Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you're not normally as much a dickhead as GGG so I'll ask you once more- was their anything in the record of the amendment that explained what they were trying to do, or was it silent. I get the language seems to cover people who happen to be in the country and give birth, but was there any discussion as to whether that was intended to be covered?

Hank, you seem to have something in mind. Do you want to tell us what it is, or is that too close to actually taking a position for you?

I will give you credit, though. You seem to have somewhat more sophisticated kinks than Sebby, what with the way you get off on having Adder google for you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm confused. You sure you didn't mean to say I am dumb or something?



I don't specifically know. But GGG is right that there were other non-citizens running around having babies at the time. If someone can provide something that says "no, we didn't mean the "yellow" ones," I'm open to your point. But absent affirmative evidence on that point (which I'm only saying hasn't been provided, not that it doesn't exist), I think he has a point that there were other well-known groups of potential anchor-baby parents around at the time.

We could move to the next stage of the discussion about which matters more, the realty at the time of the amendment or the stated intentions of whatever minority of amendment supporters was recorded somewhere, but I don't think we need to get that far.

Finally, shouldn't you be watching the Spartans against the Wildcats? It seems surprisingly close at the moment.

Even more finally, I can't think about mid-19th century Chinese immigration without thinking about Ian McShane as Al Swearengen.

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

But GGG is right that there were other non-citizens running around having babies at the time.

My only comment was about the words of the amendment. But that's ok, I don't mind being confused with Sidd.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So did Bush really call the family of every soldier who died, as is claimed in that article? That would impress me if true, but I have trouble believing he made 4,500 calls.

I don't know if that is true or not-I would assume that we could agree that the source you are inferring that from is probably not the most reliable on the topic, and, in addition to that is also coming from a place of emotion that clouds whatever knowledge of facts that he is;

Further, the point of my post was not a shot at Obama; and until you made me go back and re-read that article for actual content, and then google your question about Bush, I had not realized that the issue regarding Obama had become something of an internet topic of discussion.

The point was Cantwell and her office are fucking idiots. And embarrassments. On that latter point, I would give the dad points for a cogent analysis, notwithstanding the spurious nature of the Bush comment. If government were a business she would have been fired on the spot.

Do you think Keith Olberman will give her any dap in the Worst Person in the World rankings this week?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

again, I have no position or knowledge.

Fixed that for you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Hank, you seem to have something in mind. Do you want to tell us what it is, or is that too close to actually taking a position for you?

I will give you credit, though. You seem to have somewhat more sophisticated kinks than Sebby, what with the way you get off on having Adder google for you.

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?"

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

detailed understanding of evolution you all brought to that question.

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.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

i'm stupid in a variety of categories, ?"

FWIW, apparently, based on my performance with the Board today, I know about Labor Law than GGG gave me credit for.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Fixed that for you.

I admit it. I would never claim knowledge where I had none. to do so is pathetic.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I don't know if that is true or not-I would assume that we could agree that the source you are inferring that from is probably not the most reliable on the topic, and, in addition to that is also coming from a place of emotion that clouds whatever knowledge of facts that he is;

Further, the point of my post was not a shot at Obama; and until you made me go back and re-read that article for actual content, and then google your question about Bush, I had not realized that the issue regarding Obama had become something of an internet topic of discussion.

The point was Cantwell and her office are fucking idiots. And embarrassments. On that latter point, I would give the dad points for a cogent analysis, notwithstanding the spurious nature of the Bush comment. If government were a business she would have been fired on the spot.

Do you think Keith Olberman will give her any dap in the Worst Person in the World rankings this week?

I think olberman was shamed into no longer giving out the Worst Person in the World award. But I don't know, I haven't seen his show in ages. But if you think the army hasn't itself screwed up soldiers' information, you may want to take a little look at what's gone on at Arlington Cemetary recently.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

FWIW, apparently, based on my performance with the Board today, I know about Labor Law than GGG gave me credit for.

Hey, proof in the pudding. Congratulations.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My only comment was about the words of the amendment. But that's ok, I don't mind being confused with Sidd.

My apologies to Sidd.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think olberman was shamed into no longer giving out the Worst Person in the World award. But I don't know, I haven't seen his show in ages. But if you think the army hasn't itself screwed up soldiers' information, you may want to take a little look at what's gone on at Arlington Cemetary recently.

The army should be fired too then!

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Hey, proof in the pudding. Congratulations.

Funny thing is, in this particular situation I am sort of pro-union (in a keeping it to myself, neutral sort of way).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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?"

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