-gone to the boneyard!
Seriously-the Dems desrved what they got-pulling senile old Fritz Mondale out of the rest home to run! Although that old fool Frank Lautenberg won in NJ (I guess the Mafia was busy stuffing ballot boxes).
Seriously, we all now can see what the Republicans are made of-this is their big chance-I hope they don’t blowit (like they did in 1994)!
um. You do realize that since the Reps didn’t control the Senate before, that he had to make some concessions w/r/t his nominees before, right? and than now that the Rep. control the Senate he won’t have to??
This is bad how?
[quote} bu Eleusis
Dig ditches for 80 hours a week, and any able bodied person in this country can make a living. Whine about it, and I have no respect for you.
[/quote]
I guess your right seven, people really don’t give a damn. This gives ‘kick a man while he’s down’ meaning. Right when a man’s ego has been bashed into the ground and smashed to a pulp along comes…
ELEUSIS…
To make sure your ego doesn’t have 2 molecules left together.
:rolleyes:
sorry
Oh, no worries there. It wasn’t that I was expecting you to respond to my bullshit quickly, just that I was expecting you to respond, rather than someone else.
Thanks, though.
So, tell me . . . did you really know how much more money you were making when you originally responded to Libertarian? C’mon, just between us . . . you didn’t really bother to look, didja? You can tell me.
Oh, and before I forget . . . ralph124c, you’re a choad. That’s not so bad, but do you really have to be a stupid one?
Perhaps another drum circle and puppet show would do the trick?
I think all this partisan stuff can be summed up with: Democrats suck, they know they suck, but they aren’t really happy that they suck. Republicans suck worse, they know they suck worse and not only do they not care that they suck worse they actively seek out ways to suck more.
By and large I’m disgusted when I vote (and yes, I do vote third party often). I had hopes that the Greens would actually morph into an organized political left but I guess that isn’t gonna happen any time soon.
Well andros, I know exactly how much I make and how much goes to taxes. I also know, daily, what my stock portfolio is worth. In fact I am willing to bet that I know more about my cash flow situation than %95 of the Dopers. I started my portfolio when I was 20 because I plan to retire at the age of 50 rich. Every dollar that I save on taxes goes into my retirement account. $2000 a year goes to my Roth IRA and the rest goes to the general account. Year to date I am up about %9. I dumped tech stuff about 6 months before the tech bubble burst and I am one of the few people I know that actually made money on the market in the last two years. (Reits rock). The only loser I bought was the Q but it was offset by my other stocks making gains.
So, andros, go fuck yourself. You keep questioning my money management scheme yet you no nothing about me. Other posters blew your statement about the tax cuts to bits yet you seem to want to keep beating a dead horse which happens to be your arguement.
Also, you are making a bad mistake:
I am not making more money, I am keeping more of the money that I EARNED due to the tax cut. Apparently you do not understand the difference between letting people keep the money they earn vs. a person getting a raise.
You are a total idiot.
Slee
Temper, temper, m’love.
Firstly, I’m honestly glad that you pay attention to your finanaces. I’m not as concerned about early and wealthy retirement personally, but good on you. I only wish more of us paid as much attention
Secondly, I’m sorry for my poor choice of words. I thought it was clear that by “making more money” I meant “taking home more money.” Obviously it was not, and if you choose to consider me an idiot for it, you’re welcome to. You’d be wrong, but that’s fine.
Thirdly, it was only one other poster who assumed I was denying the existence of a tax cut and who “blew that to bits.” Never once did I intend to claim that no tax cut ever existed. That you think that claim is a dead horse that I’m beating, I’ll simply have to assume it was my fault. I sure didn’t think I wrote anything to give that impression, but obviously I did.
Fourthly, you as much as begged for flames. You never said a thing about good flames, or even rational ones. I got the (deservedly) righteous response form you I was hoping for, so it’s all good.
Peace.
Did you mean to quote me? I’ve read your post four times now and I can’t see how it relates to my question to Dio.
Perhaps he meant to imply that all Republicans are Hawai’ian geese? Or perhaps since they are “neners,” they like to do, er, other sorts of things to geese? Yes?
Don’t forget to click on the link for the accompanying illustration - it’s quite helpful.
Esprix
yes, I did mean to quote you.
You seemed to have suggested to DIo that he reflect on Bush’s nominees to date for the bench and not be so concerned. (if I’ve misunderstood your point, then never mind)
I’m suggesting that prior to today, his nominees may have been more middle of the road vs. starkly conservative, but that now, w/control of both houses, he need not be concerned. As long as he can deliver all the Rep. votes, whoever he wants to get in will be appointed.
which I’m sure will delight some and terrify others.
Certainly true. However, it is not always the “conservative” justice who advocates the result which would be desired by conservatives. Scalia might be a conservative in terms of his political opinion, but if the textualist reading leads to a result that would actually benefit liberals, he won’t shy away from it. Likewise, if Stevens finds textual ambiguity or obsolescense and looks to legislative history to fill the gap, and that history overwhelmingly supports the result that conservatives would desire, he won’t always shy away from using the history.
Textualism is simply the process by which the meaning of a statute is discerned by looking within the four corners of the text and considering clues about author and audience from within the text. Basically, it avoids extrinsic evidence about “legislative intent.” If the meaning so derived is consistent with how the law has been applied thus far, then no change. If the law has been applied in a way that was inconsistent with the text, then there’s change. So textualism has no correlatioin at all to change, in that sense.
As to whether they thought out all complications, there are two sorts of complication that can be addressed.
1. Changes in technology…a statute listing various sorts of things to which a law applies might find itself confronted with a new sort of thing brought about by technology. In this case, there are any number of linguistic canons of textual interpretation that assist in applying the law. If the statute gives an open-ended list, one might look to see if the new thing is substantively similiar to the other listed (sui genersis). If the statute lists a number of things without leaving it open-ended, you might construct the text to exclude everything not listed (expressio unius.) A result can be reached from the text alone in this way, and if the legislature does not like the result they can amend the law or pass a new law to cover the situation.
2. Unforseen situations…are generally due to either ambiguity in the text, new laws passed that interact with the old law, or a changing moral background which makes us think some situations ought now to be addressed by the old law. In the first two cases, traditional canons of interpretation can be employed. In any of those cases, the legislature is free to pass a new law to address the situation. It would be presumptious to decide that the old legislature would have addressed the new problem in a certain way, because the old legislature has no guiding “will” or “intent”. The bill may have gotten sufficient votes to pass only because a more general provision was stricken from the language, one that would indeed have addressed the problem.
After a whole semester of Legislation class, I can tell you this…if you can’t put a little humour into the subject once and awhile, you’ll bore yourself to death 
Consider the idea of Stevens consulting a radio psychic to be a good-humoured analogy, but IMHO an apt one.
Good to some, bad to others I suppose. That was just my attempt to be as ridiculously over-characterizing of positions as possible, pointing out how Diogenes had done the same on the opposite spectrum. As a pro-life libertarian, I like a little from each column, but I prefer straight textualism in judges over any activist judge of any sort.
My God in Heaven! Saints preserve us all! A whole semester in litigation class! We all defer to your expertise. Clearly if you have had a whole semester of litigation class your knowledge and understanding of the whole body of constitutional theory and thought built up over more that 200 years in this country and a millennium in England is beyond doubt or challenge. Oh, that we could all be law students so that we could all have the chance to attain your level of understanding.
Look, Friend, this being the Pit and all, you might take a care that you don’t fall off your high horse. I’m not at all sure that your inflated self esteem will break your fall.
First, whether you meant to or not, you called me a liar. In fact you did it in more than one post.
{QUOTE]So, tell me . . . did you really know how much more money you were making when you originally responded to Libertarian? C’mon, just between us . . . you didn’t really bother to look, didja? You can tell me.{/QUOTE]
I find that really insulting. If you don’t understand why then you need to be smacked upside the head with a 2x4.
Second, I expected to get flamed for being happy that the Pubbies won. I did not invite flames. I know the SDMB and knew it was going to happen so I put the thread in the PIT. Knowing that I am going to get flamed for a post and asking to be flamed are two very different things.
Third, I have a whole lot of respect for you after your last post. Go in peace even though we disagree. (Note, you really ought to get a Schwab account and start putting $2000 a year in a Roth IRA as soon as you can. The miricle of compound interest is a wonderful thing)
Slee
Yeah, well, I shouldn’t have been fucking with you, Slee. I was picking a fight for no particular reason other than to be a dick. Thanks for not taking it too personally.
You still need to learn how to spell “neener,” though.
(Oh, and I suppose Schwab’s fine. I’m an American Funds man, myself, for our Roths and long mutuals. I’m not particularly interested in early retirement–but I ain’t dumb. ;))
(It’s legislation, not litigation, btw.) To quote Freddy Riedenschneider from Man Who Wasn’t There, “I’m a lawyer, you’re a barber, you don’t know anything.” Ok, that’s a little strong. But the thing is, as a law student, I actually get exposed to this stuff day in, day out. NOTHING but this stuff, all frickin’ day long. Intellectually, law school and visiting GD is pretty much the fill of my day, unfortunately. Thank goodness GD provides a well-rounded selection of topics. I know this crap because I have to know this crap. There are certainly laypersons who understand the law, some legal historians who know the shape of the law much better than any lawyer or law student. But I’m doing it now, all day. That gives me a bit of a reason to expect that I can be pretty well justified in pointing out what appears to me to be a total misunderstanding of the judicial process and its features.
Yup. And thankfully, the SDMB Search engine, when applied to the most partisan and insane posters on this Board, shows a plethora of instances after the last election of them telling us how we were “gonna get it” in 2002. Good thing that in addition to being partisan and insane, they’re also fucking stupid too. :rolleyes: