PoliGAF Debate #3 Thread of Hey Joe, where you goin' with that plunger in your hand

Status
Not open for further replies.
lawblob said:
So essentially, Joe is just another delusionally aspirational Republican. He doesn't make enough money to benefit from GOP policies, but on the outside chance that someday he might, he is willing to sacrifice his present self interest to protect his future aspirational self.
Click to expand...
Wow! Very well put. I've just been calling them self-destructive idiots for years. The poor Reps are up there with the gay Reps. PEACE.
 
Cheebs said:
This is something I always found a bit odd about strict constuctionists. It was a document written by politicians a long time ago. It isn't some sort of religious text.
Click to expand...

That's not a road you want to travel down, because the parts we still admire/like will then be open to challenge.

The constitution is there to set limits and define the separation of powers. There's a draconian solution to changing it through amendments, but the argument proposed by the likes of Ron Paul in terms of the role of government and its power is one interpretation of the constitution. It's factional.

Clearly, both parties have already agreed that big government is allowable. The battlecry of the republicans for small government and tax cuts is nothing but a front to win ideological votes. Given how much they hate Ron Paul and want to marginalize him, there's no real political base for what the strict constitutionalists are proposing, outside of the extreme libertarian fringe.
 
gkrykewy said:
But does he have Constitution bedsheets? A life-sized portrait of number one most important framer Alexander Hamilton on the ceiling above his bed?
Click to expand...

I'm sure he does. Hamilton never heard an idea for more government institutions that he didn't like. Hell, dude dreamt up most of them.
 
Lots to catch up on this morning, but I love this:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14620.html
Politico said:
By the end of the evening, Joe might have worn out his welcome as symbol, with references to him overflowing like a backed-up drain. And his usefulness as a McCain surrogate might be quickly over, thanks to an interview after the debate with Katie Couric of CBS News in which Joe Wurzelbacher of Holland, Ohio, said that Obama's answers amounted to a "tap dance ... almost as good as Sammy Davis, Jr."
Click to expand...
Hahaha! Keep this guy talking. The McCain camp can't catch a break.
 
JayDubya said:
Sure. He's an expert on a fucktarded school of thought.
Click to expand...

I need to know now.

1) Have you studied law in an academic capacity?

2) Did you pass the bar?

3) Have you taught law in any capacity as an accredited individual?

4) Why should we believe your interpretation of law if you have not accomplished 1-3?

So Jay, what exactly are your credentials? Why should I place a greater importance on your viewpoints and your perspective? What validates your belief that your interpretation is worthy of any merit?
 
Cheebs said:
Also here is something I don't get about strict constructionists. Obama taught a class about the constitution! One would think someone who taught a class about it for multiple years would know a bit about it.
Click to expand...

You have to realize something about strict constructionism. It is a crackpot theory, and practically no lawyers or judges ascribe to it. It is the utopian dream of conservatives, a completely emasculated judiciary that would have no power to stop the perfectly democratic legislatures from solving the world's problems.

The problem with the theory is that it just wouldn't work in the real world. The end result of putting a bunch of strict constructionists on the bench would be disastrous. States would have free reign to pass whatever nutty laws they wanted, interstate commerce and trade would have countless problems, and we would have to rely on state legislatures (not the brightest politicians in the world) would have immense power.

Strict constructionism is the epitome of a purely academic theory. Something for old professors to masturbate to, but no real-world application. Even Justice Scalia called it a crackpot theory.
 
CharlieDigital said:
I need to know now.

1) Have you studied law in an academic capacity?

2) Did you pass the bar?

3) Have you taught law in any capacity as an accredited individual?

4) Why should we believe your interpretation of law if you have not accomplished 1-3?

So Jay, what exactly are your credentials? Why should I place a greater importance on your viewpoints and your perspective? What validates your belief that your interpretation is worthy of any merit?
Click to expand...

:lol

"Are you an economics professor? Then why should I care if your lips are surgically attached to Keynes's distended asshole?"
 
BTW, I have my ears on the ground here in Durham and Chapel Hill, NC and early voting is starting out REALLY good. I waited 40 minutes in a suburban early voting location, and I spoke to two friends who said they had the same experience. No word from the city center yet but I hope to get some more info later today.

Everyone who was voting looked like they had stepped out of an Obama rally, demographically.
 
reilo said:
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that 20 of the past 28 years being in control in the GOPs hands can also be blamed on the other side. I mean, if only we had a democrat during those 8 years that actually put this country on a track to prosperity and left office. Oh wait!
Click to expand...

Hey, dummy. Look at some of the policies passed during those ~~8 GLORIOUS YEARS~~ of prosperity. From NAFTA, to the GLB Act to the easing of restriction on trade with China (and the subsequent backroom payoffs). All things that have exacerbated the "stripmining the middle class" than anything else you can point to. All things that have the fingerprints of both parties on them.

RAH RAH ... My team won ... RAH RAH Don't blame me, I voted for xxx RAH RAH
 
CharlieDigital said:
I need to know now.

1) Have you studied law in an academic capacity?

2) Did you pass the bar?

3) Have you taught law in any capacity as an accredited individual?

4) Why should we believe your interpretation of law if you have not accomplished 1-3?

So Jay, what exactly are your credentials? Why should I place a greater importance on your viewpoints and your perspective? What validates your belief that your interpretation is worthy of any merit?
Click to expand...

As a law student, I would also like to know, so that I can challenge my professors with your worthier and better credentialed views.
 
CharlieDigital said:
I need to know now.

1) Have you studied law in an academic capacity?

2) Did you pass the bar?

3) Have you taught law in any capacity as an accredited individual?

4) Why should we believe your interpretation of law if you have not accomplished 1-3?

So Jay, what exactly are your credentials? Why should I place a greater importance on your viewpoints and your perspective? What validates your belief that your interpretation is worthy of any merit?
Click to expand...
How can you not foresee his answer?

JayDubya: "I read the constitution! I can't say so much for that one."
 
JayDubya said:
:lol

"Are you an economics professor? Then why should I care if your lips are surgically attached to Keynes's distended asshole?"
Click to expand...

Answer the questions please.

I'm not an economics professor. Nope. I don't claim to know much about economics myself (ask Jason's Ultimatum; I sent him a response to a question about taxes).

I need to know why you think your viewpoint is somehow more valid than that of a trained and educated individual (Obama) on the topics of law and specifically constitutional law. I need to know what you think makes your perspective more valid and his perspective the "fucktarded" view.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Hey, dummy. Look at some of the policies passed during those ~~8 GLORIOUS YEARS~~ of prosperity. From NAFTA, to the GLB Act to the easing of restriction on trade with China (and the subsequent backroom payoffs). All things that have exacerbated the "stripmining the middle class" than anything else you can point to.

RAH RAH ... My team won ... RAH RAH Don't blame me, I voted for xxx RAH RAH
Click to expand...
Hey dummy! If you actually paid attention, you'd know I am against NAFTA and giving corporations incentives to take jobs overseas.

But yeah, Clinton's fiscal policies were so bad, that he only left office with a $250bil surplus. What a fucker [in more ways than one! Haaaayooooo!].
 
reilo said:
This guy is eating bullshit but tasting steak.
Click to expand...
He's one of a small group of people who took this scene seriously:

whatsmartpeopleeat_zps8cfefb45.jpg


PROTIP: No, it doesn't mean you're smarter.
 
JayDubya said:
Doctors have been around for more than 5000 years. :lol
Click to expand...
Doctors 5,000 years ago believed that our body was being harmed by devils, and that we needed to pray to get rid of them.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Hey, dummy. Look at some of the policies passed during those ~~8 GLORIOUS YEARS~~ of prosperity. From NAFTA, to the GLB Act to the easing of restriction on trade with China (and the subsequent backroom payoffs). All things that have exacerbated the "stripmining the middle class" than anything else you can point to. All things that have the fingerprints of both parties on them.

RAH RAH ... My team won ... RAH RAH Don't blame me, I voted for xxx RAH RAH
Click to expand...

Let me agree with TA again here-Clinton drank deep from the neoliberal kool-aid, and set up some of the foundations for the great crap pile we are wading through now. Dems/Progressives don't deny it, makes you look sound like a deranged high functioning moron Republican.
 
mckmas8808 said:
I think Obama knows his own policy. That's why it's setup that way. Now I agree that he did screw up not hearing the guy say "revenue".
Click to expand...

I can't watch the video at work, but I'm pretty sure Obama is the one that said revenue. I'm not saying that Obama doesn't know his own policy, but at the debate, he should have set the record straight instead of throwing out percentages.

Instead of saying that 95% of small businesses fall under the $250K threshold, he should have made it clear that the increase is only on profit after all salaries (including the owner's) and all other expenses are paid which would make it nearly impossible for it to effect mom and pop small businesses, including Joe's Plumbing.
 
JayDubya said:
Doctors have been around for more than 5000 years. :lol
Click to expand...

That's debatable. I'm not so sure praying to the grass god or offering 3 goats and a hen to cure a head cold is comparable to today's definitions of medicine. :lol
 
So JayDubya the only way you would accept federal health care plans is if the a resolution for a HealthCare amendment was passed by two thirds of the Congress and Senate and then ratified by three quarters of the states?
 
Azih said:
So JayDubya the only way you would accept federal health care plans is if the a resolution for a HealthCare amendment was passed by two thirds of the Congress and Senate and then ratified by three quarters of the state?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't like it even then, but it would be the only way such a measure could be constitutional.

In the meantime, the states can feel free to initiate their own plans at their leisure. Why the "blue states" want to continue to force their bullshit on the rest of us is beyond me, but it's par for the course.

Hitokage said:
Indeed, gotta check against the hoi polloi and their petty concerns!
Click to expand...

In this context? Sure.
 
JayDubya said:
Sure. He's an expert on a fucktarded school of thought.
Click to expand...

I need to know now.

1) Have you studied law in an academic capacity?

2) Did you pass the bar?

3) Have you taught law in any capacity as an accredited individual?

4) Why should we believe your interpretation of law if you have not accomplished 1-3?

So Jay, what exactly are your credentials? Why should I place a greater importance on your viewpoints and your perspective? What validates your belief that your interpretation is worthy of any merit?

Without anything to back your views, you're just another random Internet dude that declares that your view is the only valid and sensible view. If you can merit this belief with your credentials, I will gladly take your viewpoints more seriously and take your arguments with greater weight above those of Barack Obama. If you have nothing to back your viewpoints aside from your own gumption, then I think you're the one with the "fucktarded school of thought".
 
I would like to say that the public fact checking and indirect humiliation of Joe Plumber is an amazing thing, and should send a clear sign to conservative trolls everywhere that dissent will not be tolerated in the new regime.
 
Oh, and if it weren't for gestures in the direction of regulated capitalism/social democracy that you so despise, you'd have a lot more people calling for much worse, but at that point it seems you'd throw up your hands and say we all deserve dictatorship anyway.
 
JayDubya said:
I wouldn't like it even then, but it would be the only way such a measure could be constitutional.

In the meantime, the states can feel free to initiate their own plans at their leisure. Why the "blue states" want to continue to force their bullshit on the rest of us is beyond me, but it's par for the course.
Click to expand...

The same reason the "red states" want to force their morals on to the rest of us.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
See, this is when stuff starts going off the rails. No good can come of this.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with it. He wants to distort and troll for the cameras? He should know what he is getting into, feel the burn you hapless pawn.
 
CharlieDigital said:
So Jay, what exactly are your credentials? Why should I place a greater importance on your viewpoints and your perspective? What validates your belief that your interpretation is worthy of any merit?
Click to expand...
He's got a handbook he wrote himself that tells him what to think about anything with absolute moral clarity.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
See, this is when stuff starts going off the rails. No good can come of this.
Click to expand...

Is this actually him? Is his first name Sam? I'm still confused on all of this.

Hitokage said:
He's got a handbook he wrote himself that tells him what to think about anything with absolute moral clarity.
Click to expand...

This bothers me a lot about Jay. Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer who was also the president of the Harvard Law Review -- elected by his peers in the study of law. He was knowledgeable enough to teach law and constitutional law at a major university.

He has studied the Constitution in a capacity that is likely to be greater in breadth and depth than Jay and he has studied law in a capacity that is likely to be greater in breadth and depth than Jay.

Now look, Jay, if you want to call his view "fucktarded", then you need to present some credentials to merit that your view or interpretation of the Constitution is superior (and if his view is "fucktarded", your credentials need to be an order of magnitude better than his -- have you written best selling books on law? Have you lectured at the most prestigious law schools on the Constitution? Are you a well recognized expert on the history of the US and the Constitution?).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I’m goin’ to Tokyo!
2
59
873
AGRacing replied
Waltzing With Brando (2025) Billy Zane, Joe Heder
6
279
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
What's up with girls from your past coming out of the woodwork as soon as you find a good one that isn't them?
37
136
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Post GIfs or short videos of the best 2D hand made animated sequences you can think of.
18
374
sono replied
A new hat is thrown into (or removed from) Neogafs eternal debate
2
50
253
TheInfamousKira replied
Top Bottom