OK, you responded to half of my comment by stating that you don't care about the fact that you use one analogy one way in one case and then the same analogy the opposite way in a different one. Well, if you don't see a contradiction there, then that is your opinion to hold.

However you did not address the half of my comment where you claimed that the "Progressive" movement was already at its prime 100+ years ago, in spite of your constant reiteration that it is ever climbing and exceeding its dreams today.

I expect one of the ICANN execs will buy it as it will be held at too high of a price for mere mortals who would ever have a problem with them.

They climaxed back then? You were arguing before that President Lawnchair is vastly worse and more "Progressive" than anything that ever happened before. Which argument are you making this week?

This doesn't seem to jive much with your previous lines of

But perhaps I'm being too literal as well. I do have that annoying habit of asking you to explain yourself, which seems to bother you quite a bit in recent years.

If you've answered the question before you could link to where you answered it and I'll read that. It appears you are taking a position you did not hold before, and I'm asking you to describe it. That is how discussions used to work.

I'm not inclined to try to read your mind.

If you have a new position that you want to share, please do so. Throwing a fit over my not knowing what you are thinking this afternoon is a bit rash. I can't tell you what you are currently thinking on any given issue, I can only point to what you have already written on slashdot and base my analysis on that. If what you have previously written no longer reflects your opinion, you could be so kind as to say how.

There certainly is record of you changing your mind on other matters in the past - for example you used to think there were things more important than removing democrats from power at all possible cost.

You have previously brought it up on its own. We have previously discussed it on its own. You have previously defended repealing it on its own, even when I asked why you would be so interested in repealing it now when you had not called for it earlier.

But we can ignore your history and switch to your new claim

I will concede that indeed you have had the overarching goal of reducing (your) taxes. If you want to campaign to destroy the IRS - and the country with it - go for it. You can fiddle while the country burns, and watch as the people you neglect leave and the prestige of the country is forever lost. But that is the 16th amendment. The federal reserve, with all its problems, really doesn't have much of anything to do with it. I'm not fond of the federal reserve either, but eliminating them doesn't really solve any problems.

Those two claims though, as little as they have to do with each other, have even less to do with your mission to axe the 17th. Your claim against the 17th is still exceedingly disingenuous and an obvious political move to take more power for your party. If you want to try to reduce the number of people that each member of the house represents, you can aim for that, but there is no obvious way to actually do that given the current physical structure of Washington DC.

He's a lifetime politician but nothing scares him more than the downstream consequences of accruing a mark in the (L) column. Note however that he has been stacking his team with people who worked for Team Teflon, which didn't work out very well for the Teflon Candidate. While his electioneering will be popular with the GOP base, it isn't capable of winning the nationwide general election.

In space, only smitty can hear you scream?

It appears you have sworn to never again take anything I say seriously. I will nonetheless say again that your opposition to this judge suing for her job wreaks of hypocrisy in comparison to your newfound fervent opposition to the 17th amendment. On the one hand you are making a claim that "the old ways are better because they can help eliminate some democrats from the halls of power" while on the other hand you are saying "the old ways suck because they don't allow a republican to re-stack the state's highest court at will".

In other words you are cheerleading for your team yet again, and as usual you are doing it only because they are your team.

It's a shame that the politicians are too beholden to the interests of the insurance lobby to be concerned about all the people who died as a result of the broken system in those 20+ years.

But of course it wouldn't have been profitable to give them access to health care. We don't do that here. We do it in Iraq, but not here.

Can you squeeze in more claims that you can't support with reality? Come on, you can do better.

I'm trying to ask you why repealing the 17th amendment, and going back to your idea of "the good old days" of government, is a good idea while someone suing to keep their job - on the state level no less - is a terrible thing. You seem to have vastly different standards, here. Does this Wisconsin judge happen to have a (D) after her name somewhere? There are plenty of judge-ship positions that are elected in this country.

I'm not narrowing the discussion, I'm merely using the 17th amendment and your rabid hatred for it as a point of reference. Indeed a better argument could be made that I am broadening the discussion; but if that is too broad for you then we can just go to why you dislike this judge so dearly.

What did I miss? You have very plainly stated your opposition to the 17th amendment. Or do you not care if it actually improves the situation for the peasantry, as long as it leads to more guys from your team in the halls of power?

You have been trumpeting how much better life would be if the peasantry were stripped of the right to elect their US senators. Why would you not be supporting someone who rose in government under the old ways?