SBLive handles Blank-O with kidgloves

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

Now we must vote for Dr. Ron Paul to lead the nation.

I'll seriously consider it. But I don't throw my vote away either. He must be stong in the poles, a true contender with a real statistical chance. I'm not much for making a "statement" when I prefer one true contender over the other and have a chance to sway the situation. (voting for the lesser of two evils because I don't want the badest evil in power)

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

1. That is from (I assume) some dictionary, since the Constitution clearly defines treason in article III:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

So "any violation of the Bill Of Rights is treason" is ludicrous. If that were true every single President of the United States (including the current one) would have been executed because every single Presidential administration since at least Lincoln has had at least one Executive action ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

I ask again, why do you consider it acceptable to personally selectively ignore portions of the Constitution (such as the very specific definition of treason) but when someone else does it (such as the not-court-verified right for an individual to bear arms) you consider it an offense worthy of execution?

The U.S. Constitution is a wonderful document and the men who wrote it were wise and forward-thinking, but it aint perfect, which is why it is from time to time amended. Clearly, an excellent case can be made that it's definition of treason can and should be applied to such heinous crimes against the Republic (defined as the United States, or simply "We The People") as violations of the Bill Of Rights, particularly violations against the Second Amendment. As for the Second Amendment right to bear arms not bein "court verified"...

"during the years of Chief Justice Earl Warren's Court (1953–69), when most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights were held to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (1868; "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens").

Gun rights advocates interpret the Second Amendment as a guarantee to individuals of the right to keep and bear arms without any government interference whatsoever. Researcher David B. Kopel of the New York University School of Law concluded that the Supreme Court has generally agreed with this interpretation. In "The Supreme Court's Thirty-Five Other Second Amendment Cases" (St. Louis University Public Law Review, vol. 18, no. 99, 1999) he wrote:

[T]he question whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right can be pretty well settled by looking at the thirty-five other Supreme Court cases which quote, cite, or discuss the Second Amendment. These cases suggest that the Justices of the Supreme Court do now and usually have regarded the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" as an individual right, rather than as a right of state governments.

Consider for a moment the spirit or intent of the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms is an "inalienable right", meanin that it is "God given" and as such can be neither given nor taken away by men (the government), provided you've not been convicted of any serious crimes or adjudicated mentally deficient. The Second Amendment holds the distinction of bein our most important inalienable right, as it is the ultimate insurance that our other inalienable rights remain just that...inalienable and inviolate. Violations of this most precious right are a direct threat to our Constitutional Republic, to our way of life, and without a doubt meet the definition of "levying War against the United States" (again defined as "We The People"), and therefore rate the ultimate penalty, lest everything this country stands for be lost.

Simply put, Joe, if you're a legally armed American citizen and your own government disarms ya, they're deprivin ya of your right to "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit O' Happiness"...in other words, the government becomes the enemy when they wage war on us, and that is treason!

You're poorly served by your penchant for semantics, as it is usually your undoin in these debates. By your logic, the Rosenbergs should never have been executed, since we were not at war with the Soviet Union. You may not have invented "political correctness", but it sure as hell seems to be your guidin philosophy.

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by rhertz

I'll seriously consider it. But I don't throw my vote away either. He must be stong in the poles, a true contender with a real statistical chance. I'm not much for making a "statement" when I prefer one true contender over the other and have a chance to sway the situation. (voting for the lesser of two evils because I don't want the badest evil in power)

A wise policy...but you'll find that Dr. Paul is indeed a "serious contender"

Ron Paul Odds Slashed Dramatically: 15 to 1 from 200 to 1
It was only two weeks ago that 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul was listed at Sportsbook.com with odds of 200 to 1. In fact, early in the month he was not even offered on the political betting menu. My how things have changed in the past month.

Carrie Stroup here with some startling news concerning Ron Paul. Sportsbook.com (see website here) had experienced such a dramatically insurgence of betting action on Mr. Paul over the past two weeks they were forced to slash odds from 200 to 1 to the current 15 to 1 odds.

"Ron Paul is a serious contender whose grass roots campaign is growing dramatically," explains Payton O'Brien, Senior Editor of Gambling911.com, one of the world's leading political betting news sources. "No other single candidate for US President has received the type of interest generated here at Gambling911.com."

Case in point, articles on Ron Paul in some cases generated four times the amount of interest than both Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani articles combined.

Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estés in her piece for The Moderate Voice questions whether Paul will jump to the third party, something the folks at Sportsbook.com are watching closely as well since 15 to 1 odds still offer a tremendous payout for gamblers ($1500 for every $100 bet should he win)

"Could Ron Paul’s freshest strategy be to keep showing up for all his party’s nominee debates, bringing his message out over and over again… and then, near the midnight hour, maybe suddenly say, You know what guys? I’m booking. I’m going to run Third Party.


Not the future First Lady Mrs Paul unfortunately, but Carrie
Stroup continues to monitor Ron Paul betting odds along with
all other US Presidential candidates.


"A lot of people right now, seem to be thinking it might make stark sense to vote third party. All across the blogplanet one can read post after post from writers on the left, right and middle, fed up with two parties who’re coughing a 2 cylinder engine up the mountain of US woes, while loudly proclaiming they’re running a finned Hemi. Many people think they look and act the same. Only different colored socks. Maybe."

Representatives from Sportsbook.com agree that the backing of Paul is has been significant enough to shorten odds to what might very well amount to the biggest slashing in online gambling history.

"Read all the blogs, the Ron Paul news forums, and you'll see people saying they have either placed bets or considered placing bets on their favorite candidate at those high odds," a Sportsbook.com representative told Gambling911.com late Wednesday. "We will likely be slashing odds further in the coming weeks and quite possibly days since Ron Paul's momentum is really building."

For online gamblers a win would mean more than just money in one's own pocket. Ron Paul is the only candidate with 20 to 1 or better odds of becoming the next US President who supports legalized online gambling. A handful of his colleagues, including Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, attached an measure to curb some forms of online gambling to an unrelated port security act.

Paul considered the act "underhanded" and a perfect example of what is wrong with today's political system. Paul was also one of the few who had no other choice but to vote against the port security act due to the slimy tactics used during the waning days of Congressional session last October in getting the measure passed into law.

----

Related Articles:

Ron Paul Presidential Odds Slashed in Half
Online Gambling Community: Don't Underestimate Ron Paul Popularity
Online Gambling: Don't Underestimate Ron Paul
Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Wants Internet Gambling Legalized

----

Carrie Stroup, Gambling911.com

Originally published May 30, 2007 10:15 pm ET

[joepole]

You're poorly served by your penchant for semantics, as it is usually your undoin in these debates.

Hahaha, my undoin'. I must have forgotten about all those times you've schooled me.

By your logic, the Rosenbergs should never have been executed, since we were not at war with the Soviet Union.

No, that doesn't follow "my logic" at all. "My logic" says that treason is a specific crime with specific circumstances outlined in the constitution. The Rosenbergs clearly met that standard, as selling nuclear secrets to the Russkies was clearly "adhering to [our] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

You may not have invented "political correctness", but it sure as hell seems to be your guidin philosophy.

Do you even know what "political correctness" means? I'm probably the least politically correct person here.

Clearly, an excellent case can be made that it's definition of treason can and should be applied to such heinous crimes against the Republic as violations of the Bill Of Rights

Clear as mud and as excellent as a nude photo of Hilary Clinton. Do you believe George W. Bush should be executed for treason? He was found by the highest court in the nation to have "violated the Bill of Rights." Clinton, too. And Bush Sr. And Reagan. And Carter, etc. Plus those judges that wouldn't take down their 10 commandments and all the state legislatures that passed laws banning abortion before Roe v. Wade and anyone that ever worked in a segregated public school.

Damn, we're going to have to come up with some more efficient execution methods if we're going to rub out the hundreds of thousands of people that commit the heinous act of "violating the Bill of Rights" every year.

No offense, but if I have to choose between Thomas Jefferson's standard for "treason" and yours, I'm going to go with Tom and the gang.

[joepole]

barring some sort of nuclear holocaust that wipes out everybody but him, Ron Paul will never be President of the United States. He's even less electable than Obama. He's the Howard Dean of the right.

It's too bad, because he'd probably be better at it than whoever is going to win, but the man has absolutely no chance of winning.

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

Hahaha, my undoin'. I must have forgotten about all those times you've schooled me.

Nah, ya didnt forget, ya just have a selective memory. But ya did pique my curiosity...how many times have I "schooled" ya, I wondered. Well, I decided to check. Just so happens I've "schooled" ya on a couple of notable occassions, but I stopped lookin when I found this one...http://www.shreveport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1003 the "Lottery winner and bankrupt" thread of March of this year. Ring any bells? Not that I expect an admission that I got the best of ya, dont need it...its as plain as that Moe Howard haircut of your's that ya lost that pissin contest! Although to be fair, ya never really stood a chance...ya walked right into it. Basically, your head took a giant steamin braindump on that thread, and ya got your nose rubbed in it. Remember? No? Well, go ahead and check it out...just be prepared for the flashbacks of you squirmin in the "grip o' reason". Yeah, ya took quite the beatin on that one, yes sir...quite the beatin! I mean, damn Moe, you've been wrong before, but you've never in your entire life been as wrong as ya were on that thread! Ya probably took your humiliation out on your dog after that resoundin defeat!

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

It's too bad, because he'd probably be better at it than whoever is going to win, but the man has absolutely no chance of winning.

Does that mean Dr. Paul can count on your vote? Cuz if ya aint part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Hell, no offense, but you're somethin of a problem anyway, regardless of how ya cast your vote. But you can redeem yourself...somewhat...by votin for Dr. Paul...if you're of a mind...and if not, well then ya just go right on ahead and be the nit-pickin, obtuse badboy we all know & love.

Oh, and just so ya know, I think its great that you've so successfully emulated Moe Howard's hairstyle and mannerisms...right down to that laconic, dour, vaguely dissatisfied demeanor he was so famous for. I mean, we all need role models, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right?

[joepole]

Where exactly did you see my haircut? I have "typical white boy," not anything like a Moe. Maybe if I was Chinese.

Hahaha, I'll let your "coup de grace" stand on its own as an example of you schooling me. That thread was the EXACT one I was thinking of earlier. I can just imagine you sitting back in your chair and smiling "Man, I really took him apart with those irrefutable points and superior logic." You can't even understand when you've completely lost an argument even when you have to resort to such obvious BS as "the potential reward makes the small losses worth it." It's kind of like a Special Olympics contestant grinning over his "participation" medal. "I won! I won!"

There was a great "This American Life" a few months ago about a guy that used to buy annuity payouts from lottery winners before most lotteries offered lump sums. He said almost every single one of them he came across was so irresponsible with money that they were dead broke within a few years of winning. Kind of shoots a few holes in the "Lottery players are a financially savvy bunch" theory, doesn't it? Have you ever actually been in a convenience store on a Saturday or Wednesday night? Take a look at the folks standing in line for the Powerball machine and tell me they look like folks that know how to responsibly handle money. If you play the lottery for anything more than entertainment you are a fool, your off-topic and nonsensical arguments notwithstanding.

[Morpheus]

I hope I never piss either of you two off!

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

Where exactly did you see my haircut? I have "typical white boy," not anything like a Moe. Maybe if I was Chinese.

Hahaha, I'll let your "coup de grace" stand on its own as an example of you schooling me. That thread was the EXACT one I was thinking of earlier. I can just imagine you sitting back in your chair and smiling "Man, I really took him apart with those irrefutable points and superior logic." You can't even understand when you've completely lost an argument even when you have to resort to such obvious BS as "the potential reward makes the small losses worth it." It's kind of like a Special Olympics contestant grinning over his "participation" medal. "I won! I won!"

There was a great "This American Life" a few months ago about a guy that used to buy annuity payouts from lottery winners before most lotteries offered lump sums. He said almost every single one of them he came across was so irresponsible with money that they were dead broke within a few years of winning. Kind of shoots a few holes in the "Lottery players are a financially savvy bunch" theory, doesn't it? Have you ever actually been in a convenience store on a Saturday or Wednesday night? Take a look at the folks standing in line for the Powerball machine and tell me they look like folks that know how to responsibly handle money. If you play the lottery for anything more than entertainment you are a fool, your off-topic and nonsensical arguments notwithstanding.

Ya know, if Moe Howard were alive today, the media and tabloid rags would likely shorten his name to some fast, easy moniker ala "J-Lo"...they'd dub him "Mo-Ho". So is it any coincidence that, not only are ya a dead ringer for him physically and you've cultivated that same trademark discontent, but ya chose "JoePole" as your screen name, which can be shortened to "Jo-Po"? Coincidence? I think not. Now some folks might say that ya "ripped off" Moe's style...some might say you're just playin the hand ya were dealt...but I say it's more of a homage or tribute to your idol. And thats just super. After all, he was arguably the smartest stooge.


Ya still dont get it. Your arrogance would be tragic if I had to live or work with ya, but since I dont it's just hilarious. There ya were, the guy that actually won one of those much-coveted SBLive I-Pods...yeah, you, the guy who's own mother cleaned up on a gamble, the guy who thinks the lottery is a tax on people with poor math skills. You're the guy who's smarter than the other 200,000,000 people in the country? I'm sure all those folks standin in line at the convenience store to play the lottery would be as awed by your brilliance as I am. Lemme ask ya somethin, Corky...where in the HELL did ya find someone willin to pro-create with ya, CBARC? Not that I feel all that sorry for your wife, but it just wasnt fair to your kids. Somebody should'a made sure ya didnt piss in the gene pool.

[joepole]

>You're the guy who's smarter than the other 200,000,000 people in the country?

We have what, about 300M people in this country? The fact that I am able to own and operate a computer enough to post on this message board puts me in at least the 80th percentile. Standardized tests from back in school, ACT/SAT scores, and just about every other metric you can come up with say 99th, so yes, I would wager that I am smarter than way more than at least 200M people in this country. The median IQ in this country is about 100. have you ever interacted with someone with an IQ of 100? Odds are if you did he was in prison.

How hard is it to be smarter than most of a population that made "American Idol" a #1 show?

>Corky...where in the HELL did ya find someone willin to pro-create with ya, CBARC?

She was an undergrad at Centenary.

[joepole]

>not only are ya a dead ringer for him physically

I wasn't aware that there were any pictures of me here. I'm pretty sure I don't look like a black-haired Jewish man.

[Isaac-Saxxon]

Originally Posted by joepole

>not only are ya a dead ringer for him physically

I wasn't aware that there were any pictures of me here. I'm pretty sure I don't look like a black-haired Jewish man.

Well JP you do like black cars, trucks and you do have black hair. Wonder what your last name ends with

Meet JP in 1987


Joe's hell wagon

[LateNight]

Originally Posted by joepole

>
How hard is it to be smarter than most of a population that made "American Idol" a #1 show?

Joe, sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I don't. But I find it hard to argue that bit of logic.. LOL

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

We have what, about 300M people in this country? The fact that I am able to own and operate a computer enough to post on this message board puts me in at least the 80th percentile. Standardized tests from back in school, ACT/SAT scores, and just about every other metric you can come up with say 99th, so yes, I would wager that I am smarter than way more than at least 200M people in this country. The median IQ in this country is about 100. have you ever interacted with someone with an IQ of 100? Odds are if you did he was in prison.

That's the second time you've cited ownin and operatin a computer as proof of your superior intellect. Think I'll just let that stand on it's own.

Have I ever interacted with someone with an I.Q. of 100? Yeah, I think I'm interactin with one right now.

The hubris of some people.