Andy9o8

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    24,277

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by Andy9o8

  2. You make good points. Having said that, there have been times when presidents and governors have granted a few pardons in their last days in office that are terribly insensitive or downright appalling. One example of that is Barbour's pardon of the murderer who shot the woman who was holding her baby, and then shot the baby.

  4. Quote

    So does this mean that if Romney is the Republican Candidate, that you will vote for him over the community organizer?



    No, because as I said above, and in a couple other threads, I really don't want the next batch of Supreme Court justices being appointed by a Republican president - because unlike many things, that's one thing that does have a lasting effect long after a President has left office, one that does directly impact people's lives.. That really is important to me. It reflects my ideology, but it is what it is.

    Plus, the partisan stalemate and gridlock in Washington is so severe that I suspect even an accomodater/concilator like Romney would be overwhelmed by it. So - better the devil you know - you know?

    I was appalled by Nixon, and Reagan and Bush-II. (Ambivalent about Ford and Bush-I, although to the deep negative, Bush-I gave us Clarence Thomas.) I would be appalled at Gingrich, or Palin, or Bachmann, or Perry. I think I could have lived with McCain. I think I could live with Romney.

  5. Quote

    Quote

    Well, I guess Romnet is toast now.

    I just saw the Gingrich attack add on Mitt and it turns out that not only is he a Moderate but just like John Kerry he also speaks French!

    OMG!

    Well that pretty much does it. Conservatives can forgive a lot but speaking french draws the line.

    Dumb move Mitt, how dare you learn a foreign language! Not conservative!

    Go back to Paris you french frog!



    Seriously folks, we are considering this man to be president and speaking french is an issue?

    Read the book of Mormon and then get back to me when you want to talk about reality.



    Well, in fairness, when viewed objectively, why is the mythology in the Book of Mormon any worse than the mythology in the Bible that Santorum believes to be truthful?

    As a Democrat over 50 who is often appalled at what the Republican presidents in my lifetime have done, if I must live with a Republican President, I want one that I think will actually accomplish more good than harm. (And Repubs would naturally feel the same way about Dem presidents.) Romney at the very least (aside from his very high intelligence and first-rate education) has a proven executive record of repeatedly taking over large, ailing organizations and fixing them.

    One of those several success stories was Romney - a Mormon midwestern businessman from a dyed-in-the-wool Republican family - entering Massachusetts politics - a heavily-Democratic amalgam of liberals, blue-collar, pro-labor Catholics and professional Jews, getting them to elect him Governor, and then doing a pretty good job at working well with a Democrat-dominated Legislature. To me, that means that (quite unlike Gingrich) he's got the potential to actually work productively with Democrats in Congress and get things done, instead of just maintaining the cat-fighting and stalemating typical of Washington.

    Huntsman's interesting, but not getting any traction; Paul is interesting, but weird and too old; Gingrich is an evil asshole who helped make Washington vicious and will make it worse; Santorum is an evil asshole AND weird. I really don't want the next batch of Supreme Court justices being appointed by a Republican president, but if forced to choose a Republican from this year's crop, Romney seems a reasonable choice.

  6. Heh, heh. A friend of mine does that. He's a freelance IT professional and scans Craigslist for gigs. When he sees one that ridiculously under-pays its value, he uses his backup email account to tell them what assholes they are for having a business plan guaranteed to hire only drug addicts and felons, etc. Sometimes they take the bait and answer-back indignantly, and then they go back & forth trash-talking each other. He forwards me some of them, they're pretty funny.

  9. On a daily basis? I guess about 90 minutes (one-way) for a long-term project, or 2 hours for a short-term (2-4 weeks) project. But that would have to be for no more than a 40 hour on-site work-week. For some projects that require 50+ hours per week, beyond a 90-minute commute, I'd want to get a hotel room for 3-4 nights per week; and I'd only do that if the pay was enough to defray most of that extra overhead.

  10. When they apologize - individually - to each and every one of their child molestation victims, and agree to compensate each and every one of them, and not hide behind statutes of limitations - maybe I'll be willing to listen to anything they might have to say.

  11. BWAHAHAHA! I saw that, and mused about starting a thread about it; but I'm one of the "usual suspects", so I held off because I'd just be accused of bashing.

    Anyhow, the Geico Caveman shouldn't despair - plenty of his brethren vote in elections. This upcoming Tuesday in South Carolina, for example.

  12. Quote

    Quote

    I think it's interesting that some of the opinions here assume whatever divides the country will not divide the military as well. They seem to believe that Soldiers and Citizens are mutually exclusive.

    The oath of every service member is to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies; foreign and domestic'.

    So, if there were an event that divided the citizenry, I suspect it would divide the military. Some military would see loyalists as a threat to the Constitution. Some would see it the other way. And weaponry would be split as well.



    I disagree and here's why.
    I don't think there's any American military commander that would make the attempt to split his chain of command away from any other. They may argue till they are blue in the face at the top level but it's unlikely that any one of them would say, "OK...you take your guys and defend that group and I'll take my guys and defend this group. See you on the battlefield."

    After all, they take their top-level orders from the Commander-in-Chief...one person. None of them are going to tell the CIC that they are not going to follow his orders.

    I think it's also highly unlikely that the commanders would sneak off on their own to lay plans to subvert the CIC...after all, that would be a violation of their oath to uphold the constitution.



    Comparing the two lines of thought, I've decided that my next novel will be based on Dave J's version, and not yours. No offense.

    But seriously, I think Dave's version has more plausibility than you give it credit. I do think that your scenario would play out in most situations. Shit like Kent State would happen, it would be awful for a while, but they'd keep the lid on discipline and loyalty until the furor blows over. On the other hand, if enough really, really horrible shit hits the fan - say, popular uprisings answered with multiple police/military massacres of large numbers of civilians - in a country like the US where that kind of thing is unthinkable - then that's the kind of thing that I think could propel some rogue units to say, "No, I will not be part of this, and I must oppose it", and act consistent with Dave's scenario.

    Everybody thinks that another Civil War in the US is impossible. 30 years ago, I would have agreed with that. Today, and projecting out the next couple of decades, I'm not so sure.

  16. Quote

    Hi ghost,

    Quote

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...nald%27s_Restaurants



    Disclaimer: I believe that this dz should not have been the subject of a lawsuit, for many reasons.

    Thanks for bringing up some of the truth about the infamous MacDonald's coffee lawsuit.

    It may be because my son is an attorney, but IMO the vast majority of commenters about the MacDonald's lawsuit have not a clue regarding the facts.

    I have seen the HBO film HOT COFFEE. A lot of truthful info there.

    JerryBaumchen



    Yes. FWIW, here is a thumbnail about the correct facts of the McDonalds case (not the mythical ones that people believe, and repeat):

    http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4022449;search_string=mcdonald%27s%20coffee;#4022449

  18. Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Emotions and feelings should have no place in determining whether something exists or not. With out evidence of any diety the only reasonable conclustion is that there are none.



    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



    'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.'

    Christopher Hitchens



    "Absence of evidence of absence does not give rise to a presumption of presence."

    -Andy9o8

  19. Quote

    I always thought this was one of the worst features of our country.



    I respectfully disagree. I think, on balance, that it's a net benefit.

    While I agree that the President's and governors' pardon authority can sometimes be abused, the framers of the US and various state constitutions put that in there for a reason, after a lot of complicated and often contentious hashing out of the pros, cons and competing agendas.

    There are times when a conviction seems terribly unjust, but yet is affirmed on appeal. There are times when a conviction is quite fair, but the sentence is unreasonably harsh; yet it is affirmed on appeal. There are times when a person's conviction and sentence were reasonable when issued, but years later the person becomes deserving of clemency. There are times when a person stands in jeopardy of criminal charges, where the prosecutors and judiciary would be duty-bound to do what they have to do, but the Executive feels that the good of the people is best served by avoiding a prosecution (example: Ford's preemptive pardon of Nixon). In each of those cases, there is no further remedy to be had in the judicial branch (and the legislature is powerless to act), so the only remedy available is by the Executive's authority to issue pardons and commutations.

    Government is messy and imperfect. Every branch of government, and its agents, can overstep their bounds and exercise their respective powers imprudently. Hopefully, though, the benefit that comes from those powers being exercised properly most of the time outweighs the detriment from them being abused occasionally.

  20. Quote

    Quote

    I always thought this was one of the worst features of our country. He obviously has no future political ambitions.



    I agree. Where do politicians get this ability to usurp the authority of the courts?



    "Usurp" is a non-neutral term. An objective political scientist, describing it from a purely clinical standpoint, would refer to it as part of an overall scheme of multiple checks and balances between and among the 3 branches of government.

    Anyhow, the authority comes from the US Constitution in the case of Presidential pardons, and from the respective state constitutions in the case of gubernatorial pardons.

  21. Quote

    Quote

    my dad surmised that gun control mattered little since technology has rendered an uprising against the govt/military virtually impossible.



    Gun control is not about preventing uprisings against the government.
    So you're dad is a putz.



    Way to win friends and influence people, there, pilgrim.

  22. Quote

    There might be/must be some other factor that the Judge or a DA has going.



    Not really; just the 30-day provision in the state constitution. That's all they need.
    Aside from that, though, it does seem that as long as that provision is complied with (where applicable), the governor's pardon power is pretty absolute.

  23. Quote

    First: We're talking about the original intent of the second amendment only:
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

    I hope that it's safe to assume that most agree that the original intent was to allow citizens to arm themselves to keep the government in check because that's all that this argument covers.



    I agree that that (i.e., keeping govt in check to guard against tyranny) was one of the intents. But I don't agree that that was the only intent. I think the complete intent was to allow citizens to act as militia for any purpose for which a militia might act. Broadly speaking, these would include any threat or potential threat to anyone's security against which citizens might choose to arm themselves to deter or defend against, since anyone's lack of physical security is, logically, in conflict with his freedom.

  24. Quote

    Anyone listen to NPR?



    Quite a bit. It's sort of a generic "continuing education" to counteract some of the brain rot.

    The pledge drives are infrequent enough that they don't bug me. Too much.

  25. Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    the use of magnetic bombs bore the hallmarks of covert operations.



    Ya think? Karasik gets today's "Captain Obvioius" award.
    No wonder I couldn't find them things in at Best Buy. Jeez.


    Actually, component wise you..... Uh....... Never mind.:|


    That would be Home Depot. ;)