[Continuation] House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3 - Page 50

theprestige · 7th April 2020, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Congress (both houses) can change the law so that a President would not be able to fire an agency IG unilaterally.

Obviously there's a whole other discussion about whether they would, but they absolutely can do it (assuming it was signed or the veto overridden).

There's also a whole other discussion about whether the Legislature has constitutional authority to dictate Executive staffing decisions in this way. The constitution is pretty clear about which Executive jobs require Legislative "advice and consent". All three branches of government are pretty jealous of their constitutional privileges, and have historically rejected attempts to take them away.

I doubt any president would agree to comply with a law that prohibited him from making hiring and firing decisions within the Executive branch. It would require a Supreme Court ruling, at the very least.

Delphic Oracle · 10th April 2020, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

There's also a whole other discussion about whether the Legislature has constitutional authority to dictate Executive staffing decisions in this way. The constitution is pretty clear about which Executive jobs require Legislative "advice and consent". All three branches of government are pretty jealous of their constitutional privileges, and have historically rejected attempts to take them away.

I doubt any president would agree to comply with a law that prohibited him from making hiring and firing decisions within the Executive branch. It would require a Supreme Court ruling, at the very least.

Requiring advice and consent to fill some positions doesn't mean that requirement can't exist for other positions. In fact that are a lot of top postings that require advice and consent that are not named in the Constitution and did not exist until some 100+ years after it was written, proposed, and/or ratified.

Requiring advice and consent to fill some positions doesn't mean that no restrictions whatsoever can exist on firings.

The current standoff is such that Congress has strict guidelines on what circumstances the heads of agencies and commissions may be removed under. This means the executive can do so, but is inherently making a very hostile claim against the ousted individual that would almost certainly draw the administration into a potentially high-profile case of a politically motivated sacking and smear job.

The real hard limit is that Congress can't retain full, autonomous control of positions it creates. It is entirely possible that some agencies could have a clause where a firing of an office holder triggers (or allows the fired individual to appeal for) a Congressional review that can uphold or overturn it.

Although the real problem is that most of the rules for retaining some oversight are all predicated on the idea that the President doesn't want the office to be empty and without leadership, funding, etc. That creates a real problem when grappling with an ideology that wants to cripple social services.

theprestige · 11th April 2020, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Requiring advice and consent to fill some positions doesn't mean that requirement can't exist for other positions. In fact that are a lot of top postings that require advice and consent that are not named in the Constitution and did not exist until some 100+ years after it was written, proposed, and/or ratified.

Can you give some examples?

Quote:

Requiring advice and consent to fill some positions doesn't mean that no restrictions whatsoever can exist on firings.

It does mean that new restrictions have to have some sort of constitutional basis. The Senate can't simply say, "because we're constitutionally authorized to approve Cabinet nominees, we're also authorized to approve any and all Executive branch employees."

And I doubt Congress can simply pass a law making it so.

Delphic Oracle · 11th April 2020, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Can you give some examples?

Many term-limited positions cannot be removed once confirmed. Fed chair, for example.

A Special Counsel cannot be unilaterally fired by the President (this requires a weasely, weak-willed AG to go along).

EPA and NRC and endless other alphabet soup agencies have various verbiage about what cause of action may allow a firing. As I said, that makes the firing much more incendiary (which mattered once, in a bygone era). Point still remains, the law says the President can't just do it whimsically, there are rules about the hows and whys of it.

Quote:

It does mean that new restrictions have to have some sort of constitutional basis. The Senate can't simply say, "because we're constitutionally authorized to approve Cabinet nominees, we're also authorized to approve any and all Executive branch employees."

And I doubt Congress can simply pass a law making it so.

I'm not sure why you think that the Constitution not specifically forbidding or requiring a thing means the Constitution somehow blocks that thing.

The laws that are in place now are technically unconstitutional by your reasoning.

We can disagree on what the rules "should" be all we want, but to reject that there even can be any rules is absurd on its face.

If you wish to maintain that posture, then there's nothing left to discuss because it will only end with "we can do nothing." Pointless conversation.

dann · 4th August 2020, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Sen. Susan Collins on saying she'll vote to acquit Trump:

BWAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAA!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently Collins has never met Trump.

The Lincoln Project (Aug. 4, 2020):
President Trump officially endorses Susan Collins

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Ziggurat · 4th August 2020, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by dann

The Lincoln Project

My favorite thing about them: John Weaver, one of their founders, was a registered foreign agent for Russia.

JoeMorgue · 4th August 2020, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

My favorite thing about them: John Weaver, one of their founders, was a registered foreign agent for Russia.

So you'll vote for them for President then?

Ziggurat · 4th August 2020, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

The real hard limit is that Congress can't retain full, autonomous control of positions it creates. It is entirely possible that some agencies could have a clause where a firing of an office holder triggers (or allows the fired individual to appeal for) a Congressional review that can uphold or overturn it.

I don't think that's true. I don't think Congress is constitutionally capable of reviewing any firing decisions in the sense you mean. They can (and have) passed laws that dictate the terms under which an executive branch firing can happen (ie, it may require "just cause", etc.), but if such a firing is contested, it goes through the courts, NOT congress, because congress has no role in enforcing laws. And oversight is distinct from enforcement.

Ziggurat · 4th August 2020, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So you'll vote for them for President then?

Your lamest rule of so yet.

thaiboxerken · 4th August 2020, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So you'll vote for them for President then?

Nah, he just won't care if the person is a Russian agent.

Segnosaur · 5th August 2020, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Quote:

My favorite thing about them: John Weaver, one of their founders, was a registered foreign agent for Russia.

So you'll vote for them for President then?

Don't be silly... He won't support them if they have registered agents. Only if those agents are acting in secret. (You know, like those in the Trump administration)

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

JoeMorgue · 5th August 2020, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Your lamest rule of so yet.

I love how the Trumpers have been reduced to making up rules that don't exist and claiming arguments against their God-king break them as a way to try and save face.

Ziggurat · 5th August 2020, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I love how the Trumpers have been reduced to making up rules that don't exist and claiming arguments against their God-king break them as a way to try and save face.

You're desperately hanging on to a conspiracy theory that collapsed long ago, and you think you are in a position to lecture me about saving face? You are hypocrisy incarnate.

Belz... · 5th August 2020, 06:23 AM

Which conspiracy theory collapsed? Certainly not the Russia-TrumpAdmin one. Acquittal in the Senate was a given; it had no relation to the truth of the accusations.

JoeMorgue · 5th August 2020, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You're desperately hanging on to a conspiracy theory that collapsed long ago, and you think you are in a position to lecture me about saving face? You are hypocrisy incarnate.

"Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer."

Skeptic Ginger · 5th August 2020, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

My favorite thing about them: John Weaver, one of their founders, was a registered foreign agent for Russia.

This is wonderful. It means Russia has switched sides. They've had enough of the mentally ill guy that hangs on Putin's leg when he visits.

Ziggurat · 5th August 2020, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This is wonderful. It means Russia has switched sides.

The rationalizations you have to go through to keep your conspiracy theory alive are a sight to behold.

Belz... · 5th August 2020, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The rationalizations you have to go through to keep your conspiracy theory alive are a sight to behold.

Again: what conspiracy theory?

kookbreaker · 5th August 2020, 10:20 AM

Did BrooklynBaby hack Ziggurat's account?

Belz... · 5th August 2020, 10:26 AM

It's a fact that the Russian state has interfered with the presidential elections in 2016. It's a fact that a suspiciously disproportionate number of contacts existed between people directly related to Trump and his campaign and Russian assets, which raises important questions. Trump himself has a long history of using his properties to help Russian oligarchs and mobsters launder money extracted from the motherland, seems to have had a political epiphany on his first trip to Russia in the 80s, and fawns over Putin like a schoolboy in puberty. Add to that a number of other odd facts, like the involvement of Deutschebank and Trump's ties to Russian markets, and it's not really a conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign had some sort of coordination with the Russian state during the elections; it's instead a very plausible scenario.

Now, maybe it turns out to be false, but it's nothing like a conspiracy theory.

Meadmaker · 5th August 2020, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

"Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer."

I like it. Seriously. That's cool. What's it from?

(I have a feeling I am demonstrating a lack of pop culture awareness, but them's the breaks. One of these days I'll get around to watching "Game of Thrones", too.)

ETA: And of course, I should have just googled it. It's from Rick and Morty.......whatever that is.

tyr_13 · 5th August 2020, 05:08 PM

He asked Russia to interfere on national TV. He said he'd take assistance again.

It isn't a question that he wanted and sought Russian help. He did, on camera, several times. End of.

Trebuchet · 5th August 2020, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Did BrooklynBaby hack Ziggurat's account?

No, "rule of so" was pretty much The Big Dog, aka some number that I forget.

kookbreaker · 5th August 2020, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

No, "rule of so" was pretty much The Big Dog, aka some number that I forget.

A lot of others picked that one up. I was thinking more along the lines of how anything that goes against Dear Leader is a 'hoax' or similar term, no matter what the evidence.

Stacyhs · 5th August 2020, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by dann

The Lincoln Project (Aug. 4, 2020):
President Trump officially endorses Susan Collins

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Thanks. I enjoyed that!

JoeMorgue · 6th August 2020, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I like it. Seriously. That's cool. What's it from?

Rick and Morty. It's basically a new, more quippy "I've been called worse by better people."

Darat · 9th January 2021, 06:27 AM

I’ve split the discussion about a 2nd impeachment to its own thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=348878

Posted By:Darat

10th April 2020, 02:37 PM	#1962
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,371	Originally Posted by theprestige There's also a whole other discussion about whether the Legislature has constitutional authority to dictate Executive staffing decisions in this way. The constitution is pretty clear about which Executive jobs require Legislative "advice and consent". All three branches of government are pretty jealous of their constitutional privileges, and have historically rejected attempts to take them away. I doubt any president would agree to comply with a law that prohibited him from making hiring and firing decisions within the Executive branch. It would require a Supreme Court ruling, at the very least. Requiring advice and consent to fill some positions doesn't mean that requirement can't exist for other positions. In fact that are a lot of top postings that require advice and consent that are not named in the Constitution and did not exist until some 100+ years after it was written, proposed, and/or ratified. Requiring advice and consent to fill some positions doesn't mean that no restrictions whatsoever can exist on firings. The current standoff is such that Congress has strict guidelines on what circumstances the heads of agencies and commissions may be removed under. This means the executive can do so, but is inherently making a very hostile claim against the ousted individual that would almost certainly draw the administration into a potentially high-profile case of a politically motivated sacking and smear job. The real hard limit is that Congress can't retain full, autonomous control of positions it creates. It is entirely possible that some agencies could have a clause where a firing of an office holder triggers (or allows the fired individual to appeal for) a Congressional review that can uphold or overturn it. Although the real problem is that most of the rules for retaining some oversight are all predicated on the idea that the President doesn't want the office to be empty and without leadership, funding, etc. That creates a real problem when grappling with an ideology that wants to cripple social services.
	Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 10th April 2020 at 02:39 PM.

11th April 2020, 01:00 PM	#1964
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,371	Originally Posted by theprestige Can you give some examples? Many term-limited positions cannot be removed once confirmed. Fed chair, for example. A Special Counsel cannot be unilaterally fired by the President (this requires a weasely, weak-willed AG to go along). EPA and NRC and endless other alphabet soup agencies have various verbiage about what cause of action may allow a firing. As I said, that makes the firing much more incendiary (which mattered once, in a bygone era). Point still remains, the law says the President can't just do it whimsically, there are rules about the hows and whys of it. Quote: It does mean that new restrictions have to have some sort of constitutional basis. The Senate can't simply say, "because we're constitutionally authorized to approve Cabinet nominees, we're also authorized to approve any and all Executive branch employees." And I doubt Congress can simply pass a law making it so. I'm not sure why you think that the Constitution not specifically forbidding or requiring a thing means the Constitution somehow blocks that thing. The laws that are in place now are technically unconstitutional by your reasoning. We can disagree on what the rules "should" be all we want, but to reject that there even can be any rules is absurd on its face. If you wish to maintain that posture, then there's nothing left to discuss because it will only end with "we can do nothing." Pointless conversation.
	Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 11th April 2020 at 01:03 PM.

4th August 2020, 07:30 AM	#1966
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by dann The Lincoln Project My favorite thing about them: John Weaver, one of their founders, was a registered foreign agent for Russia.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

4th August 2020, 07:31 AM	#1967
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,693	Originally Posted by Ziggurat My favorite thing about them: John Weaver, one of their founders, was a registered foreign agent for Russia. So you'll vote for them for President then?
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

4th August 2020, 07:35 AM	#1968
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle The real hard limit is that Congress can't retain full, autonomous control of positions it creates. It is entirely possible that some agencies could have a clause where a firing of an office holder triggers (or allows the fired individual to appeal for) a Congressional review that can uphold or overturn it. I don't think that's true. I don't think Congress is constitutionally capable of reviewing any firing decisions in the sense you mean. They can (and have) passed laws that dictate the terms under which an executive branch firing can happen (ie, it may require "just cause", etc.), but if such a firing is contested, it goes through the courts, NOT congress, because congress has no role in enforcing laws. And oversight is distinct from enforcement.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

7th April 2020, 07:27 AM	#1961
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,675	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Congress (both houses) can change the law so that a President would not be able to fire an agency IG unilaterally. Obviously there's a whole other discussion about whether they would, but they absolutely can do it (assuming it was signed or the veto overridden). There's also a whole other discussion about whether the Legislature has constitutional authority to dictate Executive staffing decisions in this way. The constitution is pretty clear about which Executive jobs require Legislative "advice and consent". All three branches of government are pretty jealous of their constitutional privileges, and have historically rejected attempts to take them away. I doubt any president would agree to comply with a law that prohibited him from making hiring and firing decisions within the Executive branch. It would require a Supreme Court ruling, at the very least.

11th April 2020, 11:24 AM	#1963
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,675	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Requiring advice and consent to fill some positions doesn't mean that requirement can't exist for other positions. In fact that are a lot of top postings that require advice and consent that are not named in the Constitution and did not exist until some 100+ years after it was written, proposed, and/or ratified. Can you give some examples? Quote: Requiring advice and consent to fill some positions doesn't mean that no restrictions whatsoever can exist on firings. It does mean that new restrictions have to have some sort of constitutional basis. The Senate can't simply say, "because we're constitutionally authorized to approve Cabinet nominees, we're also authorized to approve any and all Executive branch employees." And I doubt Congress can simply pass a law making it so.

4th August 2020, 07:36 AM	#1969
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue So you'll vote for them for President then? Your lamest rule of so yet.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

4th August 2020, 10:12 PM	#1970
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,711	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue So you'll vote for them for President then? Nah, he just won't care if the person is a Russian agent.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

5th August 2020, 05:18 AM	#1971
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,124	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Quote: My favorite thing about them: John Weaver, one of their founders, was a registered foreign agent for Russia. So you'll vote for them for President then? Don't be silly... He won't support them if they have registered agents. Only if those agents are acting in secret. (You know, like those in the Trump administration) Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

5th August 2020, 05:49 AM	#1972
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,693	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Your lamest rule of so yet. I love how the Trumpers have been reduced to making up rules that don't exist and claiming arguments against their God-king break them as a way to try and save face.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

5th August 2020, 06:09 AM	#1973
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue I love how the Trumpers have been reduced to making up rules that don't exist and claiming arguments against their God-king break them as a way to try and save face. You're desperately hanging on to a conspiracy theory that collapsed long ago, and you think you are in a position to lecture me about saving face? You are hypocrisy incarnate.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

5th August 2020, 06:23 AM	#1974
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,442	Which conspiracy theory collapsed? Certainly not the Russia-TrumpAdmin one. Acquittal in the Senate was a given; it had no relation to the truth of the accusations.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

5th August 2020, 06:28 AM	#1975
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,693	Originally Posted by Ziggurat You're desperately hanging on to a conspiracy theory that collapsed long ago, and you think you are in a position to lecture me about saving face? You are hypocrisy incarnate. "Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer."
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

5th August 2020, 10:00 AM	#1976
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,000	Originally Posted by Ziggurat My favorite thing about them: John Weaver, one of their founders, was a registered foreign agent for Russia. This is wonderful. It means Russia has switched sides. They've had enough of the mentally ill guy that hangs on Putin's leg when he visits.

5th August 2020, 10:18 AM	#1977
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger This is wonderful. It means Russia has switched sides. The rationalizations you have to go through to keep your conspiracy theory alive are a sight to behold.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

5th August 2020, 10:19 AM	#1978
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,442	Originally Posted by Ziggurat The rationalizations you have to go through to keep your conspiracy theory alive are a sight to behold. Again: what conspiracy theory?
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

5th August 2020, 10:20 AM	#1979
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,178	Did BrooklynBaby hack Ziggurat's account?
	__________________ www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun! Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.

5th August 2020, 10:26 AM	#1980
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,442	It's a fact that the Russian state has interfered with the presidential elections in 2016. It's a fact that a suspiciously disproportionate number of contacts existed between people directly related to Trump and his campaign and Russian assets, which raises important questions. Trump himself has a long history of using his properties to help Russian oligarchs and mobsters launder money extracted from the motherland, seems to have had a political epiphany on his first trip to Russia in the 80s, and fawns over Putin like a schoolboy in puberty. Add to that a number of other odd facts, like the involvement of Deutschebank and Trump's ties to Russian markets, and it's not really a conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign had some sort of coordination with the Russian state during the elections; it's instead a very plausible scenario. Now, maybe it turns out to be false, but it's nothing like a conspiracy theory.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

5th August 2020, 03:53 PM	#1981
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,277	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue "Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer." I like it. Seriously. That's cool. What's it from? (I have a feeling I am demonstrating a lack of pop culture awareness, but them's the breaks. One of these days I'll get around to watching "Game of Thrones", too.) ETA: And of course, I should have just googled it. It's from Rick and Morty.......whatever that is.
	Last edited by Meadmaker; 5th August 2020 at 03:55 PM.

5th August 2020, 05:08 PM	#1982
tyr_13 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 16,433	He asked Russia to interfere on national TV. He said he'd take assistance again. It isn't a question that he wanted and sought Russian help. He did, on camera, several times. End of.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

5th August 2020, 05:22 PM	#1983
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 31,066	Originally Posted by kookbreaker Did BrooklynBaby hack Ziggurat's account? No, "rule of so" was pretty much The Big Dog, aka some number that I forget.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

5th August 2020, 05:26 PM	#1984
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,178	Originally Posted by Trebuchet No, "rule of so" was pretty much The Big Dog, aka some number that I forget. A lot of others picked that one up. I was thinking more along the lines of how anything that goes against Dear Leader is a 'hoax' or similar term, no matter what the evidence.
	__________________ www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun! Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.

6th August 2020, 05:48 AM	#1986
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,693	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I like it. Seriously. That's cool. What's it from? Rick and Morty. It's basically a new, more quippy "I've been called worse by better people."
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."