Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
He would get hauled in front of the Supreme Court for violation of the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Nah, he was the Suprme Court in his day.

This isn't his day anymore.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
He would get hauled in front of the Supreme Court for violation of the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Nah, he was the Suprme Court in his day.

This isn't his day anymore.

You keep saying that. As soon as I get the time machine working, you'll be singing a different tune. Just need to get some more crystals...

You know his real name was Murabi right? He was called "ham" because of all the locker room jokes he played, and it kind of stuck.


"Son, I knew Hammurabi, and you're no Hammurabi."

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
He would get hauled in front of the Supreme Court for violation of the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Nah, he was the Suprme Court in his day.

This isn't his day anymore.

You keep saying that. As soon as I get the time machine working, you'll be singing a different tune. Just need to get some more crystals...

You know his real name was Murabi right? He was called "ham" because of all the locker room jokes he played, and it kind of stuck.


"Son, I knew Hammurabi, and you're no Hammurabi."

Once I get my time machine working I'm going back to caveman times. I just need more rubber bands.

Monster Rain wrote:It's different ages in different states, actually.

They range from 18 to as low as 16, IIRC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

You have the link to that awful fast.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Off topic thread is off topic,

I don't see many tea party candidates getting elected this time round and I don't think that the dems will lose their majority in either the senate or the house.

I'm not as optimistic as that. I do believe that the Democratic party will hold the Senate. There are simply too many imploding Tea Party (GOP) candidates for them not to. I'm not nearly as sure on the House though. If the D's get a really good GOTV effort then I think they have a strong chance to retain the majority. What I'm really really hopeful for is that the Senate re-writes its rules and either removes or severely restructures the use of the filibuster.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Off topic thread is off topic,

I don't see many tea party candidates getting elected this time round and I don't think that the dems will lose their majority in either the senate or the house.

I'm not as optimistic as that. I do believe that the Democratic party will hold the Senate. There are simply too many imploding Tea Party (GOP) candidates for them not to. I'm not nearly as sure on the House though. If the D's get a really good GOTV effort then I think they have a strong chance to retain the majority. What I'm really really hopeful for is that the Senate re-writes its rules and either removes or severely restructures the use of the filibuster.

-Yad

I hear the Illinois GOTV campaign will see a landslide number of dead people voting, even more than 2008...

malfred wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:It's different ages in different states, actually.

They range from 18 to as low as 16, IIRC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

You have the link to that awful fast.

Blame Google.

Frazzled wrote:

Yad wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Off topic thread is off topic,

I don't see many tea party candidates getting elected this time round and I don't think that the dems will lose their majority in either the senate or the house.

I'm not as optimistic as that. I do believe that the Democratic party will hold the Senate. There are simply too many imploding Tea Party (GOP) candidates for them not to. I'm not nearly as sure on the House though. If the D's get a really good GOTV effort then I think they have a strong chance to retain the majority. What I'm really really hopeful for is that the Senate re-writes its rules and either removes or severely restructures the use of the filibuster.

-Yad

I hear the Illinois GOTV campaign will see a landslide number of dead people voting, even more than 2008...

To bad you don't live in Illinois, I think you of all people would be best equiped to deal with an outbreak of zombies who were hungry for "Voootezzz"

On the positive, zombies have no known preference for chocolate. So after the zombie olympics I am so going to to pig out. You know, chocolate cake DOES have a shelf life.

Frazzled wrote:

Yad wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Off topic thread is off topic,

I don't see many tea party candidates getting elected this time round and I don't think that the dems will lose their majority in either the senate or the house.

I'm not as optimistic as that. I do believe that the Democratic party will hold the Senate. There are simply too many imploding Tea Party (GOP) candidates for them not to. I'm not nearly as sure on the House though. If the D's get a really good GOTV effort then I think they have a strong chance to retain the majority. What I'm really really hopeful for is that the Senate re-writes its rules and either removes or severely restructures the use of the filibuster.

-Yad

I hear the Illinois GOTV campaign will see a landslide number of dead people voting, even more than 2008...

Heard from a Leprechaun riding a Unicorn being led by Bigfoot no doubt. Whenever I hear or read GOP claims of voter fraud and/or intimidation it almost always reminds me of the Macbeth soliloquy ending with "...full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." Which is the typical end result of GOP claims of voting fraud and intimidation.

Right up there with Oklahoma's sharia law ballot measure hysteria.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Yad wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Off topic thread is off topic,

I don't see many tea party candidates getting elected this time round and I don't think that the dems will lose their majority in either the senate or the house.

I'm not as optimistic as that. I do believe that the Democratic party will hold the Senate. There are simply too many imploding Tea Party (GOP) candidates for them not to. I'm not nearly as sure on the House though. If the D's get a really good GOTV effort then I think they have a strong chance to retain the majority. What I'm really really hopeful for is that the Senate re-writes its rules and either removes or severely restructures the use of the filibuster.

-Yad

I hear the Illinois GOTV campaign will see a landslide number of dead people voting, even more than 2008...

Heard from a Leprechaun riding a Unicorn being led by Bigfoot no doubt. Whenever I hear or read GOP claims of voter fraud and/or intimidation it almost always reminds me of the Macbeth soliloquy ending with "...full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." Which is the typical end result of GOP claims of voting fraud and intimidation.

Right up there with Oklahoma's sharia law ballot measure hysteria.

-Yad

Why are you assuming thats a GOP claim? Not a student of Illinois voter patterns I see.

It's a matter of voter turnout. In a mid-term election, I don't see alot of moderates getting out to vote, particularly because they don't really have anyone to vote for. I for one am sick of this election cycle, and all of the bullmess commercials that get played to death.
I sit as a left-leaning libertarian, and I'm stuck between voting for Jerry Brown, and Meg Whitman. SrsLY?! Besides the fact that Gov. of California has absolutely no power to change anything, what being cuckholded by the CA legislature and all... But voting for a fringe Tea Party candidate just to "shake things up" doesn't appeal to me at all.

Same reason Prop 19 will most likely fail here in CA. Voter turnout. The people who are all fired up about this election are exactly the ones who shouldn't have a say. The moderates and social libertarians don't have any real representation in available candidates, so no wonder they're apathetic.

Speaking of Prop 19 (Legalization of Marijuana) kind of wondering where you come out on the issue Frazz, what with your Libertarian leanings...

agnosto wrote:

agnosto wrote:Let me break it down. Democrats espouse a centralized, authoritarian Federal government while Republicans have always believed that the states should be stronger than the national whole. It's the same state's rights issue that divided the country and was a major cause of the Civil War.

He was a whig and then a republican. What you are failing to mention is that the republican party of lincoln was a different animal compared to the modern republican party.

Are you arguing that the Republican party of lincoln believed that the states should be stronger than the national whole, or was that one of the ways in which it was a different animal? Lincoln certainly didn't, and it was Republicans winning the election that prompted the mostly Democratic south to seceede, so I doubt that you're going to be able to argue that the Republicans of lincoln's time believed that.

It's that 'always believed' that's a problem there.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Are you arguing that the Republican party of lincoln believed that the states should be stronger than the national whole, or was that one of the ways in which it was a different animal? Lincoln certainly didn't, and it was Republicans winning the election that prompted the mostly Democratic south to seceede, so I doubt that you're going to be able to argue that the Republicans of lincoln's time believed that.

It's that 'always believed' that's a problem there.

There was a great deal of political upheaval at the time of Lincoln's defection to the fledgling Republican party. Foremost among his reasons, in my opinion, was that the Republican party strongly supported the anti-slavery movement while the Whigs were tearing themselves apart over the issue.

I guess I may have even confused myself there with the "always" thing. I was operating in memory and I think we all know what can happen then.
The thing that's always interested me is how the two parties have flipped over the years. The democrats started as anti-federalists and the republicans as progressives and look where they stand now.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

agnosto wrote:

agnosto wrote:Let me break it down. Democrats espouse a centralized, authoritarian Federal government while Republicans have always believed that the states should be stronger than the national whole. It's the same state's rights issue that divided the country and was a major cause of the Civil War.

He was a whig and then a republican. What you are failing to mention is that the republican party of lincoln was a different animal compared to the modern republican party.

Are you arguing that the Republican party of lincoln believed that the states should be stronger than the national whole, or was that one of the ways in which it was a different animal? Lincoln certainly didn't, and it was Republicans winning the election that prompted the mostly Democratic south to seceede, so I doubt that you're going to be able to argue that the Republicans of lincoln's time believed that.

It's that 'always believed' that's a problem there.

You should probably shy away from the mixup that republicans espouse less governmental control, in reality when looking at proposals and actual action taken (rather then talking points) they generally prefer privatisation and espouse "Small government ideals" through privatisation. Note that neither of these things realistically have ever reduced government control or involvement in american affairs. A preference cutting taxes in the republican mind is historically not accompanied by budgetary cuts. Republicans tend to further invest in and improve monolithic standing governmental programs (medicare discussions during the healthcare debate for instance) rather then start or fund newer policies that would supplant or run along side such programs (instead, again, preferring that the free market take smaller concerns into it's own hand while investing that same amount of money (because remember they don't actually cut the budget) back into those largescale programmes). Democrats on the other hand largely seem willing to invest in long term and short term new solutions while cutting or transiting from standing programmes (the early proposals for removing medicare and totally overhauling the medical system as a counter). Of course neither party is every particularly consistent with how it treats problems, especially reoccurring ones so slapping boilerplate labels such as "progressive" or "conservative" onto people to differentiate opinions from parties has become common.