|
Forum: Movies, Television, Books (Does anyone still read?) Topic: Jackass Debate started by: Malcolm Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 30 2007,18:33
Holy Jeebus, this is one of the best comedies on TV at the moment. Funny, funny shit.Fuckin' hell. If the Republicans can't win the White House this upcoming election, then, seriously, they should go hang their heads in shame & whip themselves. Damn, I could run on the major ticket opposite the Dems & win. Hillary's contradicted herself a few times in about as many minutes & Kucinich is still fucking insane. But, it's like his insanity is increasing exponentially. Christ, were it up to the Kook, the Industrial Revolution would still be a glint in some engineer's eye. Obama is the only one that doesn't look like a total moron. Too bad many of the words he uses make his mouth effectively a giant pussy. His strategy appears to be answering every question w\ some variation of "I'm not Bush." He is, though, BY FAR the least scary of the bunch. Course, picking out the best Democratic candidate is like picking out the best Uwe Boll film. Posted by Leisher on Oct. 31 2007,08:11
< AP Coverage. >Looks like it was pure insanity. I do praise Hillary for implying that "apathy" might no be the best way to fight a war. Posted by GORDON on Oct. 31 2007,08:23
Wait... it has fallen out of fashion to call the troops uneducated, and oppose the war on principle?
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 31 2007,08:54
(GORDON @ Oct. 31 2007,10:23) QUOTE Wait... it has fallen out of fashion to call the troops uneducated, and oppose the war on principle? Actually, she said she'd leave in some troops to combat "al-Qaida in Iraq." & Christ, I just can't get over how mind-blowingly insane the Kook was. That dude is extraordinarily dangerous. Fucker shouldn't even be put in charge of a McD's, let alone a country. Posted by Leisher on Oct. 31 2007,10:30
Ladies and gentlemen, your Democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton.QUOTE "Fifty percent of the American public say they're not going to vote for her," Dodd said. That is a hell of a statement to make on national TV when your voters are watching. Why the Dems will miss Bush: QUOTE But she avoided direct answers to several questions. The New York senator wouldn't say how she would address the fiscal crisis threatening Social Security, she declined to pledge whether she would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon or say whether she supports giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Rather, she tried to turn every issue into an argument against President Bush.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 31 2007,10:49
Bah. From what I saw of the debate last night, Obama has a better chance than Hillary. If the donkeys have any sense whatsoever, they'll either support Obama or insist Bill run VP w\ Hillary. I just had a thought...Hillary runs on the Dem ticket w\ Bill as VP & they win. Hillary gets assassinated. Does Bill get to be prez again, or (since Bill already served two terms), does he get bypassed? Hell, is a former two-term prez even eligible to be VP cos of this conundrum? Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 31 2007,11:01
(Malcolm @ Oct. 31 2007,11:54) QUOTE & Christ, I just can't get over how mind-blowingly insane the Kook was. That dude is extraordinarily dangerous. Fucker shouldn't even be put in charge of a McD's, let alone a country. Kucinich? Yeah, but his wife is pretty hot. Actually...that would be a cool way to decide the Prez: who has the hotter wife? Kucinich would be up against Fred Thompson, for sure. Posted by Leisher on Oct. 31 2007,11:06
QUOTE Hillary runs on the Dem ticket w\ Bill as VP & they win. Hillary gets assassinated. I just posted that as a "conspiracy theory" a few weeks ago remember? Only in my version Bill is behind it all. He gets two things he wants with one bullet: 1. He's the president again. 2. The bitch is gone. Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 31 2007,11:12
There's a school of thought that since Bill's already been prez twice, he doesn't get into the office again under any circumstances. 'Course, no one's really tested this theory yet since it'd take some convoluted circumstances for it to arise. The amendment in question (22nd, I think) does use the word "elected."
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 31 2007,14:05
QUOTE No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. Emphesis mine. Nothing in the law says that a prior President can't be VP, and if something happened take over the office. Just can't run for and be elected to the office directly. Some say the 12th amendment can tangle the issue a bit: QUOTE The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. I don't agree, though. There's two good arguements against this stopping Bill. First is that he is not ineligible to serve (which only requires a proper age, being eligible to vote, and being born a citizen), he's only specificially ineligible to be elected to the office of President again, and thus that last sentance doesn't count against him. Second is that that last clause is tied directly to the prior sentance, and thus only applies when the Senate is dealing with a non-majority situation so that the rules on who may be elected aren't circumvented by a Senate-chosen candidate (admittedly this second one is a weaker arguement). Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 31 2007,14:10
I still think there's enough of a grey area to stir shit up if the question ever did become pertinent.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 31 2007,14:26
Definite Constitutional crisis.But nothing that would trigger civil war... Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 31 2007,15:25
(GORDON @ Oct. 31 2007,16:26) QUOTE Definite Constitutional crisis. But nothing that would trigger civil war... The U.S. Civil War II would be over in about five seconds. Unless significant portions of the military were split about evenly. Posted by Leisher on Nov. 01 2007,11:32
QUOTE The U.S. Civil War II would be over in about five seconds. Unless significant portions of the military were split about evenly. You're basing that opinion on geographical location of bases, but forgetting that the servicemen themselves are from different areas of the country AND probably won't go to war with Americans unless given damn good reasons. Sorry Hollywood, but it's true. Back to the Dems, I heard Bill's main adviser from when he was in office was recently asked if he'd vote for Hillary and he said no. I thought she was their darling, why are they turning on her? Is it because of the polls Dodd referenced? Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 01 2007,11:50
Maybe cos (if this debate is any indication) she's getting fucking schooled whenever she tries to engage in rhetoric.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 01 2007,11:51
(Leisher @ Nov. 01 2007,13:32) QUOTE QUOTE The U.S. Civil War II would be over in about five seconds. Unless significant portions of the military were split about evenly. You're basing that opinion on geographical location of bases, but forgetting that the servicemen themselves are from different areas of the country AND probably won't go to war with Americans unless given damn good reasons. Precisely. W\o substantial military support, any civil war in this country is damn near over before it began. & I don't see a roughly 50/50 split happening except in some extraordinarily fucked up circumstances. Posted by GORDON on Nov. 01 2007,13:24
(Malcolm @ Nov. 01 2007,14:51) QUOTE (Leisher @ Nov. 01 2007,13:32) QUOTE QUOTE The U.S. Civil War II would be over in about five seconds. Unless significant portions of the military were split about evenly. You're basing that opinion on geographical location of bases, but forgetting that the servicemen themselves are from different areas of the country AND probably won't go to war with Americans unless given damn good reasons. Precisely. W\o substantial military support, any civil war in this country is damn near over before it began. & I don't see a roughly 50/50 split happening except in some extraordinarily fucked up circumstances. I wonder if the military makes any effort to ensure units are filled with troops from... everywhere. Headquarters Marine Corps decided pretty much all PDS changes (Permanent Duty Station) for the USMC. I wonder if they had the ability to say, "Wait a minute... this battalion in now 63% Yankee. That's a dangerously high homosexual concentration, get some southerners in there to man them up a little" or some such. But seriously, I wonder if they keep an eye on "state of origin." Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 01 2007,15:50
One would imagine they can assign anyone anywhere they want, provided there's a decent explanation for it. But as far as micromanaging on the scale you're wondering about, well I'd like to say no since I think the military has better shit to worry about, but who knows? Maybe someone wants the all-Hawaiian unit. Or a unit that keeps those Cali hippies on their own.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 01 2007,16:46
I would think they definately would NOT want units like that.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 01 2007,19:15
(GORDON @ Nov. 01 2007,18:46) QUOTE I would think they definately would NOT want units like that. They can be the human shield battalion. |