?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Fri, Apr. 8th, 2005, 02:35 pm
Uh oh.

[Not good.] (From relee.)

Sun, Apr. 10th, 2005 08:08 pm (UTC)
cgranade: Not bad, either.

This can't go anywhere, since by definition, the law only has any effect if it is destroyed, in which case it has no effect. Thus, what worries me is the fact that the political atmosphere is currently such that this is seen as acceptable. Do you know who put forth this piece of solacy?

An aside: Lunacy seems ill-wrought to describe it. I don't attribute the problems these people have to too much exposure to the night. Far more likely their brains were fried- hence, sol = sun, or solacy, as in solace. Solace: the comfort afforded by the sun. Solacy: insanity caused by overexposure to the infulence of the sun. Time for me to seek my lunace.

Another aside: The aside is twice as long as the comment?

Yet another aside (YAA): 22 hours of sleep seems to induce effects similar to drinking, or to solacy.

Still another aside: How many asides can I get? Are you still reading this? Go do something productive, now.

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 03:55 am (UTC)
masstreble: Mystery men.

No, I don't know who introduced it (and not for lack of trying to find out). I'm curious myself.

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 02:18 am (UTC)
guido_jacobs

*reads it* so...are we doomed if this thing gets passed?

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 03:53 am (UTC)
masstreble: Yes, but:

It's not likely to get passed, but the idea that people are looking for ways to do such extreme things legally is disturbing. It means that all of this is seriously on the somebody's agenda.

In the off-chance that this comes up for House vote, carefully watch and record who votes for this one, and what is said about it.

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 03:59 am (UTC)
guido_jacobs: Re: Yes, but:

In the off-chance that this comes up for House vote, carefully watch and record who votes for this one, and what is said about it.

I'll try...

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 09:58 am (UTC)
cgranade: No, but we'd all be amused before the aftermath.

As mentioned above, this bill is damn near funny (were it not for the fact that ostensibly, serious people made it) in that, as mentioned above, this bill would have an effect only if it does not exist. For emphasis, allow me to repeat: this bill would only do a damnned thing if it did nothing at all. Thus, the bill's existence is paradoxical at best; the "paradox" is easily resolved by asserting the bill's non-existence. That is, the paradox is resolved if the bill is destroyed.

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 02:38 pm (UTC)
guido_jacobs: Re: No, but we'd all be amused before the aftermath.

Oh, I get it! It won't work if it's passed, and it won't work if it's destroyed, so either way, nothing'll happen. :)

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 04:34 pm (UTC)
cgranade: Re: No, but we'd all be amused before the aftermath.

Well, looking at it, the law only precribes that something happens in response to the courts ruling the law unconstitutional. For example, if they the courts try to strike down or uphold another law based on legal precedent, or laws passed since the 1780s, then this law blocks. Since the courts are in the process of striking down laws anyway, then this would also be struck as part of the bundle. The law says that if the law is struck, it provides penalties for the judges. Problem is, how can it do something after it has been struck? Therefore, the law only makes a statement as has negligable legal effect.

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 05:03 pm (UTC)
guido_jacobs: Re: No, but we'd all be amused before the aftermath.

Oh...I guess I understand that...

...you have quite the political knowledge/vocabulary there...

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 08:10 pm (UTC)
cgranade: Re: No, but we'd all be amused before the aftermath.

Not really. That's more mathematics, really. Something our opponents seem to lack...

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 08:45 pm (UTC)
guido_jacobs: Re: No, but we'd all be amused before the aftermath.

With those math skills, you might make a good president.