Quote of the Day
posted at 9:00 pm on December 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
“The question is not just whether you can reverse the vote. … If he reversed it once, he can do it again.”
Join Ed and Allahpundit on Facebook!
GreenRoom
- Calling a spade a spade: most forms of entitlement reform are theft
- Thou Shalt Not Steal…Unless You Have To
- Barack Obama: Scatologist in chief
- Senator Jon Kyl, sequestration, and the economy
- TV chef Lidia Bastianich sued for stealing tips from staff at swanky restaurant
- Movie Review: “For Greater Glory”
- Confessions of a Conservative Woman
- Russia, Iran standing off from Obama’s showcase events
- How To Make Obama’s Spending Look Small (MarketWatch Rebuttal Infographic)
- ‘Hustler’ publisher Larry Flynt answers criticism over obscene Cupp photo
Hot Links
|
|
Feeds
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
That’s what happens when you bring a towel to a gun fight. You may snap someones hind quarters a few times but you get your head handed to you in a garbage can.
chemman on December 21, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Are they listening to us?
Um… wut?
Nelson is taking the Pontius Pilot approach. I wash my hands…
Mojave Mark on December 21, 2009 at 1:41 AM
This was the cloture vote that allows debate to move forward, which is the phase in which the reading of the bill would take place, I believe.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 1:43 AM
OK, then plastic dimes! :D
lovingmyUSA on December 21, 2009 at 1:43 AM
Not only is this worst tragedy to hit U.S. soil in modern times (save 9/11), but I can almost hear the boastfulness, the cockiness, especially, smugness, arrogant nose-in-the-air double-double proud righteousness of Obama as he trumpets this triumphant moment, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over…..AND THEN SOME
betsyz on December 21, 2009 at 1:46 AM
I went back to a CNS story from last week about the Senate Bill and had to laugh and cry because I know what is coming-
All of the computer guys (etc) who earn (single or married) who earn more than 400% of the poverty level – 80k and above are going to lose their insurance. I don’t see any other way because companies are not required to pay for their employees insurance and will only pay $750/employee if they drop their coverage. And then because of their earnings they get NO help from the govt but have to buy govt insurance at double the going rate.
My husband duly informs me that the computer world is full of leftist leaning voters. And to top it off, small companies who try to pay for insurance will be at a disadvantage in pricing and will be forced to sell their companies to Google and Microsoft etc (who won’t cover their employees)- it is going to be grand gnashing of teeth when it finally hits them in the face. Unfortunately it will hit my family as well.
I think this Bill Gates will get his revenge on the government for the lawsuits against Microsoft after all.
journeyintothewhirlwind on December 21, 2009 at 1:46 AM
I think De’Mint at least has a derringer hidden in his pocket still.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 1:46 AM
++100–SNAP!
lovingmyUSA on December 21, 2009 at 1:50 AM
After reading my comment above I think it was too ambiguous, so to clarify, the reading of the bill is still forthcoming, I think.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 1:51 AM
This is the result of 9/11. Makes it even sadder, doesn’t it.
LibTired on December 21, 2009 at 1:51 AM
No, it just means you are an idiot. Hucklabee is a private citizen and is allowed to say what he damn well pleases! You are acting like a concern troll…
lovingmyUSA on December 21, 2009 at 1:55 AM
This was the cloture vote that allows debate to move forward, which is the phase in which the reading of the bill would take place, I believe.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 1:43 AM
_____________________________________________________
Not sure, here, but didn’t the vote tonight do just the opposite – didn’t it end the debate so that it could move to a couple more procedural votes and then on to the final passage? I hope you’re right and I’m wrong…
Dopenstrange on December 21, 2009 at 1:55 AM
Really, absolutely, it does. Extremely sad.
betsyz on December 21, 2009 at 1:56 AM
It’s ironic; I was going to start rewatching John Adams tonight before I got sidetracked with this thread. Now I understand that for the left, it’s tantamount to fiction. Sure, it’s a nice story, but for them it doesn’t really mean anything, and probably actually has negative connotations.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 1:58 AM
Hmmm… You may be right. Perhaps it was wishful thinking on my part.
I’m a big De’Mint fan. If he failed us on this, he’s through as far as I’m concerned.
I hope you’re wrong….
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 2:00 AM
http://twitter.com/AndreaTantaros
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:00 AM
http://twitter.com/AndreaTantaros
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:01 AM
Passing health reform could be a nightmare for Obama
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/20/AR2009122002127.html
small comfort I’d say.
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:02 AM
Me too, brother (sister?), me too…(but I don’t think so — I think we are officially screwed.)
Dopenstrange on December 21, 2009 at 2:04 AM
http://twitter.com/RedState
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:04 AM
From the AP story at FoxNews:
So perhaps there is still opportunity for a reading regardless of which of us is right…?
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 2:05 AM
The Democrats are playing with fire… and THEY WILL GET BURNED!
I guarantee it.
newton on December 21, 2009 at 2:06 AM
That said, history is littered with the remains of those who forced their will, however treacherous and terrible, upon others. Justice has a way of taking its sweet time, but it does come.
LibTired on December 21, 2009 at 2:06 AM
That smoker was an a$$, and desevered what happened. He can smoke outside all he wants–but no in my airspace…
lovingmyUSA on December 21, 2009 at 2:06 AM
Sadly, no, since the main lines (the Wenatchee line is a BNSF main) are covered by Federal law. However, sidings and the such are covered by state and local law, and the times of movements of cars onto those sidings, as well as the noise ratings for the locomotives, can be controlled. You could, of course, write your Congresscritter or Senator and get things changed if they bother you, or you can do like my peers bothered by jet noise at LAX did — sue for mitigation, such as airport-paid sound-proofing and triple-paned glass.
Of course, their situation was slightly different — but maybe not. LAX changed its flight patterns, so planes were flying above areas over which they’d never before been routed. The equivalent in your case would be if you bought your house before the BNSF ran the line through. If the railroad was there first, the BNSF can make the claim that you knowingly bought your house with a cost deduction for noise built-in; if the railroad came later, you can sue them for the reduction in property value due to the noise nuisance.
unclesmrgol on December 21, 2009 at 2:06 AM
I’m usually not given to hurling bad words, but WE ARE FUC*ED beyond belief.
betsyz on December 21, 2009 at 2:07 AM
That’s a good point, it’s not over yet… but still, if De’Mint didn’t follow through and the opportunity has passed…
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 2:08 AM
Floating: Just read Andrea Tantaros’ tweets above; I thought it was officially a lock — looks like I WAS wrong on that part anyway! Never in my entire life have I been so happy about being wrong.
Dopenstrange on December 21, 2009 at 2:08 AM
My thought was that the reading — and any other procedural delaying tactics — had to come before the cloture vote.
My sense of DeMint is that he is, like the other Repubs, so wedded to being part of the old-boy/old-girl network that they will sit back silently as the lefties kill the country rather than offend their “good friends across the aisle.”
A lot of people jumped on McCain for this attitude, but he’s hardly alone. It extends to the other brave “leaders” who now bear a small part of the blame for Reid’s despicable bill, and therefore should receive a small part of the punishment.
One one side, we have the totalitarian, wildly spending Constitution-killers. On the other side, the gutless wimps who make fiery speeches in an effort to please the voters, but throw down their weapons and surrender at the first sign of opposition.
Not one senator should be re-elected. All 100 must go.
MrScribbler on December 21, 2009 at 2:08 AM
I’m pretty damned sure that if that perfume caused serious reaction–you wouldn’t be surch a wimp..
lovingmyUSA on December 21, 2009 at 2:08 AM
As I understood it, the reason the final vote is going to be held on Christmas eve is because of the readings being forced by the GOP. Reid calculated about 30 hours between votes because of those readings. unless I’m missing something else.
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:09 AM
Actually, even if the opportunity has passed in the Senate, there will still be another vote after reconciliation, so maybe they can do a reading then…?
But I’d prefer both, before AND after reconciliation if possible.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 2:10 AM
Agreed. Many of the founding fathers owned slaves and certainly would find my interpretation of liberty in that respect unrecognizable as well.
unclesmrgol on December 21, 2009 at 2:10 AM
no the GOP Senators are following through but the readings only accomplish delay for a set time afterwhich the Senate moves to a vote.
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:11 AM
Hmmm… I haven’t followed the inside-politics on this and you could be right, but it seems like it would take a lot more than 30 hours to read 2000 pages.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 2:12 AM
Don’t know where the 30-hour requirement came from, but the schedule seems to be set so that the Repubs can make brave speeches and the Dems can lie through their teeth in front of the cameras for a few hours in between sellouts.
And the clock keeps ticking even when the senate isn’t in session, so this is just another piece of parliamentary BS.
MrScribbler on December 21, 2009 at 2:12 AM
http://twitter.com/Senate_GOPs
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:15 AM
Lance, I usually agree with you, but this is a truly idiotic statement…I am anti-smoking because my granddaughter has a terminal lung disease–cystic fibrosis–she can’t be around smokers. I have a daughter that works in a restaurant…I don’t want her inhaling smoke on her job…
I am not conditioned–it is the condition of my children and granchildren I am concerned about…
lovingmyUSA on December 21, 2009 at 2:16 AM
Such a wimp? If I were a wimp I would go crying to the government begging them to force people to change age old behavior just to accommodate my personal preferences, like you and unclesmrgol do, you wimp.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 2:17 AM
you know what you’re right it makes no sense.
I did hear a couple of days ago that Reid had concocted the 30 hours between votes because of the GOP but not how he arrived at the number.
Now you guys have made me doubt these GOP morons are even making the socialists read the bill.
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:18 AM
“…rather than offend their “good friends across the aisle.”
MrScribbler on December 21, 2009 at 2:08 AM
_________________________________________________________
Everytime I hear that expression used by these weasels I have to fight back the urge to puke. I could never call Harry Reid “my good friend”, regardless of protocol. I’d get my a$$ booted out of the Chamber pretty damned quick because I wouldn’t be able to resist calling him the lying scumbag commie that he is.
Dopenstrange on December 21, 2009 at 2:19 AM
CBO:Real 10 Year Cost of Senate Bill $2.5 Trillion
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/cbo_real_10year_cost_of_senate.asp
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:19 AM
McConnell needs to go, too. Brave talk, no guts.
All of them. Gone.
MrScribbler on December 21, 2009 at 2:19 AM
It is true that for the most part, the scum of the Earth are recognized for what they are….but usually after the fact of the destruction and utter chaos they’ve wielded on the poor innocents. Only when it becomes “widely” acknowledged, do these people even get the full panoramic judgment they deserve. And then, not so much so. It is, in most instances cowardly, doled out in a un-stunning correctness of the times.
betsyz on December 21, 2009 at 2:20 AM
Ah, so now the truth comes out. Yes, the founding fathers were terrible, deceitful people who should be dismissed. Nanny stater’s like unclesmrgol and “LovingMyUSA” are a superior breed and should be obeyed and our great peril. /s
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 2:21 AM
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:21 AM
…obeyed at our great peril, that is.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 2:22 AM
As if the Senate ever gave a flying f@%$ about what the American people think…
newton on December 21, 2009 at 2:22 AM
You and me both, brother. If I were in the senate tonight, my comments would sound like those showing up over at Ace’s blog right now.
MrScribbler on December 21, 2009 at 2:23 AM
agreed.
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:23 AM
Mr. Scribbler, my personal candidate for 2012!!!! Who objects?
betsyz on December 21, 2009 at 2:25 AM
Is it a set time because of a Senate rule or did the Republicans compromise their principles again and decide to limit the readings to a set time? It seems to me that a reading of the bill takes as long as it takes for it to be read. If it’s not being read and instead they are just allotting time, it’s a cop-out.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 2:25 AM
Holy crap. The spineless GOP could have shut down the entire process days ago. Especially when they took up the Defense bill this week. Kay Bailey Hutchinson was the vote that closed off debate and allowed healthcare to come back on.
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:25 AM
No leadership whatsoever. Who put him in that position in the first place?
We need LEADERSHIP – not these weasels!
newton on December 21, 2009 at 2:26 AM
It’s high time for a coup within the GOP. Take out all of those who don’t show any leadership and replace them with those who do.
If we can’t have a third party, at least hijacking one will do.
newton on December 21, 2009 at 2:27 AM
If Stuart Smalley wouldn’t give Joe Lieberman an extra 30 seconds, does anyone think Harry Reid et al are going to give Repubs enough time to read a 2000 page bill? The socialist scumbags care about the rules less than they care about the Constitution. I am so pissed about this clusterf–k right now that I feel like the top of my head is going to blow off.
Dopenstrange on December 21, 2009 at 2:27 AM
no. You are right and I was wrong these GOP scum have definitely not done everything in their power to shut this down. They may have not colluded but they are complicit. Good God.
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:27 AM
Just think how lucky we are!
Why, in the evil past, traitors would have been beheaded, or exiled to sandy, waterless islands, or chained up in a cell and fed only bread and water!
Someone like Reid would never have dared try this underhanded, treasonous crap in Royalist France…it would have been guillotine-time, baby!
And that would have been truly, truly terrible. Just awful. I mean really. Just plain despicable. Bad, bad behavior. Uncivilized, to boot.
MrScribbler on December 21, 2009 at 2:28 AM
And yet, this woman wants to be Governor of TX…
Oh no! Not on my watch!
newton on December 21, 2009 at 2:28 AM
And yet you let your children and grandchildren out on the street? Out of the house, no less? I hope you live in a bunker, or else how can you condemn them to a life hiding out in a home that might be destroyed in an earthquake or a tornado or a hurricane or a flood or a fire or a poison gas accident?
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 2:29 AM
A re-broadcast of the Ceausescu’s Christmas Special – 20th Anniversary Edition is in high order for Thursday.
newton on December 21, 2009 at 2:30 AM
This whole process is so crooked and mysterious that, well, it’s no wonder that nobody knows what the hell is going on….
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 2:31 AM
Bingo. The future of our country is at stake. The time for being compassionate conservative is OVER. We need someone who will fight for conservative values.
Huckabee doesn’t have what it takes to fight to the end to save our country. He’s good at rallying the troops but not leading them into battle. He’s not a leader.
Exactly. 2010 is where we make our last stand. Its our Alamo. 2010 is where the madness stops.
Instead of looking for some republican messiah to save this country, we should be looking to ourselves. Every person is under a duty to save this country. We do the fight ourselves and not some political leader.
Lets Roll!!
Conservative Samizdat on December 21, 2009 at 2:32 AM
yeah I’m such a rube. they could have brought the entire Senate to a halt last week and they didn’t.
I’m starting to think that they are gaming this. They are going to let the bill come for to a vote for the same reason that the leftists are because they think it will help them in the midterms.
Good God. These bastards in the GOP are using us and our anger. They could have shut down the Senate and did not.
someone better versed in their arcane parliamentary rules, please tell me I’m wrong.
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:32 AM
I’d vote for you even if that’s the only thing you ever did. :)
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 2:33 AM
Just pointing out your “appeal to authority” manner in the post to which I responded, and where such an appeal to authority logically leads. Indeed, I could have gone further and pointed out the sufferage advantages accorded to white male landowners all the way up until about 1790.
Our founding fathers were not perfect, and it’s boneheaded of you to posit that they were. We’ve had to fix quite a few of their mistakes — the allowance of slavery being one of them in a document ostensibly devoted to assuring liberty for all. That some smoked in addition to holding slaves I have no doubt.
unclesmrgol on December 21, 2009 at 2:35 AM
http://twitter.com/politicsoffear
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:36 AM
You are a rare gem and a remarkable person to boot. Why in the holy hello can’t we find a person of your caliber, outstanding common sense, and with the fever of, supposedly, the one’s who are “representing” the people? Travesty, all the way.
betsyz on December 21, 2009 at 2:38 AM
IT’s OVER FOLKS. SENATE BILL PASSES! GET READY FOR THE SHIT STORM.
abobo on December 21, 2009 at 2:38 AM
Heck, you’re crying already! So if you use this line of reasoning, bartenders shouldn’t be held responsible for giving drinks to people who have already imbibed too much…If you drink and drive, and kill someone, you shouldn’t be tried for murder because you were excercising your right…
Now I am all for a smoker’s right to smoke outside–I think, as other’s have said that it is a slippery slope–especially when people are not allowed to smoke outside on terrances, while eating…I simply do not think that you have a right to pollute the air I breathe inside, where I cannot escape.
Would you allow someone to be loud and profane at the table next to your family? Would you allow your child to hear f*ck you being repeated in their hearing? Or would you report them to the waiter. If they were thrown out of the restaurant, would that be a violation of their rights?
My old Poly Sci professor once said told our freshman class that we will find that life is all about “where do you draw the line”…
Put a freaking bag on your head while you smoke then you can have your right–and smoke it too! You do not have a right to cause harm to my granddaughter…
lovingmyUSA on December 21, 2009 at 2:39 AM
Got your back. Don’t let them blow smoke in your face.
I love FloatingRock’s attempt to enlist the founding fathers on his side — the response was so obvious — and so deliciously received by him.
unclesmrgol on December 21, 2009 at 2:39 AM
I certainly am not well-versed (hell – I’m not even “versed!”) in parliamentary rules, but unfortunately, something tells me you’re not wrong.
Dopenstrange on December 21, 2009 at 2:42 AM
*Sigh, and here I thought you at least had 1/2 a brain…you have gone from crying pathetically to babbling idiot in a matter of minutes–go have your cigarette–kill yourself at your expense, not mine…or those I hold dear…
lovingmyUSA on December 21, 2009 at 2:44 AM
They are complicit. they are playing politics instead of derailing this unconstitutional Marxist power grab. Damn them.
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:47 AM
Floating brain, I did not say I was superior to you, I can’t help it if you have your own issues with self-esteem. I just think that if you smoking inside is an act of endangerment to my well-being and those I love…Smoke all you want outside.
lovingmyUSA on December 21, 2009 at 2:48 AM
I’m also very angry. In fact, I think one of my comments was deleted!
Probably should have been.
I do hope one of those who has an eye on the ’112 election — I’m trying to be optimistic here and thinking a) there will be a presidential election in ’12 and b) that the nation will still be salvageable — will actually show some leadership, and soon.
Right now, the names being floated (Palin, Jindal, Romney, Huckabee, etc.) all have an asterisk behind their names. Huckabee is the only one who has stood on a stage and denounced this miscarriage of Constitutionality, and he waited until the day of a crucial vote to do so. Late is absent, in my book.
We need to see some leadership, and soon. And if any of them have any concrete ideas on reversing the nation’s slide into third-worldism, they’d better start getting said ideas out before the public.
MrScribbler on December 21, 2009 at 2:51 AM
Hey guys ease up on the friendly fire.
I haven’t read the entire thread so I don’t know whats going on, but at the risk of being labeled a pollyanna, all I have to say is you’re all on the same side here. Chill. You’re all great posters and I love reading all your posts.
For now, good night all.
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 2:52 AM
I was wrong. My somewhat intemperate comment is still here.
I still like it, too.
MrScribbler on December 21, 2009 at 2:53 AM
Yep, nanny staters are our founding fathers betters, their progeny, more or less, telling us what’s good for us—and what’s not—enforcing their own superior choices on us pions. Redefining liberty to reflect how the founding fathers would have defined it if only they would have been so enlightened.
How would we know the correct path without statists?
We wouldn’t, that’s how. We’d be lost without them.
The founding fathers were never serious about liberty, it was just a “talking point” to enslave the masses. Propaganda, no less. So what if they recognized their own failures and instituted the means to correct them in the future, statism is the wave of the future, baby. Either get with program and conform or get out of the way. The Constitution and the bill of rights is a living document—a thing of the past—meant to be reinterpreted to suit the whims of our betters.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 2:57 AM
I love the smell of napalm in the morning; when the statists resort to Orwellian doublespeak to manufacture an argument in fundamental opposition to reality itself. It makes me feel…
…alive.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 3:02 AM
My thought was that the reading — and any other procedural delaying tactics — had to come before the cloture vote.
My sense of DeMint is that he is, like the other Repubs, so wedded to being part of the old-boy/old-girl network that they will sit back silently as the lefties kill the country rather than offend their “good friends across the aisle.”
A lot of people jumped on McCain for this attitude, but he’s hardly alone. It extends to the other brave “leaders” who now bear a small part of the blame for Reid’s despicable bill, and therefore should receive a small part of the punishment.
One one side, we have the totalitarian, wildly spending Constitution-killers. On the other side, the gutless wimps who make fiery speeches in an effort to please the voters, but throw down their weapons and surrender at the first sign of opposition.
Not one senator should be re-elected. All 100 must go.
That is what I was saying earlier; the reading of the bill could have been required before cloture vote. Whether or not the Dems would have violated the rules as they did with the Sanders 700 page amendment, as another poster speculated, is a moot point because the GOP should have gone on the record and called for a reading of the 2000 page bill, and should have fought tooth and nail that it be done according to their right and duty to have it read.
THIS SIMPLE PROCEDURAL TACTIC WOULD HAVE STOPPED THIS BILL IN IT’S TRACKS UNTIL WELL AFTER CHRISTMAS – AND EVERY GOP SENATOR IN THAT CHAMBER KNEW AND KNOWS THIS. THE GOP ARE RESPONSIBLE IF THIS BILL BECOMES LAW BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO DEPLOY ALL TACTICS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO STOP IT!!!!
ERGO, THE GOP HAVE LOST ALL CLAIM TO SPEAK OF THE “OUTRAGE” THAT THEY ALLOWED AND THROUGH THEIR INACTION, HELPED THEM HAMMER THE NAILS INTO THE COFFIN!
They may be able to call again for a reading after it comes back from reconciliation, but I think that the Dems are all vicious as the GOP are traitorous and weak, and frankly, we need adult, courageous patriots leading a charge into the belly of the beast, not speechifyin’ and cryin’ schoolboys that the Dems kick around with astounding ease and glee.
P.S. Sorry if I’m repeating others in this thread. I was on about two hours ago and just came back, so I haven’t read it all.
tigerlily on December 21, 2009 at 3:03 AM
P.S. Above copy before my post belongs to the increasingly famous MrScribbler.
tigerlily on December 21, 2009 at 3:05 AM
I’d agree as it pertains to government, but what if I owned a business and wanted to have a smoking section, or if I wanted to have a business that caters only to smokers. Should I have that right, or does your right to enter my private business against my will and kick everybody out, fine me and close down my business supersede my rights?
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 3:06 AM
MrScribbler, yes we need leaders, but we also need to step up and fill in the gap ourselves–we can’t sit around wringing our hands and saying woe is me it is finished. We need to get vocal, we need to make calls, we need to support our local and state candidates. We need to support national candidates. We need to get off the computer and get out the door and picket offices.
We need to never falter, and never give up, because it is the least we can do for these:
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/photo_gallery/12-14-09.html
lovingmyUSA on December 21, 2009 at 3:09 AM
Yum, more napalm! Leaving the doublespeak in your dust and shifting down into the personal attacks, are we?
Well, not me. I’m content to ridicule your unmeritorious statist reasoning. You guys provide all the ammo I need.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 3:12 AM
That’s what happens when you bring a towel to a gun fight. You may snap someones hind quarters a few times but you get your head handed to you in a garbage can.
chemman on December 21, 2009 at 1:40 AM
So descriptive and funny. Spot on.
tigerlily on December 21, 2009 at 3:13 AM
Not content with just shoving your foot in your mouth, you now try to eat it.
We depend on a subset of the ideas promulgated by the founding fathers. Because some founding fathers smoke, and I find that vice distasteful to the point that I will not permit it in my presence, you attempt an appeal to authority proof that I’m not as committed to the free exercise of rights as you.
I then rightly point out that a similar subset of the founding fathers believed in slavery, and that doesn’t make people who find slavery a vice any less committed to the free exercise of the rights guaranteed by the founding fathers — in fact, I posit that it makes them more committed to those rights.
The comical nature of your attempt to posit a right to smoke from habits of our founding fathers is amazingly inept argumentation. It’s like claiming we ought to wear wigs because they did. A different age, with different cultural mores.
I chose to counter with the slavery issue because it’s the one place where the founding fathers really got things wrong, and it led to a civil war less than 90 years later, with over 600,000 casualties to fix what they got wrong. That some founding fathers smoked doesn’t impute wisdom — it imputes quite the opposite.
You now attempt another appeal to the same authority. Post a URL to a picture of yourself with a proper powdered wig whilst seated at your keyboard, and I might give some small credence to your argument. Until then, I will taunt you a second time.
unclesmrgol on December 21, 2009 at 3:16 AM
*giggle*
Let me taunt him too…
Hey FloatingRot – Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
elderberriescigarette butts.Now kids, I must try to sleep.
Night all!
Laura in Maryland on December 21, 2009 at 3:21 AM
Two guys here are trying to defend statism and I’ve been having some fun with them, but you’re right, I’ll ease off.
Good night, Elduende.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 3:22 AM
No, you should not, because my right to a smoke free environment in public accommodation trumps any of your customer’s privileges to smoke, or your desire to allow such customers to deny me my right to a smoke free environment. Again, consider Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, which addresses what things a property owner may do in the matter of public accommodation.
It was those types of complaints that convinced Amtrak to recently limit smoking to at most one car on a train, rather than allow it on all cars but the diner as was previously the rule. I no longer need to worry about the idiot smoking a cigar in the next sleeping room over. Now the idiot has to worry about the dick, not me.
unclesmrgol on December 21, 2009 at 3:25 AM
I’ve asked this three or four times in this thread: What if your presence is on somebody else’s private property, either their home or their business? Do you still not allow it? And you thin this is consistent with liberty? Have you looked up the definition of liberty lately?
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 3:27 AM
Where’s the wig?
unclesmrgol on December 21, 2009 at 3:28 AM
Liberty is my ability to breath clean air unsullied by your cigarette smoke.
unclesmrgol on December 21, 2009 at 3:28 AM
I understand what you mean, but that is the way of life. The government will require you to have two bathrooms and that they be handicapped accessible–even if no one in a wheelchair ever comes into your establishment.
I was going to post this, but elduende beat me to it. We are terribly off-topic, even tho’ it is one dear to my heart. I am not hijacking the thread any more..
TRUCE?? WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE, AFTERALL…
lovingmyUSA on December 21, 2009 at 3:30 AM
You are SO lucky I decided to drop the subject–heh :)
lovingmyUSA on December 21, 2009 at 3:32 AM
At the risk of getting caught in the crossfire – and sounding like your mother – floatingrock, unclesmrgol and lovingmyusa – go to bed!
And tomorrow, I want to see you united against our common enemy and ready to use your talents with God’s help to bring down the beast. Now go to sleep. ;)
tigerlily on December 21, 2009 at 3:32 AM
Common enemy? Sadly, they ran away in victory a few hours ago. This thread has been overcome by events almost at the moment of its creation. Huckabee’s plea was for naught.
unclesmrgol on December 21, 2009 at 3:38 AM
Actually, I just remembered that you already answered that question by linking to an article about how private ownership doesn’t guarantee a legal right, (according to liberal courts), to allow people to engage in a legal activity on their own private property. It was actually about discrimination, I think, but I only read a little.
Regardless of you distaste of my using the founding fathers as an authority on the issue of liberty, I think it’s well established that they valued private property far more than that, even to the point of ascribing it as one of the fundamental aspect of liberty.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 3:38 AM
lovingmyUSA on December 21, 2009 at 3:38 AM
?
FloatingRock on December 21, 2009 at 3:40 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »