Letters to the Editor
-
Webb?
As in Jim Webb? He voted for this excrement?
-
@Pro War
I just think it's a good indication of what's beyond the pale around here. Suggest that Democratic senators might honestly agree with the way they voted yesterday, and a maelstrom of abuse is occassioned. Bucky's thoughts on the military however go ...unremarked upon.
Was Bucky's comment actually relevant to the article topic, or was it a random rant? You are discussing the article, you are on-topic, you are liable to get responded to.
I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care what bucky (who i will never, ever meet, most likely) thinks about troops. I'm not sure why you care.
And what's with the dramatic ellipses there: "...unremarked upon."
"Why they CLAIM to love America in that there GG forum, but I'll have you know... the troops were slandered(!)... and it went... unremarked upon." (here's where I give a sober, knowing look.)
-
Go Ahead, PW. Remark Away
Bucky's thoughts on the military however go ...unremarked upon.
-- Proximity Warning
His "thoughts" have not gone completely "unremarked upon". His "thoughts" have gone minimally remarked upon because most people - can't include myself, unfortunately, as much as I would like to - have the good sense not to argue with hornets protecting their nest. There is no reasoning with hornets protecting their nest.
-
@ Binx (re: ex post factolaw)
The ex post facto clause of the constitution only concerns changes to criminal, not civil liability (Calder v Bull, 1798). And the ex post facto prohibition would not cover retroactively eliminating a law or reducing a punishment. Ex post facto includes 3 things (the following succinctly defined in Collins v Youngblood (1990)):
The definition of an ex post-facto law as one that (1) punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, (2) makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or (3) deprives one charged with a crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed.
I've pointed out previously that the ex post facto clause does not prohibit a law creating civil liability for an action previously taken (although one might argue "due process", "reliance" or some kind of "estoppel" as a defence then).
In addition, if the law -- at the time of the action -- prohibited such, it's hard to argue that it is wrong to pass a law creating liability (or removing immunity) for such ... and this might even extend to avoiding an ex post facto claim if the action was (re)criminalised.
It may be possible for a subsequent Congress, once the facts are in, to reverse even the "immunity" provisions ... but doubtful that our Congress (or any one likely to exist in 2009 or thereabouts) would do so....
Cheers,
-
Pelosi and Conyers won't stop this
...maelstrom of horse manure. I only hope SOMEONE will stand up, either in conference or on the House floor, and strip immunity from the final bill.
Wouldn't that make Dubya positively apoplectic.
Glenn, great post. Thanks for all you do.
-
Finally, some wisdom
... to disagree with Glenn on this issue you have to be craven, spineless, or corrupt - or all of the above.
True, to an extent. But left out there are the other possibilties: stoopid or ignerrent.
What is not debatable is whether Congress has decided to vote to give telecoms (and indirectly, the maladministration; see Glenn's update IV) immunity for breaking the freakin' law.
Cheers,
-
I think he's slowly catching on....
[Glenn]: "A huge portion of Congressional Democrats are members of the corrupt, bipartisan Beltway political establishment first, and everything only follows that, and they thus embrace and support the values of that establishment."
They believe in it because they are members of the corrupt, bi-paristan [sic] Beltway political estalbishment [sic].
Wow. Such insight. What a wonderful restatement (glad for the help, I tellya). Someone that is a member of a group "embrace[s] and support[s] the values" of that group (more than likely). In other news, dog bites man, and "Flatulence Warning" is still an eedjit.
Cheers,
-
Some fuckwit writes
What I wrote: "Actually, if one took the time to look,..."
So what did he do? Wrote the above heading.
Cheers,
-
The Superbowl Vote
What? Is this supposed to make the House members seem like regular Joe and Jane six-packs or something?
-
Meanwhile, we have this...
The hearing seemed to split the committee along party lines, with the Democrats reserving their most pointed queries for Clemens, and the Republicans giving McNamee a rougher time.
http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/10639015/2
When was the last time Republicans stood up for an accused drug user? I guess his millionaire status (and the autographs he gave them) make him a victim.
-
@ Michael Birk
Just let Arne handle the trolls!
His responses are the only ones worth reading, IMHO. He simultaneously reveals the stupidity of their arguments while ridiculing entertainingly. He obviously has a lot of practice at this ;)
Sadly, too much nowadays. But I've been practising a long time; cut my teeth on Usenet (even an occasional AUK post) in the '90s, if not before.
Cheers,
-
@ UsedToBeKristin
When was the last time Republicans stood up for an accused drug user?
Oh, maybe two words or so: "Rush Limbaugh".
Cheers,
-
@Arne
I agree, but I'd probably have said "the maladministration (and indirectly, the telecoms)..."
-
House 21 day PAA extension failed
191-229 according to Reuters and Cspan.
-
To various
“I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care what bucky (who i will never, ever meet, most likely) thinks about troops. I'm not sure why you care.”
Why does anyone care what anyone thinks? The fact that people come here to argue with people who disagree with them (or, if that’s not what they come here for, it’s certainly what they end up doing) would suggest for whatever reason that they do care.
“There is no reasoning with hornets protecting their nest.”
Well, a lot of people seem to want to take that kind of high-minded, let-the-nut-speak-to-himself-road with me. Problem is, they seem unable to, since apparently my propositions are too outrageous to ignore. Interesting that Bucky’s wasn’t.
“Wow. Such insight. What a wonderful restatement.”
Some people need things to be spelled out. Others, like you Arne, require drawings, crayons and the assistance of a veteran monkey-trainer.
“But I've been practising a long time; cut my teeth on Usenet (even an occasional AUK post) in the '90s, if not before.”
Wow. Telecoms engineer. Law-school dropout. Gratuitous waste of cyberspace for over 15 years. And of course a complete pillock to boot.