tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post2170836035467358574..comments2024-03-26T12:23:29.784-04:00Comments on Philosoraptor: Winston Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-20888586810479901432008-02-21T17:10:00.000-05:002008-02-21T17:10:00.000-05:00Stick, as in get enough Republican votes to convic...Stick, as in get enough Republican votes to convict?<BR/><BR/>No shit, Sherlock. The corruption of the Republican Party is a lot more thoroughgoing than just Duhbya and Darth.<BR/><BR/>Maybe in the new Congress, too late to do much besides censuring the imperial executives.lovable liberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15616294696912710046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-92191863630915744282008-02-21T16:55:00.000-05:002008-02-21T16:55:00.000-05:00As a test, I leave some of WS' posts uncommented u...<B>As a test, I leave some of WS' posts uncommented upon. They're the ones with zero comments from anyone else, either.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>maybe people just can't stand to see such unmitigated stupidity go unchallenged, eh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-52327576842606345922008-02-21T16:08:00.000-05:002008-02-21T16:08:00.000-05:00Well, none of your charges will stick. They're und...Well, none of your charges will stick. They're undefined rant and cant.<BR/><BR/>As predicted.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-8664753167290872652008-02-21T14:21:00.000-05:002008-02-21T14:21:00.000-05:00Crimes? Impeachable offenses?then...You explicitly...<I>Crimes? Impeachable offenses?</I><BR/><BR/>then...<BR/><BR/><I>You explicitly</I> (sic) <I>cheated the challenge by posting a laundry list.</I><BR/><BR/>In the universe I live in, when someone asks for (x:x is plural) and gets x=6, that answer is a valid solution.<BR/><BR/>In fact, had you indeed asked for only 1, providing 6 exceeds rather than failing the challenge.<BR/><BR/>I have no lovable liberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15616294696912710046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-58475617917373176752008-02-21T12:25:00.000-05:002008-02-21T12:25:00.000-05:00No, I don't need to rebut them all. You explicitl...No, I don't need to rebut them all. You explicitly cheated the challenge by posting a laundry list.<BR/><BR/>One charge that will stick.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-75436929343671929562008-02-20T22:06:00.000-05:002008-02-20T22:06:00.000-05:00By the way, I'm sure it will be a surprise to list...By the way, I'm sure it will be a surprise to list-makers everywhere that their lists are incoherent. Somehow, I don't think a dictionary will help you.<BR/><BR/>Now, the eclipse...lovable liberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15616294696912710046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-56356819717357636562008-02-20T22:04:00.000-05:002008-02-20T22:04:00.000-05:00Nah, no point in it. I'm putting my coat on and g...Nah, no point in it. I'm putting my coat on and going out to view the eclipse.<BR/><BR/>You can try to rebut any one of my list, but you'll need to rebut them all. Have fun.lovable liberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15616294696912710046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-43921759124868287822008-02-20T22:01:00.000-05:002008-02-20T22:01:00.000-05:00Actually, I predicted them by referencing Kucinich...Actually, I predicted them by referencing Kucinich and McGovern's laundry lists. You parrot them here.<BR/><BR/>I challenged you to pick one item and only one---your best and strongest argument---because no one can argue with a laundry list, which by nature has no coherence.<BR/><BR/>Which is why you printed one, sir, as predicted. Quantity is the sophist's counterfeit of quality of thought, Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-54353698245778616452008-02-20T21:47:00.000-05:002008-02-20T21:47:00.000-05:00TVD, catch up a little on the meaning of "high cri...TVD, catch up a little on the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It's a specific term for kingly usurpations. It doesn't mean felony possession or DUI.<BR/><BR/>Here's a small hypothetical. (Yes, I know you cons won't respond to them. I hope.) Suppose Duhbya and Cheney decided out of thin air that they had the right to continue into a third term, despite the 22nd Amendment. After lovable liberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15616294696912710046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-39971641917145078422008-02-20T18:26:00.000-05:002008-02-20T18:26:00.000-05:00Slime over substance. Not a single coherent charg...Slime over substance. Not a single coherent charge---which I specifically asked for---just the usual laundry list of turkeys. Even when I predict what you're going to say, you fire anyway.<BR/><BR/>Principled disagreement over the interpretation of the constitution is not a high crime or misdemeanor.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-89927775133607562672008-02-20T13:06:00.000-05:002008-02-20T13:06:00.000-05:00You looking for something the Republicans would vo...You looking for something the Republicans would vote to convict for? Yeah, there's nothing Duhbya has done that they're not a part of.<BR/><BR/>But the Constitution lies in tatters from the usurpations and violations of the Bush-Cheney administration.<BR/><BR/>Torture is a war crime and violation of our treaty obligations, which the Constitution calls the law of the land.<BR/><BR/>Signing lovable liberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15616294696912710046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-51485210322424030292008-02-20T01:01:00.000-05:002008-02-20T01:01:00.000-05:00Crimes? Impeachable offenses?That was my Question ...Crimes? Impeachable offenses?<BR/><BR/>That was my Question One. Bring it, dude.<BR/><BR/>[Crickets chirping. Loudly.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-67816754028970434262008-02-18T22:51:00.000-05:002008-02-18T22:51:00.000-05:00Ol' TVD thinks for himself and somehow he comes up...Ol' TVD thinks for himself and somehow he comes up with the <I>exact</I> rationale the Bushists propose to wipe away the taint of their crimes. The 2004 election was their "accountability moment." Great minds think alike, huh!<BR/><BR/>TVD, you're right about one thing. You as the house sophist do stimulate comments. But I recommend you continuing to test your effect by not posting on all thelovable liberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15616294696912710046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-14337665006937047552008-02-18T14:32:00.000-05:002008-02-18T14:32:00.000-05:00The thesis works either way. And if I explained w...The thesis works either way. And if I explained why, it would be lengthy, and I'd seem as psycho as you.<BR/><BR/>WS, until someone comes up with an impeachment charge that would stick, this is all abstraction. That was my first challenge, but it was ignored---as usual---in favor of "gotcha" sophistries on TVD.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-61366679232471890792008-02-17T22:52:00.000-05:002008-02-17T22:52:00.000-05:00Yes. I reiterate my shock at the fact that you wo...Yes. I reiterate my shock at the fact that you would suggest that an election is better than impeachment for determining whether or not someone is behaving illegally.<BR/><BR/>I'd also like to point out that, again, even when only 5 measley posts are involved, you provide various differing theses and are unable to stick to one.<BR/><BR/>I shall chart this out for you to make it as clear as The Mystichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00813641115915460692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-30496866852197839532008-02-17T19:55:00.000-05:002008-02-17T19:55:00.000-05:00The fact that someone was re-elected is either poo...The fact that someone was re-elected is either poor or no evidence that he should not be impeached. Being unpopular is one thing, breaking the law is another.Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-24750806824921493362008-02-17T17:35:00.000-05:002008-02-17T17:35:00.000-05:00Russia is another can of worms. I answered the ch...Russia is another can of worms. I answered the challenges to my original comment, and contrary to a recent slander, I don't wish to monopolize anything.<BR/><BR/>So please, let me go. Besides, I don't know if you're the good anonymous or the one who insults me. I have no desire to talk anymore with the latter anonymous, as he's proven he is not a gentleman of good faith.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-49233325427739006612008-02-17T16:35:00.000-05:002008-02-17T16:35:00.000-05:00I guess Vladimir Putin is one of the most legitima...I guess Vladimir Putin is one of the most legitimate rulers of all time then, having won two elections by wide margins, 70% of the vote the second time. I mean, it's all about elections, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-11945366738688770792008-02-17T13:09:00.000-05:002008-02-17T13:09:00.000-05:00I put it to you, Mr. Doyle---absent any new facts,...I put it to you, Mr. Doyle---absent any new facts, are impeachments as good as elections?<BR/><BR/>By 1996, the nation at large knew that Bill Clinton was a lying philanderer and that Gennifer Flowers had told the truth. They re-elected Clinton anyway, and charges that the GOP impeachment was trying to "undo the election" were quite valid.<BR/><BR/>The only impeachment that's not partisan is theTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-46325110435261738312008-02-17T08:22:00.000-05:002008-02-17T08:22:00.000-05:00He just made it, Tom; the question is whether you ...He just made it, Tom; the question is whether you have a response.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-2760188593464042322008-02-16T19:43:00.000-05:002008-02-16T19:43:00.000-05:00Do you have a point?Do you have a point?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-6246462533267975882008-02-16T19:00:00.000-05:002008-02-16T19:00:00.000-05:00No, see, your claim was not "elections are better ...No, see, your claim was not "elections are better than partisan impeachments" - it was "that impeachment can certainly be a duty, WS; however, we had a 2004 election that was a greater and more satisfactory test of constitutional justice"<BR/><BR/>See, you said that the election was better than "impeachment" - not "partisan impeachment".The Mystichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00813641115915460692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-90831502637768778682008-02-16T18:54:00.000-05:002008-02-16T18:54:00.000-05:00As a test, I leave some of WS' posts uncommented u...As a test, I leave some of WS' posts uncommented upon. They're the ones with zero comments from anyone else, either.<BR/><BR/>And if I make a comment that nobody directly responds to, I don't comment again.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, I seem to attract discussion and discussants, for which I do not apologize. <BR/><BR/>You think partisan impeachments are better than elections? OK.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-44865067614512917822008-02-16T18:27:00.000-05:002008-02-16T18:27:00.000-05:00That thing about the 2004 election is hilarious.I ...That thing about the 2004 election is hilarious.<BR/><BR/>I just thought I'd say that. I rarely read your comments anymore, TVD, (and unfortunately, I therefore rarely read the comment sections AT ALL since SOMEONE monopolizes EVERY ONE OF THEM) since I have, you know, actual philosophy to read, but that is just so ludicrously hilarious that I wanted to say something.<BR/><BR/>Something:<BR/><BRThe Mystichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00813641115915460692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-81926242432431455102008-02-16T17:53:00.000-05:002008-02-16T17:53:00.000-05:00Although I've seen Dennis Kucinich, George McGover...Although I've seen Dennis Kucinich, George McGovern and several others make laundry lists of complaints, it always hit me as trying to mash a bunch of turkeys together to try and make an eagle.<BR/><BR/>I've never seen an impeachment charge I thought could stick.<BR/><BR/>I agree with your premise, that impeachment can certainly be a duty, WS; however, we had a 2004 election that was a greater Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com