IntenseDebate - RegaloDiSpine

15 years ago @ Big Government - Union v House Republic... · 0 replies · +2 points

You have posted the makings of an interesting idea. But considering what Congress did over the last two years, do you really think it wise to give it not only the power to create laws but to execute those laws as well? (Not to mention it would require a bit of fiddling with the U.S. Constitution).

I know it sounds like a stretch, but maybe a better solution would be to have Congress actually do its job and make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated powers of the government. That is, rather than passing barebones legislation that allows numerous bureaucratic agencies to then develop capricious regulations to implement the “intent” of those laws, our Congress should be enacting laws which, in the form in which they are passed, can be implemented by the Executive agencies. Regulations could then simply address the logistics of carrying out those laws. Thus federal agencies would no longer be able to act as de facto lawmakers and our elected representatives would be directly accountable for the laws that are imposed upon us.

16 years ago @ Big Journalism - The (Fantasy) World Ac... · 0 replies · +1 points

Robert - that is the saddest part of her commentary. Her hoped for presumptions aside, her comments suggest an uncaring attitude toward the possible result. That is what is most pathetic about her statements. Kudos for catching it.

16 years ago @ Big Journalism - The (Fantasy) World Ac... · 0 replies · +1 points

I think you would find that Contessa doesn't know the answer to that either, Gipper. You could ask her but chances of getting a cogent response....my odds, slim to none. But I'm willing to pay cash money...

16 years ago @ Big Journalism - The (Fantasy) World Ac... · 0 replies · +2 points

Personally, I am shocked, shocked that there is prevarication going on here.

16 years ago @ Big Journalism - Anything To Slander th... · 0 replies · +1 points

I don’t disagree that the entire scenario reeks of the tactic you list. But, don’t you think they failed in part by picking the abstract, anonymous tea partiers to attack? What came afterwards – demands for apologies from “conservative” leadership – is right out of the book (Rule 4).

However, as the story goes on they are in danger of violating Rule 7 – it gets to the point of being ritualistic. Well, actually, from the perspective of many of us, pulling the ‘ole race card is already ritualistic, boring even in its predictability. In fact, much about the way this story is playing out makes me think that both the media and the CBC are relying more on Baghdad Bob’s Guide to Effective Propaganda than Alinsky.

16 years ago @ Big Journalism - Surprise -- MSM Ignore... · 0 replies · +1 points

Perhaps you and I don't use the same dictionary – Lizard might suggest yours is the Newspeak version – for the definition of coherent. Coherency doesn’t require validity (or even rationality as your writing demonstrates); only premises that are accessible to the understanding, intelligible would be a word you may want to look up. So you have yet to demonstrate your own claimed rationality, even by attempting, and failing, to deconstruct my statement. And again you insert presupposition in your statements (e.g. your statement on Lizard’s post) which only serves to show your inability to make a valid argument.

You’re invited to keep playing – the more we meet failure, the more we may learn to succeed.

16 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Elitism Killed the Cri... · 0 replies · +1 points

Thanks for that Doh - and since I imagine we both like the fireworks found in the comments - I'm glad it was Ben who wrote it and not me.

16 years ago @ Big Government - Big Easy Beatdown... G... · 0 replies · +6 points

I hope the best for Ms. Bautsch and Mr. Brown and, I hope the eventual publication of the police report gives us more useful information.

Now for this - cripes Leo, Randy…have you ever tried reading what you post without wearing those narrow-minded minded glasses you have on? “Rare black conservative”? “Sounds like something from urban culture”? “…The crime is highly unusual for White behavior”?

You do know that black, white, latino, whatever, people have individual human traits, personalities, strengths, weaknesses? We all, regardless of race, have the propensity for reason, love, understanding, and we all have the ability to be irrational, vicious, cruel – you understand that don’t you? We should all be concerned when people act, based on racial differences or even political ideology, to harm others who aren't part of their "group". But at the same time, perhaps we should check ourselves to ensure that we are not acting out against others (or saying something ignorant) because of a preconception about the differences between their “group” and us.

16 years ago @ Big Journalism - Overnight Thread: Medi... · 0 replies · +12 points

The unfortunate part is that we will see pieces like this from Milbank and then the handlers will get Obama to give the disenchanted some face time, maybe shoot some hoops, open up a little bit, and then they’ll go back to writing the same sycophantic pap they’ve given us for the past two years. At a later post, dustrider mentions it is like battered spouse syndrome – and in a way, that analogy is apropos. Too bad they have all deluded themselves into thinking they are independent thinkers.

16 years ago @ Big Journalism - Surprise -- MSM Ignore... · 3 replies · +2 points

Your comment prompted me to go back and read all the comments on this thread before your post to see if I had somehow missed the elements used to state your point. Odd, I couldn’t really find them, you know, the incoherent thoughts, calls of the destruction of the “MSM” and the President. Oh, sure, there are opinions posted here – generally regarding the subject of the article. And, wow, there are some rather coherent position statements made by dcase, FamousDrScanlon, and DontTreadOnMe. (But I think the best post so far is LizardLips’ quote which implicitly provides the reader with a good idea of his/her position in a rather coherent manner).

Then it dawned on me – why bother going to so much trouble to provide you with a cognizant response? Considering that you clearly posted out of context regarding the subject matter of the article, made the assumption that somehow everyone posting here is a tea party member who somehow should be compelled to respond to you, and your inquiry began with using the logical fallacy of loaded questioning.

So, I guess my only real response to you would be – prove you are rational first and then maybe we can talk.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with RegaloDiSpine

People I'm following

RegaloDiSpine