benny

Yes, we know. That's why it's pointless to go on trying to get you to understand something that is simple and printed in black and white. I'll just go back to what I originally said, which is that the issue is debatable. Yes yes, Tuna, we know it's all black and white to you, but, in actuality, if such a question were to arrise (like if Kerry actually tried to have Clinton run with im) then there would be much debate. The courts, the Supreme Court would probably decide. So you see, even when it's right there in the Constitution in "black and white", it's still open to interpretation, and yes, debate. Never go to a DZ strip show.

I'm the one twisting words and arguing... all I'm asking for is a simple explanation of why Clinton is ineligible under the 12th amendment to run for VP. The one sentence you've quoted says he can't be VP if he can't be President (or at least that's how it reads to me). If you care to elaborate further, provdie some more quotes, or at least attempt to explain your logic for declaring his ineligibility, fine, if not, please quit implying that I'm the one that's thickheaded. Never go to a DZ strip show.

The only thing the 12th amendment says about ineligibility to be VP is: But we've already agreed that Clinton isn't ineligible for the office, only being elected to it. Therefore, there remains no other reason in the 12th amendment that would prevent Clinton from either running for or being appointed VP in the case of one's unfortunate demise. Never go to a DZ strip show.

Correct. He can serve, just not be elected. However he cannot run as anyone's VP because of the 12th Amendment. Read the scenario I posted a post or two up. That would be a scenario where he could possibly be President again. I read your scenario and agree that is a case where Bill could serve as President again. However, I disagree with your interpretation of the 12th amendment, particularly if you take it out of the context of a relationship with the twenty-second amendment. Bill is by no means ineligible to serve in the office of President. He meets all citizenship and age requirements (probably what they were concerned with when they wrote the 12th). The only possible cause of his ineligibility would be the 22nd amendment but it is fairly clear that it applies to his being elected, not serving as, President. Never go to a DZ strip show.

Explain how under the auspices of the 12th amendment that Bill Clinton is ineligible for the office of President and therefore ineligible for the office of VP. Never go to a DZ strip show.

This is actually still an issue up for debate... While the 12th ammendment does hold that a vp must also be eligible for the presidency, the 22 ammendment is probably the source of Clinton's ineligibility which you are implying. However, you may be making an erroneous interpretation of the 22nd, which reads: It seems that rather than being ineligible to serve as President, he is only ineligible to be elected. Never go to a DZ strip show.

[reply>It's far more accurate to refer to Reagan as the former governor of >the largest state in the country than as an actor in this context. If you're a republican, of course. I think even most Republicans think of him as an "actor" president before they they of him as the former governor of California. And it only makes sense. Think about it, if he had never been President, would anyone outside of the state of California remember him as the governor? No, they'd think of him as the actor. Never go to a DZ strip show.

Hell, we used to be a "damp" county here... then we got beer on sundays, then liquor by the drink, now the damn state's got a lottery, we're all goin' to hell in a handbasket! Never go to a DZ strip show.

I think a little something is missing here and that's the concept of clearing your airspace while waving off, before pulling, etc. On tracking dives it's always a barrel roll for me at the end (a very fortuitous barrel roll on my last dive) and at wave off on any other dive it's twist head as far as possible to each side to check for traffic above... Low man may have right of way but personally I'm gonna do everything I can to make sure I'm not dumping with some over me. Never go to a DZ strip show.

I don't think the Onion changed, it just seems to me that in the case above reality and humor are closely linked. Never go to a DZ strip show.

"Give me liberty or give me death" Apparently some thought liberty, or freedom, was more important than life itself and were willing to sacrifice so as not to lose freedom. Now, the security hawks say, "Give me life at all costs, fuck liberty." Never go to a DZ strip show.

I'm wondering how you and the rest of the group feel about prosecuting children as adults. Surely if we command the same level of responsibility we should offer the same privileges. Seems that anything less would be a violation of the concept of equal treatment under the law. Never go to a DZ strip show.

Assuming they allow us to. Never go to a DZ strip show.

I'll make a peace offering: Michael Moore is a liar. As we are all liars, or are guilty of having told a lie at one point in our lives, usually to avoid trouble or accomplish a desired result, such as say, convincing people that it's the right thing to do to initiate a large-scale ground invasion of a sovereign nation. But I have to ask the question again for you detractors, have you seen it? Because, at least for me the point of BFC wasn't that guns were the main problem, after all part of the film took us to Canada where Michael pointed out that although there are many guns per capita, there is relatively little violence. So, in a way, you could view it as supporting the gun cause, after all the Canadians can handle guns without killing people. So maybe MM's point was really that American's are just a bunch of fucked up assholes. Which I really wouldn't disagree with anyway. Never go to a DZ strip show.

The names of half the sites and the fact that they are devoted to being against Michael Moore is proof enough of the bias. The fact that they'd spend hard-earned money on a website against one man alone is fairly glaring evidence of bias against him. If that were not the case do you think anybody would give a damn about the editing of speeches in a documentary or whatever you like to call it? Never go to a DZ strip show.

While I've read the book which I found in the the comedy (note: not history) section of the bookstore and I think I remember a passage similar to this I must say, if chiding MM for this: he might at least give us a reference of where in the book that occurred so that we might more easily learn of these lies. I guess I'll have to go buy it again so i can read it and know that every ideologue (not just those I disagree with) use anectdotes which may or may not be true to make their points. Never go to a DZ strip show.

I'm really glad you're not going to dance with me, that would be very un-red-blooded-god-fearing-capitalist-gun-loving-hetero-America n of you. As for your sites, well, bias as we know, runs both ways. I'm sure Moore edited speeches and even took things out of context, writers, editors, etc do so all the time. This also happens on both sides of the fence. You see it as misleading, I see it as being done for effect. Showing Heston say "from my cold dead hands" or whatever immediately after pictures of weeping victims of gun violence doesn't literally say "this happen a split second after those people cried". What it does say is that whether or not it was 11 days or 1 year after Columbine, Charlton doesn't give a f&ck, he wants his guns and will fight to keep them. But I'm not talking about editing and things like that really because it goes on all over the place and anyone with half an ounce of sensibility about realizes that, particularly when viewing something with an ideological slant. What I'm talking about is things that can clearly be identified as fact, like "x amount of people died last year from gunshots". Has he lied about something like that? Never go to a DZ strip show.

Yep I've seen a couple of his films and read a couple of his books. I know he's very biased and spins things his way. Much of it is simply editorial commentary with some interesting facts thrown in along the way. I have yet to see something that was represented to be a fact by Michael Moore disproven by any of you. You'd think as much as y'all obviously hate the guy you'd just be jumping to come up with something so where is it? Umm, my point was that not everything that exists can be categorized and pigeon-holed to our liking. The fact that the film is awarded for a documentary category is not to say that everything in it can or should be taken literally or that it is fact, regardless of Webster's definition. No disagreement there, that's what choice is all about. You definitely have the right to that opinion however noone has yet pointed out one single little mistake or inconsistency so is it really that I'm trying so hard to defend it or is it you with the effort to attack? And still the question, have you experienced any of his work? Never go to a DZ strip show.

How are they turning to personal attacks since they are losing the battle of ideas? Most people think it's wrong to violate the Geneva convention and do such things as humiliating and abusing prisoners sexually. Most people think it's wrong to circumvent the Constitution of the United States of America. Alot of people disapprove of the way the President has handled the situation in Iraq. Alot of people aren't happy with the way the President has handled the economy. So what idea is it that the President is winning on? He can't fall back on 9/11 forever. Eventually times goes by and people forget how afraid they were. So, he was winning on fear for a while but fear is more an emotion than an idea. Never go to a DZ strip show.

His "facts" have been proven false in several places and by several sources. I just love it when people resort to the dictionary in an attempt to prove their points as if the semantics of the English language actually had anything to do with what they are saying. Documentary happens to be the category that his films are placed in. As we all know, some categories can be vague or overlap. Plus, I don't think they've ever had an "editorial" category in film-making which is probably the most appropriate for his work. Nonetheless, he does interview real people about real events so... Now, as far as those facts which have been proven wrong, lay some out. Specifics, links, whatever, if it's so readily available. A quote by MM follwed by documentation that it is a lie would be great. But then maybe I'd just say like you guys about GW and Iraq's WMD, "he wasn't lying, he was just misinformed" Never go to a DZ strip show.

Good choice......I like seeing her kick Bill O's ass on his own show......She is usually right on... ~R+R Michelle Malkin might could be considered right on in some sense if she weren't a xenophobic white supremacist stuck in an asian woman's body. but as for my picks... 1. John Edwards (he was my first choice in the first place) 2. Ayn Rand (oh my I agree with Kennedy sort of, though I think she wasn't a native born citizen so that may be out) 3. Harold Ford Jr. Never go to a DZ strip show.

Have any of the Michael Moore haters actually seen a Michael Moore film? Have any of you actually read any of his books? Have you actually found out what things he states as "fact" and then done research that actually disproves him? If so, lay it out please. Otherwise, you sound much more ideologically biased then Michael Moore could ever be. Never go to a DZ strip show.

At my DZ we trackers usually get our own pass which comes after everyone else has exited the otter, then we go two miles out and track in to the DZ, but we're also talking groups of several trackers. Never go to a DZ strip show.

well you could always try to show us better boobies Never go to a DZ strip show.

thanks, i needed a good boobie bounce to brighten my day Never go to a DZ strip show.