response 51 of 100:

Mar 11 01:53 UTC 2006

> First, lobby for a repeal of the offensive rider. 

And give another chance for similar riders? I can see an exponential
progression of them.

> Two, change the rules in CONGRESS to prevent such riders from being added in
> the first place. This discussion has really reached the height of absurdity
> when I keep mentioning this over and over, and your rebuttal leads back to
> "what would you suggest?" If you don't want to pay attention, fine. If you
> find chasing your tail to be an amusing intellectual exercise, great. 

I've said three or four times -- actually, every time someone else has mentione
d it and then some -- that I would support such a plan. However, I don't think
it can pass; this can.

> In total, though, you have thus far utterly failed to set forth any rational
> reason why a simple solution that maintains the checks and balances of
> government should be discarded in favor of a "solution" that is far less
> certain to accomplish your stated goals and also raises constitutional and
> concentration of power issues.

You have several major problems in your argument here.

1) Your "simple solution" is highly unlikely to pass -- if Congress won't pass
rule changes requiring each bill to contain its own funding (which have been in
place before but expired), this would probably die in committee.

2) You've said that the proposal won't accomplish the stated goals. Over and
over. You haven't given me any reasons that don't amount to "Congress is to be
trusted, the president isn't."

3) You've also said that the proposal discards checks and balances while your
Congressional rule change maintains them. Again, you've said this over and
over, with no warrant. I think you've got it backwards; why do you think it's
in the Constitution that Congressional pay raises don't take effect until the
next session? A Congressional rule, *internal* to Congress, can't be a check or
a balance. 

4) "Constitutional ... issues." Constitutionally speaking, I haven't seen the
text of the bill or the Supreme Court's last decision on the subject, but every
news report has claimed that the bill was written to specifically avoid the
Court's objections the last time.

5) "Concentration of power issues." I'll concede that the administration is
concentrating power. However, I have seen no evidence that a) this would
contribute to that or that b) the administration is intending it to be that.
Like I said, "there exists X" and "there exists Y" do not prove "X entails Y."
Every argument in this direction could also be made just as compellingly for
every other presidential check on either of the other branches.

response 53 of 100:

Mar 11 15:34 UTC 2006

Exponential progression:

First, one rider is attached to original bill. Two are attached to the repeal
bill. Two more are attached to bill repealing each of those.

It is a bad idea to resort to claims that your opponent is too ignorant to
understand when he's demonstrated a more thorough understanding of both
democracy, the political process, and your points.

response 55 of 100:

Mar 11 20:37 UTC 2006

I find it problematic that being related to politicians somehow imbues one
with political acumen. 

response 57 of 100:

Mar 11 21:03 UTC 2006

If you really know something, say it rather than saying that you know it. Same
with saying that you have superior understanding and I have none after I'd just
responded with at least some intelligence in detail to each of your points --
if you're trying to make the impression that you just don't have an answer,
keep on going the way you are; if you're not, stop and give your answer.

The knowledge that a rider can be added to anything without any check means
that if we can avoid passing a bill we ought to. Line-item not-veto (the
proposal under discussion) provides the check against such riders.

response 59 of 100:

Mar 11 22:13 UTC 2006

Try and follow the thread bap. That particular kinship didn't give me my 
knowledge of politics (although the others did). However, it did motivate 
me to actually learn more about politics and how things actually work (as 
opposed to klingon's fantasies). Klingon has fallen into the "if I keep 
repeating it it must be true" approach. Bzzzt. Try again junior after you 
get a REAL education. The fact is, you've REPEATEDLY failed to explain why 
a rider to a repeal act is different from a rider to a non-repeal act. 
It's not my fault your an utter failure at comprehension and are unable to 
present logical arguments. Hint: simply saying you think or feel there is 
a difference doesn't count. Now get busy suing your teachers!

response 61 of 100:

Mar 12 04:22 UTC 2006

Dude, now your just lying through your teeth like Richard when you say you 
"never said a rider to a repeal was anything special." I reread your posts 
as you suggested, and here's what I found:

#51: (me)  First, lobby for a repeal of the offensive rider.

(you)  And give another chance for similar riders? I can see an 
exponential progression of them.

#53: (you) First, one rider is attached to original bill. Two are attached 
to the repeal bill. Two more are attached to bill repealing each of those.

Unless you are claiming the same "exponential progression" occurs with 
non-repeal acts (in which case the harms are identical), there is no other 
way to interpret what you say as anything but an assertion on your part 
that repeal riders pose some special harm to the legislative process. And 
this doesn't even touch on the fact you have no evidence to back up your 
imaginative claim for what you "see." Do you see dead people, too?

Civics class is over junior. This will be on the test.

response 63 of 100:

Mar 12 04:57 UTC 2006

ahahah

response 65 of 100:

Mar 12 13:49 UTC 2006

So you seem to believe there is an ever-expanding universe of riders 
seeking bills to be attached to. What planet are you from? Riders can be 
viewed as "parasitic" and there are plenty of hosts for attachment already 
(BTW, for obvious reasons military spending and security bills are quite 
popular tools for this, not that I'd expect you to actually know this). 
There is no shortage of "host" bills that will be filled by repeal acts. 
You live in a fantasy world utterly divorced from reality. But hey, if you 
have any FACTS (not "claims", "feelings" or things only you can "see") to 
back your belief that extra riders are likely, feel free to present them.

response 67 of 100:

Mar 12 20:55 UTC 2006

No, it's your tail I won't chase. Since you were the one claiming to "see" 
an "exponential progression" the burden is on you to provide facts to 
support your vision. I will say this, though, watch how Alaskan oil 
drilling is addressed in Congress. Its supporters frequently try to add it 
as a rider. The statistics you reference make no distinction on how many 
times the same rider is attempted, and thus such figures would be 
meaningless. School's out, junior.

response 69 of 100:

Mar 12 21:15 UTC 2006

And you seem to have forgotten where I said I wasn't going to even bother
trying to respond to someone who was so wrong on the first most basic and
fundamental fact that began the discussion. Sorry, I've got better things to
do with my time than teach remedial civics lessons. You can twist that any
way you want; and even jump up and down and claim victory. From my
perspective, though, your ignorance is so broad I've wasted enough time trying
to educate you and don't intend to waste any more. School's out, vision-boy.

response 71 of 100:

Mar 13 14:04 UTC 2006

Keep telling yourself that, delusion-boy.

response 73 of 100:

Mar 13 14:17 UTC 2006

Insulting epithets don't help either. I wonder at you -- you tell people
they're "hurting the liberal cause", then you say that an opponent who's just
responded in detail to your points is too unintelligent to hold a conversation
with (cleverly circumventing your need to actually *read* his points). It would
be more to your credit if you *demonstrated* the unintelligence of my arguments
(rather than picking out one or two faults on the order of an "i" that missed
its dot and claiming those to be major and representative). Have you ever heard
of the principle of charity?