Tom DeLay's House of Shame

[Darth Servo]

Dick Gephardt: "When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." (23 June 2003)

Bye bye separation of powers.

Um, no. Gephardt did NOT say his executive orders would automatically be successful. There ARE measures in the constitution through which other branches of Govt can one-up the supreme Court.

[Perinquus]

Of course I've said something that rude. I've said a lot worse. And I have even had to cash with my ass the check that I wrote with my mouth as a result of it sometimes. However I can say that I have always at least attempted not to resort to so insulting a tone with my first reply -- and that even applies when I'm dealing with shitbags at work.

Neither do I, when I'm talking to someone who's being honest instead of playing games like your "tu quoque" bullshit.

It's best to start out being civil. You get a better outcome that way. And then you can always take things to a more derogatory or provocative tone if the need arises. But its almost impossible to calm things down if you start with an aggressive or provocative tone.

Oh this is rich, the fucktard who responded to "Perinquus appears to live in fringe-nut land" with "Go fuck yourself you arrogant goddamn asshole son of a bitch" along with an attempted thread-hijack to your "you wouldn't say that if I could punch your face in" idiocy is now lecturing me on how to calm things down! You are trying to win the "most full of shit" award, aren't you?

I see, so if you were talking to someone, and that someone then turned to a third party, rolled his eyes and said, derisively, "Wong's living in fringe nut land. I wonder how the weather is there", you would not regard that as arrogant, condescending, and gratuitously insulting? And you wouldn't find you're temper slipping? Right. Sure you wouldn't.

And you'll just have to excuse me if I harbor just a little doubt that you would really stand in front of most people and throw words like "shitstain" in their faces repeatedly.

No, I reserve that for the online environment. I'm talking about my first comment, you lying evasive little fucktard. You know, the one which elicited your foaming-at-the-mouth primitive knuckle-dragger response?

And again, I have my doubts that you would actually behave in the manner I described above, when face to face with an actual person, because of the possibility that that person will lose his temper, and if not actually throw a punch at you, at least turn a debate into an argument, and shouting and creating an embarrassing scene, attract the unwelcome attention of a boss (if at work), or all kinds of other unpleasant results.

[SirNitram]

So when Dick Gephardt says that he would overrule the Supreme Court if he felt it necessary (a position unfortunately held by both parties), that is just as extremist as "it's never been proven that air toxins are hazardous to people" or saying that these judges "need to be intimidated"?

Considering his position on the idea that we should all be acting as if intimidated by physical violence, maybe he simply agrees with the latter, and thus can't view it as extremism?

[The Yosemite Bear]

*plays leadbelly's Boiguouris Blues in honor of DeLay*

[Darth Wong]

I see, so if you were talking to someone, and that someone then turned to a third party, rolled his eyes and said, derisively, "Wong's living in fringe nut land. I wonder how the weather is there", you would not regard that as arrogant, condescending, and gratuitously insulting? And you wouldn't find you're temper slipping? Right. Sure you wouldn't.

Gee, maybe I would just insult him right back, you knuckle-dragging excuse for a loser. Did that ever occur to you, Einstein? I would not physically assault him or threaten him with violence, nor would I be tempted to. No intelligent human being behaves that way. That is the behaviour of imbeciles who, through improper upbringing, think that fists are a legitimate debate technique.

And again, I have my doubts that you would actually behave in the manner I described above, when face to face with an actual person, because of the possibility that that person will lose his temper, and if not actually throw a punch at you, at least turn a debate into an argument, and shouting and creating an embarrassing scene, attract the unwelcome attention of a boss (if at work), or all kinds of other unpleasant results.

Or maybe I wouldn't be arguing about politics with coworkers on company time in the first place, moron. But if somebody is playing games and being dishonest, then yes, I'll call him on it. Am I more rude on the forum in general than I am in real-life? Yes. Does this have anything whatsoever to do with this thread subject or the validity of my arguments or the appropriateness of my behaviour to this forum? No, and you are a thread hijacking, rule-ignoring idiot who is apparently relying on the forbearance of the very person that you're trying to attack with this pitiful evasion tactic. Brilliant move from someone who claims to be an expert in "calming things down" and not "baiting" people.

[Glocksman]

Dick Gephardt: "When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." (23 June 2003)

Bye bye separation of powers.

Um, no. Gephardt did NOT say his executive orders would automatically be successful. There ARE measures in the constitution through which other branches of Govt can one-up the supreme Court.

That's spin, as Gephardt wouldn't have said it if he didn't want his audience to think his 'executive orders' would be sucessful.
That said, the amount of outrage over such remarks seems to depend upon whose ox is getting gored.

If it's a proposal to 'overcome the wrong' of a Roe v. Wade reversal, you could expect to find most liberal Democrats suddenly metamorphasize into staunch defenders of precedent.

Conversely, you'd find most 'conservative' Republicans defending the right of the judiciary to disregard 30+ years of precedent.

Take what members of both parties say about SCOTUS with a large amount of salt.

[Durandal]

That's the thing about SCOTUS. It pisses everyone off. That's what it's there for.

[SirNitram]

That's the thing about SCOTUS. It pisses everyone off. That's what it's there for.

It's hilarious how the American government was made to ideally function:

Congress and the White House deadlocked, and the SCOTUS pissing in everyone's cheerios.

And that would actually produce the ideal result. It's... Certainly a unique method.

[Durandal]

The entire American system of government is based on the principle of adversity. If you let both sides of an issue fight about something tooth-and-nail, no-holds-barred long enough, eventually the "right" one will come out on top.

[WyrdNyrd]

Erm, I just have to ask: What does the Democratic Party have to do with any of this?

Tom DeLay is an extremist fucktard. The Republicans are fucking over your entire country.

Whether or not one other party is "just as bad" or "even worse" is irrelevant! We're objectively debating the merits or otherwise of one guy, and the party he represents.

The binary nature of American politics seems to have warped the minds of its electorate, so that "If A is bad, then B must be good", and "A can't be bad if B is worse" become valid arguments!

Doesn't this false dichotomy remind anyone of another major argument often discussed on this site? Ayone want to tell me which?

[Stuart Mackey]

I *have* voted for my fundie rightwing Congressman (John Hostettler R-IN 8th district) in the past because he was one of the few Repubs who voted against the war resolution and he's also firmly pro-gun, and anti so-called 'free trade', while his Democrat opponents waffled on the war, supported NAFTA, and came across as 'Johnny come latelys' on the gun issue.

Quick question: why do you oppose free trade?

I'm a union member (UNITE HERE), and tens of thousands of our members have lost jobs to plants opening across the border thanks to NAFTA.

When it comes to this issue, fuck both parties.

I am a union member and I supporrt free trade. Nevertheless, if you cannot compete in bussiness, then I dont see why the government should bail you out.

[Xon]

The entire American system of government is based on the principle of adversity. If you let both sides of an issue fight about something tooth-and-nail, no-holds-barred long enough, eventually the "right" one will come out on top.

Doesnt that type of government favour those with the biggest checkbook to buy off other players, the biggest pile of dirt on others and being able to shout the loudest?

[Xon]

Aye, it is not the hourly wages that count, it's the wages per unit of prodoctivity of the workers.

Saddly many companies which outsource just see the savings from lower wages and dont bother to actually see if it is more productive per cost.

[Lord Zentei]

Aye, it is not the hourly wages that count, it's the wages per unit of prodoctivity of the workers.

Saddly many companies which outsource just see the savings from lower wages and dont bother to actually see if it is more productive per cost.

Stupid companies tend to fare badly compared with their competitors.

[Darth Wong]

Erm, I just have to ask: What does the Democratic Party have to do with any of this?

Tom DeLay is an extremist fucktard. The Republicans are fucking over your entire country.

Whether or not one other party is "just as bad" or "even worse" is irrelevant! We're objectively debating the merits or otherwise of one guy, and the party he represents.

The binary nature of American politics seems to have warped the minds of its electorate, so that "If A is bad, then B must be good", and "A can't be bad if B is worse" become valid arguments!

Doesn't this false dichotomy remind anyone of another major argument often discussed on this site? Ayone want to tell me which?

It's true, although to be fair, I think the Virus-X Wannabe is the only one who's actually trying to pull this knee-jerk Tu Quoque bullshit.

[Durandal]

The entire American system of government is based on the principle of adversity. If you let both sides of an issue fight about something tooth-and-nail, no-holds-barred long enough, eventually the "right" one will come out on top.

Doesnt that type of government favour those with the biggest checkbook to buy off other players, the biggest pile of dirt on others and being able to shout the loudest?

As a consequence of the adversarial system, yes. There are no limitations on either side, which is a boon for the defense, which can be privately bought and paid for.