🚀 go-pugleaf

>} So you're saying Cheney didn't have to change his residency to Wyoming
>} and could have kept it in Texas. I've never heard anyone say that
>} before but it'd be interesting to hear what you base that theory on.
>
>Of course I'm not saying that; nor did I say it before.
>Whom are you trying to fool?

I sincerely thought that was the point you were trying to make,
perhaps you weren't expressing yourself well.

It's not really a sufficiently interesting point to bother to "fool"
anyone, not sure what you're trying to say now.

>} But there's also a big difference between the base question, did
>} Cheney properly change residency from Texas to Wyoming soas to fulfill
>} the constitutional requirements, and whether those requirements exist
>} at all.
>
>That *wasn't* the "base question". Neither Ian nor I, who began this
>subtopic, were discussing whether Cheney properly changed residency: and
>rightly so, as that's a matter for the courts. The discussion was
>whether or not what he did was consistent with the spirit of the
>requirement. Ian's comment starting this topic (which was quite pleasant
>when it was just he and I discussing it) was this:
>
>"As far as honesty, there are only a couple of actions I'm aware of of
>his that I consider somewhat dodgy: first, not stepping down as the head of
>the VP-picking committe when he became a front-runner for VP, and second,
>moving his residency from Texas in order to arguably make the ticket
>constitutionally able to get Texas's electoral vote.  Even if that *is*
>found to be constitutional, I still see it as rather dismissive of the
>*intent* of the Constitution, and a disturbing sign for a potential
>administration which ran partially on a platform or respect for the
>Constitution." 
>
>Emphasis his.

Ok, that seems reasonably consistent, and you believe...what?

>Just for a change, why not actually read and understand the subject
>before you jump in? You know, for variety?

Yes, I'm sure that's what the problem is...

>} I thought we already agreed that there's no constitutional requirement
>} imposed on a Senator, it's left up to the state. But there's a
>} specific constitutional requirement vis a vis vice president.
>
>Who agreed to *that*? Have you actually ever *read* the Constitution?

You're really banking a lot on this literacy argument.

Somehow I find your excited comments disingenuous. Can you imagine
why?

>Article I, Section 3:
>
>" 3. No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the
> age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United
> States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that
> State for which he shall be chosen."
>
>The wording for the P and VP is identical: "inhabitant".

That's fine, and what has this got to do with whether Cheney changed
his residency legally or not? I thought Cheney was running for Vice
President.

Oh right, you were trying to draw an analogy to Hillary Clinton whom
you intensely dislike.

But aren't you therefore just arguing that neither Hillary nor Cheney
satisfy residency requirements?

I think you've argued yourself into a corner and that's why you're
losing it and acting angry at me.

Take a deep breath and start again, perhaps.

>} Or perhaps you're talking about some spiritual level rather than legal
>} requirements, it's hard to tell.
>
>Or perhaps you're talking out of your elbow. :)

Well, I think your whole point is that my comment above is exactly
right, you're arguing that Cheney is more a Wyoming'er in some
non-legal sense than Hillary is a New Yorker (wasn't that almost
exactly your own words?)

But I'm getting the feeling if I said the sun rises in the east you'd
be sniping.

>} A carpetbagger is a derogatory term referring to northeners who were
>} sent down south in the aftermath of the Civil War to fill various
>} ministerial and bureaucratic positions. It was a bitter symbol of the
>} south's defeat.
>
>"Carpetbagger" is also used as a general term to refer to someone who,
>well, does what Hillary Clinton did.  Hint: I was not the first
>person to refer to Hillary Clinton as a carpetbagger.

Ok, I disagree with all of them, is that ok? Can I do that?

Barring some sort of amazing revelation it seems to me that Hillary
was chosen by the New York Democratic Party as their candidate in a
fair and open process, and then elected by a landslide in a fair and
open election.

It still seems to me that the term "carpetbagger" implies something
sordid and forced upon an electorate.

>} Except for the out of state analogy it's hard to see where something
>} as voluntary and popularly supported as happened with Hillary in NY as
>} being much of a carpetbagging.
>
>I'm sure it's hard for *you* to see, being a completely brainwashed
>partisan. Amazing.

I'm partisan, but you refer to "scandals" which Hillary is guilty of
but you can't seem to specify.

I guess if it's partisan to point out that Hillary Clinton won the New
York Senate seat by a relative landslide in a fair and open election
then ok, I'm partisan.

Can you be a little more specific in what your complaints are?

Right now they seem to me that you're just frustrated that I won't buy
your bullshit without objection.

>Type "hillary clinton carpetbagger" into google.com and you'll get 2,890
>matches.

Have you tried typing "alien abductee" into google.com? I got 9,790
matches.

>} >Yes, I think New Yorkers were dumb to vote in Hillary Clinton, a carpetbagger
>} >with no real political experience, dubious ethics, a trail of scandals,
>} >a great number of enemies in Congress and IMO no interest whatsoever
>} >in their state.
>} 
>} Oh boy here we go again with the recitation of the Republican Catechism.
>
>I'm not a Republican, and if you think only Republicans dislike the

I didn't say you were a Republican, I said you were reciting the
Republican Catechism which is a metaphorical way of saying that you
state things like Hillary Clinton has a "trail of scandals" (your
words above) as an article of blind faith.

I think you'd do better explaining what you meant by this exactly
rather than just losing it. What scandals exactly were you referring
to?

And even if it were true how does this make Cheney's residency switch
legitimate?

That is what you were talking about, right?

>} I daresay Hillary has had a helluva lot more political experience than
>} George W Bush whose credentials amount to sobering up at 40 and
>} crawling into the Texas governor's office, one of the weakest
>} do-nothing governor's position in the country by design (it's
>} literally a part-time job and mostly symbolic), a few years ago on his
>} daddy's coattails.
>
>Talk about damning with faint praise. Would you care to produce a
>*single* posting of mine where I have ever called George Bush a good
>candidate?

I never said you did.

I just said that if you think Hillary is a weak candidate than what
can we say about George W Bush? While Hillary was being the first lady
of Arkansas etc GWB was, I dunno, sleeping it off in the drunk tank.

>} Take a deep breath, when you start attacking me personally rather than
>} discussing the issues you're going straight off the deep end and only
>} marginalizing yourself.
>
>Actually, my record over the last couple of weeks will show that I
>generally do *not* attack people on a personal level. However, I guess I

Until someone points out that you're being contradictory and
inaccurate, and then you're barking and snapping like a kicked dog.

Whatever.

If you have something substantive to discuss I'm sure we're all
ears.

If you want to just talk about me, well hey, get in line!

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World              | Public Access Internet     | Since 1989     *oo*