kelpdiver 2 #26 August 11, 2011 QuoteIndeed! And it's not just commas: "Free consultation. No money down." becomes "Free consultation? No. Money down." by merely changing two bases of punctuation. cite - Lionel Hutz how come you retired Mr Hutz? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 August 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Could be worse, I could be one of the people that doesn't have a clue about basics of government and therefore has to rely on the opinions of others to tell me what to think like some jackasses I know. Just to appease you, I'll refrain from asking other peoples' viewpoints before cementing my own opinion in the future. Instead of seeking more information I'll just entrench myself in my beliefs based only on what I currently know. Heaven forbid should someone admit when they have a lack of knowledge in a certain area and ask someone more knowledgeable. The comment wasn't directed at you. LOL - this is deja vu. Smells even worse than last time. Getting back to the real question, which I will emphatically declare is a perfectly reasonable question to ask (backed by my degree at the top rated poli sci program in the country): Your legislator still gets to vote on the bill. That is all that is required by the Constitution. It doesn't cover how Congress operates, be it the use of subcommittees who make decisions that your rep doesn't vote on, or how much debate or alteration can be done on the main floor. It would be very difficult to pass the budget without some game rules being put in place by the parties' leadership. The shame of this process is that while we'd get a better result if each party sent 6 reasonable persons to this committee, it seems more likely that we'll instead get 12 hard liners. High school civics classes, as well as the Constitution, don't cover very much about what really happens in Washington. You see that bit about checks and balances, but unless you have an extensive discussion about reality you might actually think that the Executive and Legislative branches are equal. The process of how a bill is passed skips over the really important part about the rule making that occurs in the bureaucracy (EX branch) after the Presidents signs it. Executive orders are glossed over. The War Powers Act will probably be discussed, but not how pointless it is, or that it's never been tested and then examined by the Judicial branch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #28 August 11, 2011 Quotemy degree at the top rated poli sci program in the country You attended Harvard's Kennedy School of Government? Cool! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #29 August 11, 2011 QuoteQuotemy degree at the top rated poli sci program in the country You attended Harvard's Kennedy School of Government? Cool! There's not much science involved in politics except maybe a corollary to Newton's Third Law of Motion, to wit: The mutual forces of political action and reaction between two bodies, the government and the populace, are equal, opposite and at right angles to each other.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #30 August 11, 2011 Quote There's not much science involved in politics except maybe a corollary to Newton's Third Law of Motion, to wit: there's definitely very little math in it, at least any use of numbers that follows rules. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #31 August 11, 2011 QuoteQuote There's not much science involved in politics except maybe a corollary to Newton's Third Law of Motion, to wit: there's definitely very little math in it, at least any use of numbers that follows rules. Yeah, 'cause like, NOBODY uses statistical analysis in PoliSci. Please.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 August 11, 2011 QuoteQuote there's definitely very little math in it, at least any use of numbers that follows rules. Yeah, 'cause like, NOBODY uses statistical analysis in PoliSci. Please. Oh, certainly there is some. But there's also a pretty big chunk of people who would run screaming from a calculator. The worst class I suffered was the upper division statistical analysis class - the poor professor had to repeat several lectures because it just wasn't sinking in. And this wasn't hard stuff - this was primarily an examination of voter data where up to two variables would be considered. At risk of upsetting the lawyers here, the pre-law contingent brought the curve down substantially in there. worst example I remember was a published paper that had graphs without any definitions or units on the axes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #33 August 11, 2011 Oh, I think that the laws of thermodynamics are highly applicable to politics: First law - You can't get something for nothing (but you can still call it free.) Second law: even useful things become useless and disorder inceases Third Law - you can't reach absolute zero - even in approval ratings. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #34 August 11, 2011 QuoteOh, I think that the laws of thermodynamics are highly applicable to politics: First law - You can't get something for nothing (but you can still call it free.) Second law: even useful things become useless and disorder inceases Third Law - you can't reach absolute zero - even in approval ratings. Zeroth Law - politicians with identical approval ratings are equally hot.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #35 August 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteBut you didn't specify real, documented and certified lawyers. Hence your reply from a make-believe one. Could be worse, I could be one of the people that doesn't have a clue about basics of government and therefore has to rely on the opinions of others to tell me what to think like some jackasses I know. Your answer implies that it is so easy to determine whether something is unconstitutional. Constitutional law courses are really a breeze, an easy A, right? To answer a question about whether one thinks something is unconstitutional, one must know much more than the words of the constitution. The totality of case law and how that precedent affects the interpretation is critical, and very complicated.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #36 August 12, 2011 Quote To answer a question about whether one thinks something is unconstitutional, one must know much more than the words of the constitution. The totality of case law and how that precedent political ebb and flow affects the interpretation is critical, and very complicated. Used your sentence to reflect my thoughts on that.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #37 August 12, 2011 I agree with you on most parts. But this one is actually pretty easy to understand. Congress can delegate authority and does it all the time. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
