Thank you Massachusetts!

[Ansley]

Lastly let me just say that the starter of this thread should have to move to Mass!
Nope, I hear Camille complain enough about the weather to know I will be staying in the south.

By the way don't some of you need to get to work today?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Ansley

By the way don't some of you need to get to work today?

I remember those days.

[Guest112113-3]

Originally Posted by Ansley

Lastly let me just say that the starter of this thread should have to move to Mass!
Nope, I hear Camille complain enough about the weather to know I will be staying in the south.

By the way don't some of you need to get to work today?

Ansley, you still throwing fuel on the fire?

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by MrGiz

On another note.... How many of us... knowing what we know now... and given the choice to opt out of Social Security at an early age... would have?

Giz

On another note.... How many of us... knowing what we know now... [insert about a million things here] ... would have?

Kinda of a moot point...

[Guest020510]

WTF, you should google the courtesan state.

[MrGiz]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

On another note.... How many of us... knowing what we know now... [insert about a million things here] ... would have?
Kinda of a moot point...

Kinda of a moot point?
Oh, Really? Perhaps, it should be a new thread.... but I don't believe it's difficult to relate to a discussion which has revolved around the latest proposed New Deal / Great Society Plan!

Originally Posted by WTF

..... Until then the people have spoken and it is Barrack, not some senator in Mass....

What do you believe (if you care) was the reason, Massachusetts chose to throw out the Democratic Seat held since 1953 , when JFK was elected..... and hand it to Republicans?

Personally... I don't think it was just B.O. , or his Health Care Reform push , or the outrageous spending over the past year.... it had to be all of the above!! Of course.... the only problem with that is.... B.O. is at the center of all three!

Giz

P.S. - Maybe , it was just the Kurt Shilling F'Up

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by Woody of TX

Ansley, you still throwing fuel on the fire?

Let's put it this way, if I get to Dallas and I am told a date is canceled because they have to work.........
Just protecting my assets.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

It seems a lot of folks believe in freedom of speech and action, as long as they are the ones speaking and acting. But they put the big whine on, crying woe is me, when others start speaking and acting, and such speech and action detrimentally affects the former.

.

We starting to just go circular. Hell yae they can say dumb shit and people can react dumbly to them saying dumb shit. I have no problem commenting on the stupidity of either.

Personally I have had a hankering for that fiddle player going on ten years. Unless she gets elected head ball washer at a golf course near me I really don't care what she says, only how she plays.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

As the other thread said..."Karma is a bitch". Or as physics would tell you...For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Now, now, now that was me calling Karma a bitch. I didn't say I believed in her, just if in fact were we to actully prove that it existed....It would be a Beeeeach!

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

I know all too well from where I would argue with you on that TTH even with what you provided. I am well aware of what the Supreme Court ruled in that matter but we both know that is a long and laborious legal debate that is currently ongoing. There are far too many points of law for it to be discussed here but I will grant you, in one instance, you are correct however...

While I don’t concede to you, I will acquiesce from this debate with you since that argument is far too lengthy, too detailed and involves a great many things that neither you nor I have access to the relevant citations to enable us to properly argue the point.

What the fuck do you mean " neither you nor I have access to the relevant citations to enable us to properly argue the point. . . ." Let your mouth overload your ass? I can find the citations in about ten minutes. But since you can't find it, I'll help you out.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

18 USC §§ 2340, 2340A and 2441.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...I_20_113C.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18..._I_20_118.html

UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Presidential sig. 1988, Senate ratification 1994)

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

U.S. Constitution, Article VI:

[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A6.html

There are your citations. Now if you have a plausible argument, let's hear it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by MrGiz

What do you believe (if you care) was the reason, Massachusetts chose to throw out the Democratic Seat held since 1953 , when JFK was elected..... and hand it to Republicans?

:

I have said that all politics are local or at least agreed with the statement...despite what PJ thinks Mass residents are fairly happy with the healthcare system Mitt Romney put into place.

The newly elected senator successfully argued that a new NATIONAL plan would cost them more for a system that they already have. Thus a no go.

A bit of a quandary don't you think. State wide coverage is a success, so no reason to impliment a national one. Think about that.

The Schilling thing sure did not help nor does it help when you state it is to cold outside to shake hands.


I will state that I agree with DG, the biggest news is not the election it is SC overturn of campaign contributions. I still do not understand why Sandra retired when she did. That was the biggest set back for the little guy vs big business ever.

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Hell, nobody speaks for me...national election or not. Unfortunately, I am subjected to the whims of an electorate.

Whadda ya know??? Hell really is OTHER people! If you ever tire of the current handle, I'm guessing "Jean-Paul Sartre" is still available!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Whadda ya know??? Hell really is OTHER people! If you ever tire of the current handle, I'm guessing "Jean-Paul Sartre" is still available!

I've tired of other people and golf is fading in importance. I really have discovered the meaning of life.

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by WTF

I've tired of other people and golf is fading in importance. I really have discovered the meaning of life.

I didn't mean it quite that way, WTF. My apologies to Rudy if it comes across as though I'm harshin' on him.

It just struck me as a really funny thing to say in the midst of a convo that is essentially about interpreting elections in a representative form of government.

In any form of government, others can & do speak for me all day every day. I may not like who picked 'em...gol...I can be a real self-loathing bastard after a few too many! I may not like how they got picked. I sure as hell may not like what they say in my name. But, it happens.

[npita]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Or as physics would tell you...For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

As a physicist, I can tell you for certain that Einstein's 1905 paper on the special theory of relativity invalidated Newton's third law, except as a low energy approximation.

[Sarcastro]

Now if you have a plausible argument, let's hear it.

The argument, which has been made by lawyers that went to better law schools that I did, is pretty simple. It goes something like this:

1. The President shall be Commander in Chief pursuant to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the United States Constitution.

2. Treaties do not supersede the Constitution of the United States, the Supremacy Clause notwithstanding . See Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

3. Therefore the the various conventions which may restrict the President's authority to prosecute the war (presumably including torture) are not binding upon him when he is acting in his role as CIC.