Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 21

by pudge (#48219903) Attached to: Way to go, Republican loser

In a capitalist society, all services that government does today would be provided by private companies instead.

No, that is an anarchist society: no cops, no courts, no laws. If you have any of those, you have government employees. If you don't have government employees, you have none of those. Capitalism does not imply anarchy.

I won't even read the rest of your comment; an anonymous coward getting this fundamentally obvious thing so clearly wrong doesn't deserve more of a response.

Comment: Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 21

by pudge (#48216925) Attached to: Way to go, Republican loser

Based on the 138 convictions, more than any other to date...

I see. You think the number of prosecutions of the executive branch, BY the executive branch, is a reasonable measurement between administrations of which is more corrupt.

That's so cute. And it's so stupid that it physically hurts.

The rest of your comment was nothing more than lies and ad hominems. Literally, there was nothing else in that comment that didn't fall into that category. Especially your claim that speaking to my assumed "culture, ancestry, location of birth" in your argument is not an ad hominem. That's fucking textbook ad hominem.

Comment: Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 21

by pudge (#48216469) Attached to: Way to go, Republican loser

Yes, well, your examples suck. They are just like the rest.

Since you didn't say how the examples "suck," the examples therefore still stand, and therefore your assertion that they are "just like the rest" -- which ignores the examples of how they are not -- is baseless, and ignored.

And unions and democrats, and communists and fascists are not anti-capitalists by any means.

Much moreso than Republicans, as the examples -- which remain undisputed -- demonstrate.

... by the grace of your culture, ancestry, location of birth you enjoy many advantages

Ad hominem.

It doesn't fit inside your narrative

Non sequitur.

You said that your preferred faction, the republicans, are better than the democrats in the corruption department, and I am telling you outright that you are full of shit

What's that got to do with whether "people who 'donate' to political campaigns ... expect a return on their investments?"

And you did tell me that I am "full of shit" ... but you've not backed it up. Still waiting.

And we can take a good look at your idol Reagan, just for starters as a tiny sample. On official record as the most corrupt administration ever

a. He is not my idol
b. You're lying that Regan's is "[o]n official record as the most corrupt administration ever"

Didn't you used to better at this? Maybe I am misremembering.

Comment: Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 21

by pudge (#48215759) Attached to: Way to go, Republican loser

You really think that people who "donate" to political campaigns don't expect a return on their investments?

I didn't mention donating to campaigns, unless you're referring to collective bargaining leading to politicians giving handouts to employees in exchange for donations and votes ... which is obviously true, which is one of many reasons I say Democrats are more anti-capitalist.

But I don't think you're talking about that, so I don't have any idea what you think I said here, but it seems to me that I didn't say it.

Scott Walker is taking money just like all the others

Yes, he accepts donations, like all politicians do.

... and lot of it from a somewhat famous Las Vegas casino owner. What's up with that?

What's wrong with that? This isn't an argument, it's just an attempt to imply something negative, without actually saying anything that is actually negative.

So funny that you think one group of gluttons is different from another.

I gave specific examples. Do you have any counterexamples? If not, then you're not actually making an argument here, either.

Comment: Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 21

by pudge (#48215707) Attached to: Way to go, Republican loser

Further, the Republicans' policies are generally much more pro-capitalist (against raising the minimum wage, against collective bargaining with govt employees, and so on).

You have fallen for the Republican trick.

False.

Under capitalism, there would not be any minimum wage, and government employees wouldn't even exist because there would be no such thing as public property or public services that require public employees.

You're correct on the first point, and incorrect on the second point. There would be far fewer government employees, but no, they would still exist.

But I didn't say these are the correct capitalist positions. I said they are "much more pro-capitalist" than the Democrats. Clearly, if there should be no minimum wage under capitalism -- which I agree is clearly true -- then being against its increase is more pro-capitalist than being in favor of its increase. Further, the one person I mentioned -- Scott Walker -- said just recently that he thinks the minimum wage serves no purpose.

Comment: Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 21

by pudge (#48213933) Attached to: Way to go, Republican loser

The GOP isn't any more pro capitalist than the Dems. They just like a different set of cronies.

Yes, the GOP -- as a whole -- does pay off its cronies. But there are a significant number of prominent Republicans in office who oppose these practices (e.g., Scott Walker). There is not a significant number of Dems who oppose these practices. Further, the Republicans' policies are generally much more pro-capitalist (against raising the minimum wage, against collective bargaining with govt employees, and so on).

So ... no, the GOP is significantly more pro-capitalist than the Dems. Very clearly and easily. They are not, however, as pro-capitalist as I am, or Scott Walker is, etc.

Comment: Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

by pudge (#47656307) Attached to: So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party

So, here's how this goes: nothing in your next comments matters until you back up or retract your claim that I have ever said impeachment of President Obama needs to happen, or in any way supported impeachment of President Obama. Anything else you say will be ignored until that happens. You need to learn to tell the truth, at least sometimes.

Comment: Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

by pudge (#47654697) Attached to: So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party

If we don't need an investigation

The Constitution says we don't. Stop being stupid.

Your original statement ... indicated ... that you are certain of the outcome of the coming election

You're a liar.

... and that once your fantasy comes true that the rest of congress would bend to your will before the new class even shows up.

You're a liar. I implied no such thing. You appear to be under the impression that a. the House is not currently Republican, or b. that if the incoming House wants to impeach, the outgoing House would not, or c. the Senate has anything to do with impeachment before the House actually votes for impeachment. a. and c. are obviously false, and b. is nonsense. Stop being stupid.

So now, you admit to lying about proving it.

You're a liar. I said no such thing. I simply proved you were wrong. And you still won't admit you were wrong. In fact, you repeated your lie, even after I proved it was a lie, that removal is a separate process and takes a long time.

Except for all the times when you said [impeachment] needs to happen

You're a liar. It's never happened.

So, here's how this goes: nothing in your next comments matters until you back up or retract your claim that I have ever said impeachment of President Obama needs to happen, or in any way supported impeachment of President Obama. Anything else you say will be ignored until that happens. You need to learn to tell the truth, at least sometimes.

Comment: Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

by pudge (#47652965) Attached to: So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party

You claimed it, you most certainly did not prove it.

Simply put: the Constitution doesn't require an investigation, therefore it isn't necessary. This is easy, even for you, to understand.

First of all, you are claiming to know the results of the upcoming elections

You're a liar, or you can't read. (I could go either way on that one.)

why would the house and senate just spontaneously decide to bend over?

I never implied they would. What are you blabbering about? (Note: this is a rhetorical question. I don't really care what you are blabbering about, because I am quite sure it won't make any sense, won't reflect reality, won't be honest, etc. As usual.)

You are operating in a land of pure fantasy and imagination when you pretend that somehow congress could get this done quickly.

You're a liar. I presented evidence: evidence that Clinton was impeached and tried in 5 months, evidence that removal can happen as part of the trial process and take no additional time, evidence that the Constitution requires no lengthy time period, evidence that no investigation is required, and so on. And make no mistake: all of this evidence is incontrovertible.

You have provided zero evidence. You simply asserted it would take two years or more, literally without any evidence at all.

you did not admit you were wrong about removal taking much more time and being a separate process, when I proved it doesn't and isn't

You claimed it but you did not prove it.

You're a liar. I gave you the example of the former judge, Alcee Hastings (D-FL), whose removal was not a separate process and took no additional time. That is proof. I didn't prove it wouldn't be a separate process and wouldn't take much more time, only that you were obviously wrong to say it necessarily would. And it makes sense that you were wrong, because you are completely ignorant.

Except for the times when you very plainly supported [impeachment].

You're a liar. I have never once supported impeachment of President Obama. You're simply making shit up, as usual.

I ... are [sic] really enjoying how you just discarded the demonstration of your list of claims as being pure fantasy by trying to pick apart just one of them to try to make yourself feel better.

You're a liar. That never happened.

Let's see. You don't admit you were wrong about removal being a separate process and taking a long time, despite incontrovertible proof being presented. You don't admit you were wrong about Obama refusing to enforce the employer mandate, despite it being truly uncontested. You don't admit you were wrong about me supporting impeachment of President Obama, despite the fact that you have no, and have never seen any, evidence I ever did.

And let's not forget that bizarrely stupid claim you made about a grand jury being required! That was a bona fide howler.

You just can't stop making shit up. It's pretty funny.

Comment: Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

by pudge (#47650825) Attached to: So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party

Which you already admitted, happened after an investigation.

And I also already proved no investigation here is necessary. There's nothing in the Constitution requiring it, obviously; and if the House feels that we know what we need to, then no investigation needs to be done. It's that simple.

No investigation will even start until the middle of 2015 at the earliest

You're a liar. Even if an investigation were done, it could start immediately in January. Actually, it could start this November, after the results of the Senate election are known. But it would likely begin in January.

Two, however, is the bigger problem you have. No president has ever been removed by impeachment.

That is not a problem with anything I said, no.

It is reasonable to expect it would take at least as long as the impeachment itself, if not longer.

You're a liar. No such thing is reasonable to expect. In fact, the only evidence we have is that removals are not complicated and do not take a long time. Granted, a President is not a Judge, but you've offered zero evidence backing up your assertion that it would take a long time. None at all.

And to compound your dishonesty, you did not admit you were wrong about removal taking much more time and being a separate process, when I proved it doesn't and isn't. You stopped asserting it, which is fine, but maybe you should at least admit you were lying when you said it?

assuming of course that your fantasy of a conviction

You're a liar. I never said I hoped for that, and, in fact, I do not.

You have no evidence to support a.

I have evidence that it does not need to take that long, which is more than your nonexistent evidence for your claim that it does need to take that long.

If b is true then why are you supporting impeachment?

You're a liar. I am not. I've said from the beginning of this thread that I oppose impeachment ("Impeachment is a stupid idea ...").

Not that I don't expect you to not lie, but still, that one was beneath even you. Which is saying something.

That is your opinion.

That is your opinion.

That is your opinion.

That is your opinion.

I am not going to cast pearls here and go over all the cases, but one of these in particular is very funny, because it just shows how completely ignorant you are. Not that we didn't already know, with your idiotic claims of impeachment taking years, of removal being a separate more lengthy process, and so on.

But you just said it is merely my opinion that Obama has refused to enforce the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

This fact is seriously not in dispute by anyone. It's a simple statement of fact. The law says it begins in 2014, and he signed an executive order pushing it to 2015. No one denies this.

Now, on this point I am actually on Obama's side, in that I think the President has the legitimate authority to not enforce punishments, as long as he does it without violating equal protection. So he cannot say, "I won't enforce the mandate against liberal companies," but he can say he won't enforce it against all companies. He can further take it on a case-by-case basis, if he chooses. It's basically prosecutorial discretion. The President can, and does, choose all the time which laws he will and will not enforce prosecution or punishment of. Suing the President for exercising his authority here, as Boehner is threatening, is legal nonsense.

Of course, you can impeach the President for anything you want to.

But, none of this takes away from the fact that Obama has refused to enforce the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Everyone knows it.

Similarly, it's in my view a proven fact that Obama has given subsidies to people in violation of the law, and Obama's own advisor said this is the case. The law does not allow subsidies for the federal exchange. The wording of the law is absolutely clear, the intent of the law is very well-established, and Obama knew all this and did it anyway. But Obama denies this; he does not, however, deny that he has refused to enforce the employer mandates, though he wouldn't use those exact words to characterize it.

You're just full of shit, as usual, at every turn.

Comment: Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

by pudge (#47648667) Attached to: So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party

There is absolutely no precedent for it having ever taken a short amount of time.

You're a liar. Clinton: five months. Johnson: 3.5 months. Yes, he was not removed, but that would not take an additional year or more.

Hence you need to look at the time between next February and January 2017, which is not enough time to impeach and remove the POTUS.

You're a liar. Even if we said it took a year to impeach Clinton (including investigations etc.), that would still leave about a year to remove him.

Anyone with even a slight grasp of reality knows this, which is why your dear representatives and senators have all but given up on it.

You're a liar. The length of time pretty much has nothing to do with why they won't impeach him, because a. it wouldn't take that long, and b. it's a bad idea regardless of the length of time.

It is an additional process and there is nothing quick about it.

You're a liar, on both counts. For example, when Judge Alcee Hastings (currently in the House of Representatives, D-FL) was tried by the Senate, he was removed as soon as the voting on the impeachment articles was concluded. They voted on 17 articles, each of which read, "Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office." And upon being found guilty on several of those articles, the judgment read "It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said Alcee L. Hastings be, and is hereby, removed from office." The end. They summarized the vote on the last article, summarized all the votes on all the articles, and then removed him from office, all within a few minutes. The end.

It can be as quick as the Senate wants it to be, and does not need to be a separate process.

You're lying. I explicitly addressed what makes this different in the Obama case: we don't need further investigation for Obama.

Except that you didn't.

You're a liar. I clearly wrote: "Clinton's impeachment -- which took longer than necessary -- took a mere five months from beginning of Starr's submission of data ... We don't need to go through lots of information for Obama; most of his "crimes and misdemeanors" are well-known."

So now bloggers are sufficient for "investigating"? I haven't seen a congressional investigation find anything impeachable.

"Impeachable" means whatever the House wants, and the very fact that Obama said the IRS was not corrupt, but it was ... that is impeachable. And we know he has broken the law (federal exchange subsidies), we know he's refused to enforce the law (employer mandate), we know he lied about Benghazi, we know he lied about the IRS not being corrupt. We know all of this.

But they could also impeach him for being black, or for being a lousy basketball player. They can impeach him for anything they want; they get to define what a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" is in this context. They won't, of course, but that's a separate point, since they never would anyway, not for any of these things. But they could, and that's the point, that you dishonestly deny.

Comment: Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

by pudge (#47647095) Attached to: So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party

Why are you accusing the AC of lying when you dislike what they say?

You're a liar. I didn't say you were lying because I dislike what you say; I say you were lying because you lied. You either know it can take less than two years, or you said it with reckless disregard for truth or falsity (which is also lying).

If you knew anything at all you would know that even once the house and senate convict the president, a new process has to begin in order to remove the president.

And that can happen in mere days.

None of this is quick.

It might be; it might not be. You're lying. Again.

Furthermore, you very casually glossed over the "submission of data" part. Starr actually did an investigation, and interviewed meaningful witnesses.

You're lying. I explicitly addressed what makes this different in the Obama case: we don't need further investigation for Obama.

It's similar to the Clinton situation, in that when Janet Reno and the federal court started the investigation process by asking Ken Starr to investigate what happened with Lewinsky, the point was not to impeach Clinton. They were just investigating what happened. Only after the facts came out did they decide to impeach. Similarly, we've been investigating -- formally through Congress some, but mostly just by watching what he actually does -- Obama for years now. As I already said, there's no need for an investigation of Obama.

Currently the GOP has a bunch of wild accusations against Obama and no meaningful evidence of any sort.

You're lying. In fact, every allegation the House has offered of Obama has been proven true. He has offered subsidies, in direct contravention of the law. He has refused to enforce mandates, in direct contravention of the law. His IRS has been targetting conservatives in particular, in direct contravention of the law. He lied about "the video" causing the Benghazi murders. All of this is proven true. None of it is seriously controversial at this point.

This means an investigation needs to be conducted (and funded) before an impeachment can even begin.

You're lying. Even if these things were not proven, no investigation would have to be done: the House could put it to a vote any time they wanted to.

You are also overlooking the fact that impeachment begins not with a trial in the house, but with a grand jury

I hope you're lying, because if you really believe that, it's pretty sad. It's simply untrue.

Interesting that you didn't give any examples.

Because I assume you're not a fucking moron. Should I? Boehner is threatening a lawsuit over Obama's nonenforcement of the employer mandate, and there's an existing lawsuit likely to be heard by SCOTUS over Obama's blatantly illegal subsidies to people in the federal exchange. There's more, but I assume you know at least some of the obvious ones.

Of course, I listed some above, and there's more.

It could not be a quick process

You're a liar. I already proved it.

Why do you so dislike the rule of law?

You're a liar. Nothing in the law -- in any law we have -- says impeachment should take a certain amount of time, or that it shouldn't be done quickly.

Would you have supported a "quick process" if the democrats had found the stones to try to impeach Bush when he was president?

Absolutely, yes. I would want it to take about one month, maybe two, tops. There's no reason for it to take longer. With Bush -- and there was no serious case against Bush, not like there could be against Clinton or Obama -- we already knew everything we needed to know. We knew there was no serious evidence of deception about the WMD. We knew the Congress backed Bush in invading Iraq. The House impeaching and the Senate convicting Bush for what they said he could do, or for things they spent years trying to prove but never could, would have been idiotic.

I've seen other possible articles against Bush, and all of them are stupid. For example, "suspension of the constitutional right of habeas corpus," which a. never happened and b. what did happen -- restrictions on statutory habeas corpus rights, not constitutional ones -- was passed by Congress.

But even if they had a case to make, fine. Make it quickly and Move On. It drags on the whole country, and whether you remove him or not, I want it to happen quickly, not slowly.

(which would be more than twice as long as the ordeal Clinton put on this nation).

How, exactly, were you personally hurt by his blowjob?

You're a liar: I didn't say i was personally hurt, and I didn't say "his blowjob" hurt the country. I said Clinton hurt the country, and he obviously did. He even admitted he did. And the way he did it -- obviously -- is through his lying under oath.

Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.

Working...