Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

You really want to go back there? I mean, I try really hard to leave that one alone so as not to seem to bully you into defending the "intelligent design" nonsense that you have spewed in the past. But that's just me being nice.

But please feel free to explain how hypothesis in the absence of contravening evidence (not the same as lack of evidence), is the same as faith.

are you saying there is evidence that God didn't create the World? I agree there ain't much evidence it did, but you feel contrary? what?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So you think we ought to focus on the intent of the drafters?

translation: I'm as dumb as Hank on the topic, but willing to lie to myself about it.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

My apologies to Sidd.

That's a start, but you have a long making of amends road ahead of you.

Hank and I are waiting......

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

are you saying there is evidence that God didn't create the World?

No, but you have previously equated hypothesizes about transition from single to multi-cell organisms, for example, to intelligent design based on faith.

Once again, the difference is the openness of the theory to revision based on evidence and observation. The "god" crowd tends to have zero openness. And no, an as yet untested hypothesis isn't faith.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

translation: I'm as dumb as Hank on the topic, but willing to lie to myself about it.

Are you having trouble at home these days? Or is it work? Either way, we feel for you, buddy.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

maybe you could go argue with your mirror and someone could answer my question?

I really don't care if people who are born here become citizens, just wondering if there is anything in the history. I wasn't a big con law student.

Yes, that is my understanding as well. And freed slaves were able to vote until the Bourbon Democrats regained control of Southern states after the deal which resolved the 1876 election dispute.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

especially with the puff piece this weekend with the black R rep from Fla (?) in the NYT (?)

maybe they can eliminate the portions of the constitution the amendments took out?

Nope. I was in the middle of nowhere over the weekend.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

again, I have no position. I'm just wondering. I'll put you down for "has no idea." GGG defaults to that, so that means your collective knowledge base is about equal to the detailed understanding of evolution you all brought to that question.

I think people are having 3 problems recognizing this as a serious question. First, it's the Tea Party line du jour, and so when you repeat it others (including me) immediately suspect you are just stirring up shit.

Second, if an issue is clear in the constitutional language ("all") and clear in the USSC precedent, it's unclear why anyone would care about the so-called legislative history, or even what that would entail with respect to an amendment (do we look at what each state legislature discussed before voting on the amendment?)

Third, it's very difficult for me to understand how the "history" could possibly support the interpretation that the Constitution was amended in order to make freed slaves citizens. That would have required only an act of Congress -- "all former slaves born in the US are hereby declared citizens." It's not like slavery was continuing after the 14th amendment, so why would there need to be an amendment?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

i'm stupid in a variety of categories, but con law is among the most severe, that's why I"m asking. you all seem really fixed on what the amendment was intended to do though so I thought maybe one of you had actual knowledge. unless your point is simply "congress doesn't write sloppy?"

I think the 14th amendment may have been intended to protect only left-handed people. Does the "history" say anything about right-handed people?

I knew it. You have no knowledge.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I think people are having 3 problems recognizing this as a serious question. First, it's the Tea Party line du jour, and so when you repeat it others (including me) immediately suspect you are just stirring up shit.

Second, if an issue is clear in the constitutional language ("all") and clear in the USSC precedent, it's unclear why anyone would care about the so-called legislative history, or even what that would entail with respect to an amendment (do we look at what each state legislature discussed before voting on the amendment?)

Third, it's very difficult for me to understand how the "history" could possibly support the interpretation that the Constitution was amended in order to make freed slaves citizens. That would have required only an act of Congress -- "all former slaves born in the US are hereby declared citizens." It's not like slavery was continuing after the 14th amendment, so why would there need to be an amendment?

I do know enough about the history to know the amendment backed up an act of congress, since congress wasn't sure "only an act of congress" was required.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I think the 14th amendment may have been intended to protect only left-handed people. Does the "history" say anything about right-handed people?

I knew it. You have no knowledge.

the wife and I are considering spending a month in SF later this year but now I"m worried. Is your behavior considered "normal" for there?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

You haven't heard that the Rs plan on reading the Constitution out loud at the beginning of the session? Really?

Should be interesting. I'm waiting for Michele Bachmann to jump up and say "Wait -- we can't make any laws restricting the freedom of speech?

Idiotic, for reasons this board doesn't have the space within which to list. But look on the bright side: It's a fairly long document, and time spent reading is time in which they won't be passing any actual legislation.

There is no hope of either party enacting serious custs to Medicare, SS or Defense, or even stanching substantial pork projects. Let them fiddle. I'll be moving to commodities... emphasis: Scotch and Spam.

(No, Adder, the economy is not getting better. Wall Street is getting better because companies are doing well in emerging markets and we were getting some manufacturing growth from a depressed dollar. The domestic liabilities remain ominous, with us reaching $1 trillion in yearly debt service alone by 2017-2020. Unemployment is not down. That's seasonal hiring for shit wage temp work. And housing is conservatively forecast to drop another 5-10%. So don't give me the usual lip on this issue.)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the wife and I are considering spending a month in SF later this year but now I"m worried. Is your behavior considered "normal" for there?

If by "my behavior," you mean throwing out an unsupported hypothesis and then saying that everyone who cannot immediately must facts and citations to disprove the hypothesis is stupid, an idiot, devoid of knowledge, etc., then no. It appears to be normal for Detroit, but not here.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I do know enough about the history to know the amendment backed up an act of congress, since congress wasn't sure "only an act of congress" was required.

Did the act of Congress use the same words?

Really, 5 minutes on Google will lead you to USSC discussion on the issue you are ranting about. That you haven't bothered to do this suggests that your inquiry is not genuine, but just another Hankesque effort to declare everyone else here "stupid." That approach lost its charm 6 years ago.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

If by "my behavior," you mean throwing out an unsupported hypothesis and then saying that everyone who cannot immediately must facts and citations to disprove the hypothesis is stupid, an idiot, devoid of knowledge, etc., then no. It appears to be normal for Detroit, but not here.

The sad, sad thing here is that Hank's approach to the constitution appears to be what will guide the House of Representatives for the next two years.