Somebody Needs To Shut Up Barbara Boxer

[Vyce 0]

It was a dumb remark by Boxer.

 

There, I've just created a consensus we can all agree upon, instead of spending another three pages arguing the semantics of exactly why her remark was stupid.

[SuperJerk 0]

When are politicians going to learn that everything they say is going to be twisted and turned against them at all times?

 

Someday they'll wise-up and run everything through a focus group before they utter a single word. Otherwise you run the risk of having some guy on an internet message board saying someone needs to shut you up.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Yeah, or be called a little bitch.

[SuperJerk 0]

Touche, good sir. Touche.

 

 

 

edit: At least she wasn't comparing it to the moon-landing.

Edited March 22, 2005 by RobotJerk

[Guest CronoT]

Touche, good sir.  Touche.

 

 

 

edit: At least she wasn't comparing it to the moon-landing.

Everything's being compared to the moon landing nowadays. It's not like the moon landing is the holy fucking grail or anything.

[The Czech Republic 0]

If you never posted here again that would be the equivalent of the moon landing

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

When you're good enough to get the Moon Landing, the Mars Landing, and the Europa Landing, then we'll talk.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think you're reading way to much into what she said.

 

Boxer isn't advocating amending a thing.

She's advocating changing the Constitution WITHOUT amending it.

She's advocating just ignoring the parts she doesn't like.

 

Assuming your description of her position is accurate, ignoring the Constitution (which I didn't interprete her statement as advocating) is a little different than changing the Constitution.

If you ignore entire portions of the Constitution, you make them irrelevant. Which DOES change them.

-=Mike

That's pretty far-fetched reasoning.

The civil rights amendments passed after the Civil War were supposed to give former slaves rights equal to whites.

 

For about 100 years, it didn't come close to happening.

 

Which meant that the amendments were made useless for the groups they were intended to improve the lives of.

-=Mike

True, but that didn't change the Constitution. Ignoring the Constitution and changing the Constitution are two different things. You're trying to make her look like a villian by claiming she trying to do both simultaneously, which is impossible.

She wants judges to be required to have a 60+ vote mandate in the Senate.

 

Which is a clear change of the Constitution.

 

She supports filibustering them.

 

Which is definitely NOT Constitutional.

-=Mike

...Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?...

[SuperJerk 0]

She wants judges to be required to have a 60+ vote mandate in the Senate.

 

Which is a clear change of the Constitution.

Clearly? No, because having the Congress assume extra-Constitutional powers is not the same as actually changing the Constitution.

 

Also, we're just assuming she wants the changes put into place without a Constitutional Amendment. She never actually says how she wants the goal accomplished, just what the goal is.

[Guest MikeSC]

She wants judges to be required to have a 60+ vote mandate in the Senate.

 

Which is a clear change of the Constitution.

Clearly? No, because having the Congress assume extra-Constitutional powers is not the same as actually changing the Constitution.

 

Also, we're just assuming she wants the changes put into place without a Constitutional Amendment. She never actually says how she wants the goal accomplished, just what the goal is.

They're DOING it without an Amendment.

 

Note the whole judicial filibusters that are NOT Constitutional that have been going on for a while.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

She wants judges to be required to have a 60+ vote mandate in the Senate.

 

Which is a clear change of the Constitution.

Clearly? No, because having the Congress assume extra-Constitutional powers is not the same as actually changing the Constitution.

 

Also, we're just assuming she wants the changes put into place without a Constitutional Amendment. She never actually says how she wants the goal accomplished, just what the goal is.

They're DOING it without an Amendment.

 

Note the whole judicial filibusters that are NOT Constitutional that have been going on for a while.

-=Mike

First of all, I didn't know she was talking about filibusters. It doesn't mention them by name in your original quote.

 

Secondly, I reject the notion that a filibuster violates the Constitution. Filibusters are a procedural tool of the Senate designed to limit debate, not an actual law or anything. The Senate has the right to set whatever limits on debate, and whatever rules to govern those limits, it wants.

[Guest MikeSC]

She wants judges to be required to have a 60+ vote mandate in the Senate.

 

Which is a clear change of the Constitution.

Clearly? No, because having the Congress assume extra-Constitutional powers is not the same as actually changing the Constitution.

 

Also, we're just assuming she wants the changes put into place without a Constitutional Amendment. She never actually says how she wants the goal accomplished, just what the goal is.

They're DOING it without an Amendment.

 

Note the whole judicial filibusters that are NOT Constitutional that have been going on for a while.

-=Mike

First of all, I didn't know she was talking about filibusters. It doesn't mention them by name in your original quote.

 

What did you think she was referring to?

Secondly, I reject the notion that a filibuster violates the Constitution.  Filibusters are a procedural tool of the Senate designed to limit debate, not an actual law or anything.  The Senate has the right to set whatever limits on debate, and whatever rules to govern those limits, it wants.

The Senate's role in judicial nominations is "Advise and consent".

 

The Dems in the Senate are REFUSING to advise or consent. They are willingly defying their Constitutional mandate.

 

In fact, the "nuclear" option, which reduces the number of votes to stop debate on a bill, has already been exercised.

 

Back in 1975, the requirement for cloture dropped from 67 votes to 60.

 

So, the GOP wants to do something WITH an actual precedent and that forces the Senate to fulfill Constitutional requirements.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

What did you think she was referring to?

 

Given your tendency to take quotes out of context, I really had no idea.

 

The Dems in the Senate are REFUSING to advise or consent. They are willingly defying their Constitutional mandate.

 

**Applauds your reasoning.**

 

Congrats, Mike, you've finally expressed your rationale in a way convincing enough to force me to concede you might be right about something.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

Let me just first say that Boxer is a loudmouthed cunt. In my junior year in high school, me and my Republican group at school worked to keep her from getting re-elected. Her and Feinstein. We failed.

 

On the whole check and balance thing...

 

J. Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5 and comics writer, was bitching about the same thing a few months ago. He was whining that the GOP was taking over and this and that. I was like, "What do we do, remove Republicans from office to balance it out?" Go write some comics, Joe.

 

As for the whole partisan thing...

 

I am and have been a registered Republican. I am an economic libertarian and a social moderate. If you want to raise taxes, you suck. If you want more regulation, you suck. If you're gay, hey, cool with me. Don't think you should be able to get married, but you're cool. If you have an abortion, you are pretty lame, but I'm not going to go psycho on you. If you have three or four, then I see you as a shitty human being, but I still won't go 5150 on you. If a court decides to "pull the plug," for all intents, constructions and purposes, on a woman who is all but brain dead, then I say do it. If the family wants to pay for keeping the woman alive, then more power to them. I will go further and say give it a vote and if the community wants to pay for it, then more power to them. I'd vote to let her die. But doing a bunch of crazy protesting stuff is embarrassing and not mainstream in the bulk of GOP voters. Also, I am not so sure that an overwhelming percentage of these protesters are Republicans. Protesting anything is so...stupid.

[NoCalMike 0]

Let me just first say that Boxer is a loudmouthed cunt. In my junior year in high school, me and my Republican group at school worked to keep her from getting re-elected. Her and Feinstein. We failed.

 

On the whole check and balance thing...

 

J. Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5 and comics writer, was bitching about the same thing a few months ago. He was whining that the GOP was taking over and this and that. I was like, "What do we do, remove Republicans from office to balance it out?" Go write some comics, Joe.

 

As for the whole partisan thing...

 

I am and have been a registered Republican. I am an economic libertarian and a social moderate. If you want to raise taxes, you suck. If you want more regulation, you suck. If you're gay, hey, cool with me. Don't think you should be able to get married, but you're cool. If you have an abortion, you are pretty lame, but I'm not going to go psycho on you. If you have three or four, then I see you as a shitty human being, but I still won't go 5150 on you. If a court decides to "pull the plug," for all intents, constructions and purposes, on a woman who is all but brain dead, then I say do it. If the family wants to pay for keeping the woman alive, then more power to them. I will go further and say give it a vote and if the community wants to pay for it, then more power to them. I'd vote to let her die. But doing a bunch of crazy protesting stuff is embarrassing and not mainstream in the bulk of GOP voters. Also, I am not so sure that an overwhelming percentage of these protesters are Republicans. Protesting anything is so...stupid.

Let me just first say that Boxer is a loudmouthed cunt.  In my junior year in high school, me and my Republican group at school worked to keep her from getting re-elected.  Her and Feinstein.  We failed

 

Well forgive the people of California for now beckoning the calls of a bunch of highschool kids.

 

J. Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5 and comics writer, was bitching about the same thing a few months ago.  He was whining that the GOP was taking over and this and that.  I was like, "What do we do, remove Republicans from office to balance it out?"  Go write some comics, Joe.

 

Wow, you surely put him in his place.

 

 

Protesting anything is so...stupid.

 

Why is it stupid?

[Vyce 0]

This is off topic, but I've actually grown to like JMS less and less since he's gotten more verbal (i.e. "uppity") about his political views.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

This is off topic, but I've actually grown to like JMS less and less since he's gotten more verbal (i.e. "uppity") about his political views.

He's a member of the LME. I remember in a "JMS for President" thread or some such, he once said he'd send the Army Corps of Engineers into South-Central and have them build cheap housing. What, so they can tear that up, too? His ideas are borderline ridiculous. I remember Rising Stars was so awesome until the centuries-long war between Israel and Palestine (and their buddies) is ended when the entire region's soil is transformed into arable land. That killed the series for me.

 

Wow, you surely put him in his place.

 

Bah, there was more to it than that. But that is the gist of it.

 

Why is it stupid?

 

Because these people probably have jobs to go to. And stuff. I was watching At Large with Geraldo Rivera a month or so ago and he was interviewing Michael Jackson "supporters." There was a fat redneck kid from TN who quit his job to move to LA to support MJ. WTF? What kind of mindset brings about such a decision?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well I'm sure whatever biology department/engineering firm that TN kid works at is going to miss his contributions...

[LessonInMachismo 0]

Well I'm sure whatever biology department/engineering firm that TN kid works at is going to miss his contributions...

No shit.

[Guest Loss]

Is there a breakdown available anywhere of every Constitutional amendment ever made, and which party lobbied for each amendment? I think the answer would be interesting, regardless of what it tells us.

[SuperJerk 0]

Well forgive the people of California for now beckoning the calls of a bunch of highschool kids.

If high school kids really knew anything, they wouldn't still be in high school.

 

If you want to raise taxes, you suck.

 

Speaking as someone who actually pays taxes, and doesn't live off of their parents, I'm wondering why you even care.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

If you want to raise taxes, you suck.

 

Speaking as someone who actually pays taxes, and doesn't live off of their parents, I'm wondering why you even care.

Speaking as someone who just bought his second brand new house in three years and has probably paid more taxes than you ever have, there is no wonder as to why the Bush-supported tax cuts have helped my family of four.

 

See what happens you make assumptions?

 

Live off of their parents? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It's easy to say "If you want to raise taxes, you suck." but then you expect the public to give you things.

 

You think it sucks to raise taxes, but you expect the public to provide you with police and firemen to protect you locally and soldiers to protect abroad. You make them out as your country's heroes, but when it comes time to actually pay their salaries, you complain about taxes.

 

Sure, you may love W right now because you're seemingly getting everything you expect with more money back, too, but wait until we finally get to see what the deficit looks like when all the damage has been done.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

It's easy to say "If you want to raise taxes, you suck." but then you expect the public to give you things.

 

You think it sucks to raise taxes, but you expect the public to provide you with police and firemen to protect you locally and soldiers to protect abroad. You make them out as your country's heroes, but when it comes time to actually pay their salaries, you complain about taxes.

 

Sure, you may love W right now because you're seemingly getting everything you expect with more money back, too, but wait until we finally get to see what the deficit looks like when all the damage has been done.

A lot of money is being misspent. Especially locally in a lot of cities. Raising taxes to pay for people to eat when they can get a job is a waste of money. Paying taxes so the streets can be paved is a necessity.

 

The deficit. Ha. Can you explain to me why and how the deficit affects you?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

If you want to raise taxes, you suck.

 

Speaking as someone who actually pays taxes, and doesn't live off of their parents, I'm wondering why you even care.

Speaking as someone who just bought his second brand new house in three years and has probably paid more taxes than you ever have, there is no wonder as to why the Bush-supported tax cuts have helped my family of four.

 

See what happens you make assumptions?

 

Live off of their parents? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You were 17 in 1998 and you've already bought two houses and support a family of four? I'm not sure if that's dazzling or obscene.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

If you want to raise taxes, you suck.

 

Speaking as someone who actually pays taxes, and doesn't live off of their parents, I'm wondering why you even care.

Speaking as someone who just bought his second brand new house in three years and has probably paid more taxes than you ever have, there is no wonder as to why the Bush-supported tax cuts have helped my family of four.

 

See what happens you make assumptions?

 

Live off of their parents? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You were 17 in 1998 and you've already bought two houses and support a family of four? I'm not sure if that's dazzling or obscene.

Seventeen in 93/94. And I don't support my family alone. I have a wife who also works. It's dazzling.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

That makes more sense. I thought you were referring to Feinstein and Boxer's later senate runs when you said you were a junior in high school trying to keep them from getting re-elected.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

A lot of money is being misspent. Especially locally in a lot of cities. Raising taxes to pay for people to eat when they can get a job is a waste of money.

That's a vague statement. Are you suggesting that nothing should be done for those below the poverty line? That sounds like more of that illogical "Well, if they didn't WANT to be poor they wouldn't be poor" thinking.

 

The deficit.  Ha.  Can you explain to me why and how the deficit affects you?

 

We can't keep credit-card spending forever. The current government is running up quite a tab for the future of our country to swallow.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You think it sucks to raise taxes, but you expect the public to provide you with police and firemen to protect you locally and soldiers to protect abroad. You make them out as your country's heroes, but when it comes time to actually pay their salaries, you complain about taxes.

Well considering that's what tax dollars are supposed to go toward, yes, I do expect the government to provide me with police, fireMEN, a strong national defense and, if possible, paved roads. None of this hippie social engineering bullshit. It's like going out and buying a PS2 and 100 DVDs, then not having the money to pay utilities and the mortgage...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

fireMEN

Because Canada, the UK, Japan, and Australia are just burning down in an inferno since they diversified firefighting, right?

 

None of this hippie social engineering bullshit.

If "hippie social engineering bullshit" is "twenty quintillion dollars to encourage you to recycle that bottle and stop smoking," yeah, I'm there. If you mean shutting down something like free health clinics, sorry, can't really agree with you. I mean, all those uninsured Wal-Mart employees need to go somewhere when they get sick.