Jump to content

Lockesdonkey

Member
  • Content Count

    1396
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Lockesdonkey last won the day on June 11 2006

Lockesdonkey had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

421 Excellent

About Lockesdonkey

  • Rank
    Liberal Jihadist
  • Birthday 02/18/1989

Profile Information

  • Biography
    Liberal. Democrat. Arab. Muslim. Enuf said.
  • Location
    Somewhere on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border...
  • Interests
    Debate, politics, swimming, politics, science fiction, politics, computer games, politics, Quiz Bowl, politics, The Daily Show, politics, politics, and more politics
  • Occupation
    Student/political junkie
  1. Give 'em a break. They're in Italy.
  2. The disconnect between the actual state of the economy and the state of the stock market is truly obscene. I don't have time to go into details, though.
  3. I'm guessing that the first post was about that whole business that they've been telling us since elementary school where left-handed people are more likely to be creative and artistic, righties are more likely to be analytical and scientific.
  4. I'm not complaining (note that I left this out of Complain), but seriously, there's this one article in my Arabic textbook by this one Arab poetry critic entitled («هل مات الشعر؟» Hal mat al shi`ir?) whose title means "Is Poetry Dead?" The author proceeds to say, in rapid but complex succession (normally I would say that he was channeling the spirit of Derrida at the time, but the article was written in 2000), "Yes, modern poetry is horrible, and Arab culture is DOOOOOOOOOMED!" and then "No, good poetry still exists, for poetry is like matter in that it can only be altered, not destroyed, so you just have to look for it" and then "Well, on third thought, maybe it is dead and maybe it isn't, but it has definitely NOT turned itself into novels, for that is PSEUDO-CULTURE!" At which point even my grandfather, used to this kind of thing, is shaking his head in confusion. And then I had to answer questions on it...not fun. I spent more time looking up words in the dictionary than actually writing answers, something I haven't done for five straight lessons. Why exactly do critics and people of that general sort like this whole business of "Is [X important thing] dead?". Obviously (and thankfully!) they're not as all over the place as this guy, but what attracts them to it? I know the broad stroke of it (rhetorical impact, a clear way to organize the essay, and so on), but I was wondering if there's anything more specific. أشكركم بالغزل (I thank you greatly).
  5. I was merely pointing out one hole in your overbroad statement. I have a tendency to do that. I hate most broad generalizations with a passion; thank exposure to formal logic in the ninth grade. I do not advocate adopting Rayl's plan wholesale. Merely doing some things and providing some incentives. I'm closer to Ankur than Rayl on this one. Basic things like improving city infrastructure either by directly providing funds or by providing some incentive for cities to do so. Nonsense. Line by line: Madison was living in a time when the Constitution was new and the slightest change could have a massive effect on the future; it was like a particularly delicate cake fresh out of the oven, and if you touched it, it would collapse. The Constitution as it stands now is rather like the same cake, but after being left to dry for a bit. It's tough, but not brittle; it can handle some changes. And what's patently offensive is that the Constitution is or should be a museum piece, because that's about the only thing that is not and should not be constantly changing. Even if the change is relatively small, it has to be constant. The fundamental principle of the common law is that the law is not fixed. If we were in France or Germany or even Quebec, you'd be right, and the only way to change the Constitution would be through amendment. But we are not. This is an emphatically common-law jurisdiction. And in the common law, law must serve a function, the function of serving the people (hence all the ridiculous--or at least somewhat silly-looking--legal fictions, like corporate personhood, ejectment and the Chiltern Hundreds, that have been drawn up over the years). I do NOT advocate setting up a Communist or even socialist state from the Constitution, nor have I ever done so. (I leave the radical leftism to my mother, thankyouverymuch.) But neither do I advocate that we leave the Constitution like a painting which we occasionally move or change the frame for. A dead constitution is a dead state. There is an area in which it is acceptable for the Constitution's interpretation to change a little, or be flexible. I am not advocating anything that exceeds that area. Perhaps some on this thread have. I haven't.
  6. The USFG has clear constitutional authority to "establish...post roads," in addition to regulate commerce, so road and bridge repairs at least, especially on roads which could be used as main lines by the USPS, are justified even without the Commerce Clause. Furthermore, there is no limitation on the federal government's power to disburse or cease to disburse funds however and to whomever it pleases, nor is there any limitation on the federal government's power to enter into contracts with any body it pleases. If the government works through the states (which it will), the question is moot in terms of the letter of the law--which is apparently all you're interested in. The Constitution, as a single act of a common-law jurisdiction, is and always will be subject to constant reinterpretation. The common law is neither fixed nor can it be fixed nor should it be fixed; the idea behind the common law is that it is developed as we go along.
  7. Eh. They misanalyze the situation a bit. I'm not going to talk about this business of Gramsci (though I do find it a bit of a mismatch...if that's really what Gramsci was saying, then he was describing good politics, and Sarkozy is drawing from the same well), but the fact that they described what happened to the Socialists in the parliamentary elections as a defeat (which it wasn't, though it wasn't a victory either...they increased their seats, but didn't get a majority) indicates to me that they may be seeing this as in a skewed way (i.e. the Socialists are in a hopeless situation, which they are not).
  8. I agree. I live in a suburb, much to my distaste. Nobody in my family likes it, actually--we're all too isolated and we can't get anywhere, and we don't know what's going on in town (the social networks between our neighbors are all through church and guess what?! We're Muslims!) But the biggest problem is, in my opinion, that it simply costs too much to run a suburb. It's really absurd, the sheer number of schools in the district, compared to its population. I have to note: the bridge in Minnesota was in a city, connecting (unless my understanding of Twin Cities geography is horribly wrong) Minneapolis with St. Paul. TOTALLY UNRELATED CONTENT FOLLOWS: Unless you're planning on revolutionizing the beer world, you're fomenting revolution, retired. Not to be nitpicky...unless this is supposed to be a joke. In which case I laugh.
  9. Exactly the way you have it written down. We increase PHA to SSA the way that H.R. 1000 says we should. The strat on that one's clear. By which I mean, call abuse, since H.R. 1000 includes all sort of random shit if it's an actual bill. Also, make them sweat a little by asking them if they actually know what's in H.R. 1000. Most of the time, you'll find, they have no idea...
  10. I'm not going to make a complete response (not a counter, not a reply, a response...I essentially agree with the assesment) except that I happen to believe somewhat more likely, at least in the beginning of his term (which is when the damage was done). Whether he's wised up since is an open question. EDIT: Whoever negrepped me on my last post calling me a moron: 1. Show yourself and 2. Why? I was merely saying (in a hurry) that Bush had rose-tinted glasses on for the first 3-4 years of his administration. Now if you happen not to believe in Hanlon's razor that's your perogative, but I happen to believe that that particular little rule extends into the highest reaches of government and always will as long as government is run by people.
  11. In what way? If you're talking Iraq...that was a poorly-planned, rather shortsighted policy decision; at worst, enriching friends was a secondary goal, and at best a happy (for them...for the country it's deplorable) side effect. Outright corruption is a totally different animal. Where's Ankur when you need him to explain these things? History will look upon Bush with a peculiar mixture of mild disgust, bewilderment, and reluctant pity. He didn't fuck up. His advisors did, and he had the sheer idiocy to follow them early on into a ditch that he couldn't extricate himself from. Not even the firing of Rummy will help his reputation.
  12. Don't you assume that your conversations are already wiretapped? Everyone at my mosque does.
  13. Unlike the people you mentioned, Bush was neither weak-willed (Pierce) nor corrupt (Harding). He merely relied on the advice of advisors who allowed ideology to cloud their judgment. He was not outright stupid (a bit dumb, maybe, but not truly and deeply stupid), corrupt, or lily-livered. He was merely misinformed, possibly the least of the accusations that you can levy against a President. His Administration, and his somewhat naive willingness to trust the people around him, will likely be seen as his downfall. The assessment would probably be that he was a bad president, but not the worst; that he could have been a good president, but was held from that by his advisors. In that respect, the Administration will probably be held in very low esteem indeed.
×
×
  • Create New...