Defeatocrats Imploding

[Guest Truth Squad]

What was the first thing that I don't understand about the law, again?

You posted a six-point argument, as though those categories are concrete.

[Bryan]

You posted a six-point argument, as though those categories are concrete.

What categories? And assuming you can describe what categories you're talking about (and not just trying to obfuscate with an exquisitely ambiguous answer), how does your supposed observation support a judgment about a particular failing in knowledge of the law?

Try not to employ another fallacious argument. Even if you're a lawyer that's not really an adequate excuse.

[Guest Truth Squad]

Where does Bush make that argument? Or is that Dorothy's pal the Scarecrow?

Others, led by Bruce Ackerman, claim that the New Deal represented a constitutional moment that ratified big changes in the distribution of power within the federal government. Still others argue that the added policymaking role of the modern administrative state means Congress ought to be able to impose greater limits on presidential control over the execution of the law. To date, however, a full assessment of the historical record has yet to appear.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=690822

Far from supporting an established practice demonstrating that arguments

in favor of the unitary executive are foreclosed as matter of history, as some scholars have

suggested,584 the record shows that presidents throughout this period consistently asserted and

defended the president’s sole authority to execute the law. To the extent that the historical

evidence supports the existence of an established practice in either direction, it would tend to

favor those supporting, rather than those opposing, the unitariness of the executive branch.

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Unitary%20Execu...d_half_cent.pdf

Would you say that implying that the contrary point of view is insane, regardless of the qualifications of the adherents and the quality of their argumentation, constitutes a fallacy of appeal to ridicule?

No s--t, Sherlock. What do you expect Calabresi to say? Meanwhile, there's the answer to your first question.

[Bryan]

No s--t, Sherlock. What do you expect Calabresi to say? Meanwhile, there's the answer to your first question.

... so Steven Calabresi is President Bush?

Interesting argument. Do you have any proof?

[Bryan]

Obama doesn't always speak in platitudes

1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...av=rss_politics

The candidate of change?

Follow the link for four more of Obama's top flip-flops (and keep on reading to see some of Sen. Clinton's).