Hypothetical Senate Question

[sirs]

I have no idea why you're getting all worked up.  All I said was I going to look into whether or not his condition could have been induced.  That's all.   

Strange how simply asking a hypothetical is "getting all worked up".  Look Brass, if you can't be honest in answering the hypothetical, just say so, or don't even respond.  throwing out snide innuendo wasn't what I was referring to when I advocated people making comments about why they voted the way they did

At least let me make crazy accusations first!  We haven't even gotten to the point where we can make them yet.  There aren't even any indicators that something might have been done to Sen Johnson in order to try and get control of the Senate back to the lying scum in the GOP.  Sheesh.

Sheesh would be the implication of something nefarious behind Johnson's AVM (Arterio-Venous Malformation), by those "lying GOP scum".  Why else would you need to "look into it"?

[sirs]

Well, I'd like to thank those 6 so far who have voted, though I was looking forward to reading the comments of those who believed a new election should be run or that the Governor should be obligated to appoint a Democrat Senator. 

But in any case, I do thank those who took the time to vote and make comments.

[Brassmask]

Well, I'd like to thank those 6 so far who have voted, though I was looking forward to reading the comments of those who believed a new election should be run or that the Governor should be obligated to appoint a Democrat Senator. 

But in any case, I do thank those who took the time to vote and make comments.

It really sucks when your assumptions get blown to hell, doesn't it?

LOL

[sirs]

It really sucks when your assumptions get blown to hell, doesn't it?

LOL

What assumptions would those be?  Assume folks would comment on why they voted the way they did??   

[Brassmask]

What assumptions would those be?  Assume folks would comment on why they voted the way they did??   

Ok, dude.  Play it however you like.  lol

[sirs]

What assumptions would those be?  Assume folks would comment on why they voted the way they did??   

Ok, dude.  Play it however you like.  lol

And yet again, simply unable to get a straight answer to a simple question, are we.  Perhaps the "mis-assumption" here is on what you think my "motives" for this thread/poll are, and since I'm not falling into it as concisely as you were expecting me to, you've got to play these vague word games.  Whatever, Brass.  As I said, if you can't be honest enough to answer the original poll question, or even this more simpler question as to what assumptions I'm not getting, why are you even bothering?  Just move on to some more of your RBE fantasy stuff, and how Neocons brought down the WTC.  That's at least more entertaining.  Fictional, but entertaining,

[Brassmask]

And yet again, simply unable to get a straight answer to a simple question, are we.  Perhaps the "mis-assumption" here is on what you think my "motives" for this thread/poll are, and since I'm not falling into it as concisely as you were expecting me to, you've got to play these vague word games.  Whatever, Brass.  As I said, if you can't be honest enough to answer the original poll question, or even this more simpler question as to what assumptions I'm not getting, why are you even bothering?  Just move on to some more of your RBE fantasy stuff, and how Neocons brought down the WTC.  That's at least more entertaining.  Fictional, but entertaining,

I answered the poll.  Do I need to explain why?  Do you know how I even voted? 

It is more than obvious, you were baiting with you "poll".  You wanted someone to vote for a "new election" or "must appoint a dem" and then you thought you'd have them by the shorthairs.  Didn't someone vote the way you were hoping?

[sirs]

I answered the poll.  Do I need to explain why?

 

Need?, no.  What was requesed was why a vote for anything other than legally & historically precedent.  If your vote fell into something other than legal & historical, the request was 'why".  If you didn't have the gumption/fortitude to back up your why, that says more about you, than me I'm afraid

Do you know how I even voted?

 

Nope

 

It is more than obvious, you were baiting with you "poll".  You wanted someone to vote for a "new election" or "must appoint a dem" and then you thought you'd have them by the shorthairs. 

I "wanted" someone to provide the rationale for why they voted the way they did.  How that "has them by the shorthairs", well, only you can answer that one

[Brassmask]

LOL.

I voted for "governor appoints new senator".  I knew that was the only way it could go down.  The only thing I wasn't sure of and got corrected on was whether or not Johnson had to die or resign in order for it to happen.

In reality, I wanted to vote for something provocative and then provide some cockamamie reason for doing so, just to draw you out because I knew that you were baiting.  You WANTED someone to vote for one of the others, (and someone did, didn't they?) so you'd have some grist for the mill.  You wanted to do a "gotcha" and then present the laws and precedents so you could kick them around as being exactly what you were being: partisan.

Your partisan nature betrayed you in that you even bothered putting up such as asanine post to begin with.  It was all over FOX and Rush how they wanted to try and declare Johnson incapacitated as I pointed out.

What was requesed was why a vote for anything other than legally & historically precedent.

Yet, you neglected to state your request in that manner or provide legal & historical precedent and only went back an hour and a half later and edited the original post AFTER BT had pointed out the legal precedent.

At least have the courage of your convictions and admit you were spoiling for a little fight.   Don't plead innocent of all charges.

[sirs]

LOL.  I voted for "governor appoints new senator".  I knew that was the only way it could go down. 

Why?  Legally yea, but is that what you would have wanted to see?  If that's so, just say so, or say nothing.  But to play these bizarre mind games of what you think my motives are simply misses the whole point of DebateGate

You WANTED someone to vote for one of the others, (and someone did, didn't they?) so you'd have some grist for the mill.  You wanted to do a "gotcha" and then present the laws and precedents so you could kick them around as being exactly what you were being: partisan.

See what I mean.  You have no clue what i wanted, and even after I clearly articulated that, you still go off with what you think I wanted.  Hint for Brass....stick to your convictions, and leave the mindreading nonsense to Dr Phil

[Brassmask]

LOL.  I voted for "governor appoints new senator".  I knew that was the only way it could go down. 

Why?  Legally yea, but is that what you would have wanted to see?  If that's so, just say so, or say nothing.  But to play these bizarre mind games of what you think my motives are simply misses the whole point of DebateGate

I told you why.  Because that is the way it would go down legally.  I"m always in favor of rule of law.  Would I like it if the Republican Governor appointed a Dem to replace Johnson in the event of Johnson's death or resignation?  Sure.  It could happen and that's how I'd like to happen if it ever gets to that point but the question in your poll was what "should" happen, thus spelling out your intent or at least implying your intent.

Part of Debate is pointing out any hidden agendas on the part of your opponent.  It was what your post and poll were all about.  You were hoping to show that some unsuspecting liberal type would just wade right in then you could spend a morning lauding that person's alleged "partisanship".  Its funny that you're going all out to state that it wasn't because its kind of like you're protesting too much.

You WANTED someone to vote for one of the others, (and someone did, didn't they?) so you'd have some grist for the mill.  You wanted to do a "gotcha" and then present the laws and precedents so you could kick them around as being exactly what you were being: partisan.

See what I mean.  You have no clue what i wanted, and even after I clearly articulated that, you still go off with what you think I wanted.  Hint for Brass....stick to your convictions, and leave the mindreading nonsense to Dr Phil

But by all means, please tell us what you were hoping to glean from your poll exactly.

[sirs]

Why?  Legally yea, but is that what you would have wanted to see?  If that's so, just say so, or say nothing.  But to play these bizarre mind games of what you think my motives are simply misses the whole point of DebateGate

I told you why.  Because that is the way it would go down legally.  I"m always in favor of rule of law.  

*snicker*...I'm going to have to remember that, the next time I hear of another ELF attack, or Anti-war protesters getting out of hand and you trying to defend them both

Would I like it if the Republican Governor appointed a Dem to replace Johnson in the event of Johnson's death or resignation?  Sure.  It could happen and that's how I'd like to happen if it ever gets to that point but the question in your poll was what "should" happen, thus spelling out your intent or at least implying your intent.

Sorry to burst your bubble, yet again Brass, but the "intent" was to get folks to explain their rationale for why they voted the way they did.  If I wanted it to be a purely "legal" question, that's how I would have phrased it.  I did provide the "should" to see what folks believe should happen, not would would happen.  Grasp the difference yet?

Part of Debate is pointing out any hidden agendas on the part of your opponent.  

To which you again failed miserably.  As long as you were enjoying yourself, I guess that's at least something

But by all means, please tell us what you were hoping to glean from your poll exactly.

Asked and answered several times already.