LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 1,176
0 members and 1,176 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 8,352, Today at 05:33 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-31-2003, 09:48 PM   #1051
Secret_Agent_Man
Classified
 
Secret_Agent_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: You Never Know . . .
Posts: 4,266
She Definitely Belongs on this Board

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
II think the DEMS are on the wrong side of these confirmations when it comes to minority candidates. Opposition to one candidate I can take as legitimate. But they have consistently opposed nearly all the minority candidates nominated and that is just BULL SHIT in my mind.
Club, think about what you're saying. Are you filling in for zRush while he's on vacation in the "sanitarium"? You can't seriously be suggesting that the Democrats are opposing minoity candidates based on race. Instead, consider those candidates, their views and their qualifications. With the possible exception of Estrada, every single controversial minority candidate nominated by Bush has been hard, hard right. (While the particular lady you're discussing now is in my view a baying-at the-moon lunatic -- and has never received any kind of solid support from her peers in the legal community for judicial nomination at any level.) The Democrats aren't prejudiced against women, blacks, or Hispanics -- they're prejudiced against the hard right -- aka "strict constructionists" et al. Nothing BULLSHIT about that.

Now, as a side note, props to Bush for searching out and finding minorities whose views he can live with, and putting them forward in significant numbers. This could be a big step for the Republicans, who never bothered to do that before except for Justice Thomas (who got the nomination ONLY because it was for Marshall's old seat).

S_A_M
__________________
"Courage is the price that life extracts for granting peace."

Voted Second Most Helpful Poster on the Politics Board.
Secret_Agent_Man is offline  
Old 10-31-2003, 11:06 PM   #1052
sgtclub
Serenity Now
 
sgtclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Survivor Island
Posts: 7,007
She Definitely Belongs on this Board

Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Club, think about what you're saying. Are you filling in for zRush while he's on vacation in the "sanitarium"? You can't seriously be suggesting that the Democrats are opposing minoity candidates based on race. Instead, consider those candidates, their views and their qualifications. With the possible exception of Estrada, every single controversial minority candidate nominated by Bush has been hard, hard right.
I'm glad my posts continually draw your response. I am suggesting that they are opposing them on race, though not for the reasons you suggest. The simple fact is that the DEMS will oppose whomever Bush puts up as his first SCt nominee to make a point/use it for political purposes. And they are opposing the minorities for the appeals court in preparation for the big fight ahead. If they approve her or another conservative minority it makes it awfully hard to oppose her for the SCt (and Bush will surely make try to make that appointment). In addition, they don't want to be put in a position of having to oppose a minority on national TV.

Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(While the particular lady you're discussing now is in my view a baying-at the-moon lunatic -- and has never received any kind of solid support from her peers in the legal community for judicial nomination at any level.)
You are just wrong on this. Not sure where you live, but I'm pretty certain it's not CA. Check her supporters on both sides of the aisle (here in CA).

Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man The Democrats aren't prejudiced against women, blacks, or Hispanics -- they're prejudiced against the hard right -- aka "strict constructionists" et al. Nothing BULLSHIT about that.
They are prejudiced against minorities who don't toe the line. Any conservative minority is automaticallly branded an uncle Tom. See Clarence Thomas. See also Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. I could go on. The point being is that the left does not combat these folks based on ideas (as losing proposition for the left), but rather on racial issues.

The left also refuses to approve school choice/vouchers which would most benefit poor people (a large percentage of which are minorities), even though those minorities overwhelmingly are in favor of vouchers. Why? Because the teachers' union opposes them. So you tell me who's prejudiced

Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man Now, as a side note, props to Bush for searching out and finding minorities whose views he can live with, and putting them forward in significant numbers. This could be a big step for the Republicans, who never bothered to do that before except for Justice Thomas (who got the nomination ONLY because it was for Marshall's old seat).

S_A_M
I think you also forgot Ronald Reagan, who appointed the first woman to the SCt. and the first woman to the United Nations.
sgtclub is offline  
Old 11-01-2003, 12:30 AM   #1053
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,076
She Definitely Belongs on this Board

"Bitch, please" is in current usage on the FB and was not personal in any way.

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
The simple fact is that the DEMS will oppose whomever Bush puts up as his first SCt nominee to make a point/use it for political purposes. And they are opposing the minorities for the appeals court in preparation for the big fight ahead.
Wrong and wrong. They will not oppose just anyone, just like they are not opposing most of Bush's nominees to the appellate courts. And they are not opposing "the" minorities. You've identified exactly two, assuming that they oppose Brown, which is not clear yet.

Quote:
See Clarence Thomas. . . . . The point being is that the left does not combat these folks based on ideas (as losing proposition for the left), but rather on racial issues.
I laugh at you if you think the left is scared of combatting Clarence Thomas on ideas. The man is a mediocrity who owes his seat to his race. With his credentials, he never would have been named to the D.C. Circuit if he was white, let alone the Supreme Court, as everyone knows. He has earned no respect in all of his years on the bench.

Quote:
The left also refuses to approve school choice/vouchers which would most benefit poor people (a large percentage of which are minorities), even though those minorities overwhelmingly are in favor of vouchers. Why? Because the teachers' union opposes them.
This is an absolute load of crap. People oppose vouchers because they think vouchers are a recipe to help a small segment of middle-class voters and to hurt the public schools and the people left in them. The fight is about the very proposition that you take as a premise -- whether vouchers would benefit poor people. I tend to think not.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 11-01-2003, 02:09 PM   #1054
sgtclub
Serenity Now
 
sgtclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Survivor Island
Posts: 7,007
She Definitely Belongs on this Board

Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Wrong and wrong. They will not oppose just anyone, just like they are not opposing most of Bush's nominees to the appellate courts. And they are not opposing "the" minorities. You've identified exactly two, assuming that they oppose Brown, which is not clear yet.
I've identified the two that were nominated for the DC circuit, which everybody knows is a feeding ground for the SCt. They confirmed Bea for the 9th, but Bea is 68 years old. That, and being from the 9th does not make him a serious candidate for the SCt.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop I laugh at you if you think the left is scared of combatting Clarence Thomas on ideas. The man is a mediocrity who owes his seat to his race. With his credentials, he never would have been named to the D.C. Circuit if he was white, let alone the Supreme Court, as everyone knows. He has earned no respect in all of his years on the bench.
Then why don't they? Why does he have to be an Uncle Tom or sell out or race traitor? Why can't they fight his ideas? I don't think he is mediocre, but I also don't think he is the most brilliant lawyer I've ever seen either, which puts him at the average for SCt judges. O'Connor is no genious and Ginsburg a plain idiot.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
This is an absolute load of crap. People oppose vouchers because they think vouchers are a recipe to help a small segment of middle-class voters and to hurt the public schools and the people left in them. The fight is about the very proposition that you take as a premise -- whether vouchers would benefit poor people. I tend to think not.
Bull shit. People (or more specifically, DEMS) oppose them because they are beholden to the teachers' unions. Period. And they are hypocritical because a large portion of them wouldn't dream of sending their own kids to public schools. It's a complete fucking joke and within the next 10 years, it will backfire on them. DiFi realizes this and has begun to change her tune. She is one of the smarter ones. The others are behind the curve on this, much like they were behind the curve on welfare reform.
sgtclub is offline  
Old 11-01-2003, 03:38 PM   #1055
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,076
She Definitely Belongs on this Board

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I've identified the two that were nominated for the DC circuit, which everybody knows is a feeding ground for the SCt. They confirmed Bea for the 9th, but Bea is 68 years old. That, and being from the 9th does not make him a serious candidate for the SCt.
You've identified two (2) minorities, period, and one of them hasn't been filibustered yet. From this, you have concluded that the Dems are opposing all conservative minorities, and that they are racist. This may fly in a Federalist Society meeting, but that's about it.

Quote:
Then why don't they? Why does he have to be an Uncle Tom or sell out or race traitor? Why can't they fight his ideas? I don't think he is mediocre, but I also don't think he is the most brilliant lawyer I've ever seen either, which puts him at the average for SCt judges. O'Connor is no genious and Ginsburg a plain idiot.
What ideas? The man is, justifiably, so afraid of appearing stupid that he won't even ask questions from the bench when he sits on a moot court. And who's calling him an Uncle Tom? I'm not going to

O'Connor and Ginsburg are in a completely different league, although it's curious that you picked the two women on the court as targets. What's your problem with Ginsburg? Of the many things I've heard said about her, that she is a "plain idiot" is not one.

Quote:
Bull shit. People (or more specifically, DEMS) oppose them because they are beholden to the teachers' unions. Period. And they are hypocritical because a large portion of them wouldn't dream of sending their own kids to public schools. It's a complete fucking joke and within the next 10 years, it will backfire on them. DiFi realizes this and has begun to change her tune. She is one of the smarter ones. The others are behind the curve on this, much like they were behind the curve on welfare reform.
I'm not clairvoyant, and won't attempt to speak for every Democrat in the land, although you seem to have no problem with this. I don't give a sh*t about the teachers unions. I don't think vouchers will improve public schools. There is no reason to think that vouchers work, particularly when the plan only permits a small fraction of students to go to a small number of alternative schools. Vouchers are a wedge issue designed to appeal to middle-class voters who can't quite afford to send their kids to private schools.

DiFi may or may not be smarter, but she does work hard to appeal to swing voters by picking issues like this one. Flag burning is another example.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 11-02-2003, 11:25 AM   #1056
sgtclub
Serenity Now
 
sgtclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Survivor Island
Posts: 7,007
She Definitely Belongs on this Board

Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You've identified two (2) minorities, period, and one of them hasn't been filibustered yet. From this, you have concluded that the Dems are opposing all conservative minorities, and that they are racist. This may fly in a Federalist Society meeting, but that's about it.
I haven't concluded that based on this. What I have concluded is that they are opposing these minorities for political purposes because they can't be in the position of approving them for the appellate court but not the SCt. And they have already approved whites that are more conservative than either Gonzales or Brown, so don't tell me they are acting purely on principle.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop What ideas? The man is, justifiably, so afraid of appearing stupid that he won't even ask questions from the bench when he sits on a moot court. And who's calling him an Uncle Tom? I'm not going to

O'Connor and Ginsburg are in a completely different league, although it's curious that you picked the two women on the court as targets. What's your problem with Ginsburg? Of the many things I've heard said about her, that she is a "plain idiot" is not one.
Whether he asks questions or not is immaterial. I've read his opinions and they are generally extremely well reasoned and cogent, unlike e.g., Ginsburg's or O'Connor's. Or Kennedy's, for that matter (note that Kennedy is (a) male and (b) a Republican appointee).

Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop There is no reason to think that vouchers work . . .Vouchers are a wedge issue designed to appeal to middle-class voters who can't quite afford to send their kids to private schools.
No reason other than those districts where they are in use and have had great success. Our current public school systems are failing. Take a look at where we score against other nations. Are Americans just not as smart? I don't think so. It's also NOT a money problem, we spend more than most if not all other countries on education. It is a problem inherent in the system - there is no accountability. If you can think of a better way to put accountability in the school system that would work better and more efficiently than a market based system, I'm all ears.
sgtclub is offline  
Old 11-02-2003, 11:52 AM   #1057
andViolins
(Moderator) oHIo
 
andViolins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: there
Posts: 1,049
She Definitely Belongs on this Board

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub No reason other than those districts where they are in use and have had great success. Our current public school systems are failing. Take a look at where we score against other nations. Are Americans just not as smart? I don't think so. It's also NOT a money problem, we spend more than most if not all other countries on education. It is a problem inherent in the system - there is no accountability. If you can think of a better way to put accountability in the school system that would work better and more efficiently than a market based system, I'm all ears.
Um, where exactly are vouchers having great success? Milwaukee? No. Cleveland? Nope. Florida? Wrong again. In addition, the great charter school project in Ohio has, so far, been a dismal failure. Just as you say that the problems of public education are not a money problem, to argue that the problems are caused only by Teachers' Unions is just stupid.

aV
andViolins is offline  
Old 11-02-2003, 01:41 PM   #1058
Say_hello_for_me
Theo rests his case
 
Say_hello_for_me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: who's askin?
Posts: 1,632
She Definitely Belongs on this Board

Quote:
Originally posted by andViolins
Um, where exactly are vouchers having great success? Milwaukee? No. Cleveland? Nope. Florida? Wrong again. In addition, the great charter school project in Ohio has, so far, been a dismal failure. Just as you say that the problems of public education are not a money problem, to argue that the problems are caused only by Teachers' Unions is just stupid.

aV
Yo, I hope y'all aren't taking such extreme positions!

"great success"? Fuck. With 270,000 Chicago kids (1/10th of the city's population) in failing public schools, I can't imagine anyone here wants to defend the existing system.

The results so far seem to indicate mild success in the places where the systems and studies are based on blind subject selection. Nothing miraculous, but even the "dismal failure" you cite does not necessarily mean that the system was properly implemented.

In any case, if you want to require "great success", or if the sarge is arguing that "problems are caused only by Teachers' Unions", then I don't think either one of you is going to convince anyone of your positions.
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'

Say_hello_for_me is offline  
Old 11-02-2003, 02:07 PM   #1059
rufus leeking
I am beyond a rank!
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 104
The readers of Major News Outlets are "misinformed"

About a week, the Wash Post produced an article summarizing how little we thought of the evidence of a nuclear program. of course, with the recent revelation of the NYT and its tendancies to create news, no one seriously believes it anymore, but the Wash Post is still clean, isn't it? the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Oct25.html

includes this scathing summary of the progress:

Quote:
Most notably, investigators have judged the aluminum tubes to be "innocuous," according to Australian Brig. Gen. Stephen D. Meekin, who commands the Joint Captured Enemy Materiel Exploitation Center, the largest of a half-dozen units that report to Kay. That finding is pivotal, because the Bush administration built its case on the proposition that Iraq aimed to use those tubes as centrifuge rotors to enrich uranium for the core of a nuclear warhead.

okay, good investigation by the Wash Post, and some very revealing news, Bravo! but wait. Problems! Problems! Problems! the people quoted call bullshit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...9199-2003Oct31

when we say NYT'd should it mean biased, or fabricated? Ty, where is your "who's misinformed" chart.
rufus leeking is offline  
Old 11-02-2003, 06:45 PM   #1060
sgtclub
Serenity Now
 
sgtclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Survivor Island
Posts: 7,007
She Definitely Belongs on this Board

Quote:
Originally posted by andViolins
Um, where exactly are vouchers having great success? Milwaukee? No. Cleveland? Nope. Florida? Wrong again. In addition, the great charter school project in Ohio has, so far, been a dismal failure. Just as you say that the problems of public education are not a money problem, to argue that the problems are caused only by Teachers' Unions is just stupid.

aV
It is my understanding that the programs in those cities have been successful And I didn't argue that the problems are caused only by the teachers' unions, though they definitely bear some responsiblity. The problem I have with the teachers' unions is that they continuously stand in the way of needed reforms, and not just vouchers, but others as well - mainly, anything having to do with accountability.
sgtclub is offline  
Old 11-02-2003, 07:07 PM   #1061
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,076
The readers of Major News Outlets are "misinformed"

Quote:
Originally posted by rufus leeking
About a week, the Wash Post produced an article summarizing how little we thought of the evidence of a nuclear program. of course, with the recent revelation of the NYT and its tendancies to create news, no one seriously believes it anymore, but the Wash Post is still clean, isn't it? the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Oct25.html

includes this scathing summary of the progress:

okay, good investigation by the Wash Post, and some very revealing news, Bravo! but wait. Problems! Problems! Problems! the people quoted call bullshit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...9199-2003Oct31

when we say NYT'd should it mean biased, or fabricated? Ty, where is your "who's misinformed" chart.
If you were truly concerned about bias, you wouldn't be relying on a letter from David Kay, whose interest in pleasing the Administration has been clear. Like so many conservative complaints about bias in the media, what you are after is an excuse to ignore bad news.

sgtclub:

Politics? In the Senate? I am shocked! I'm just glad to hear you think it's politics, and not racism. Now turn your politics-detecting radar towards the decisions to nominate Estrada and Brown, and see what you come up with.

On your planet, Clarence Thomas is the Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Court. Someday I will try to find a way to visit.

Others have answered the objections to vouchers as well as I have. It is a little odd that conservative politicians attack teachers for not surrendering some of their money to benefit kids in public schools when that is exactly what they will not ask of their own constituents.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 11-02-2003, 07:16 PM   #1062
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,076
Newt on Wesley's book: Thumb's Up

On Amazon, [url=http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002540.html]Newt Gingrich gave five stars to Wesley Clark's book, and said it should be "required reading." But that was before Clark said he was a Democrat.

__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 11-02-2003, 07:23 PM   #1063
rufus leeking
I am beyond a rank!
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 104
The readers of Major News Outlets are "misinformed"

Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you were truly concerned about bias, you wouldn't be relying on a letter from David Kay, whose interest in pleasing the Administration has been clear. Like so many conservative complaints about bias in the media, what you are after is an excuse to ignore bad news.
not bias. flat out fabrication. distain for facts, thank you.
help me Ty. the WP was quoting him and all, or quoting guys who supposedly reported to him, but they weren't. or is your point, its okay that they fabricated, or were, at best, grossly negligent, because what WP reported was sort of correct if you accept that what it says is true? you know, he lied but it is okay because he didn't need to.
I wasn't clear before maybe. here's your challenge: explain the second letter, you know from the Aussi guy who was directly quoted. I want to still believe in the press. Help me understand how I can, please?

Last edited by rufus leeking; 11-02-2003 at 09:41 PM..
rufus leeking is offline  
Old 11-02-2003, 09:14 PM   #1064
sgtclub
Serenity Now
 
sgtclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Survivor Island
Posts: 7,007
The readers of Major News Outlets are "misinformed"

Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
sgtclub:

Politics? In the Senate? I am shocked! I'm just glad to hear you think it's politics, and not racism. Now turn your politics-detecting radar towards the decisions to nominate Estrada and Brown, and see what you come up with.
Of course, it for the same reason that the DEMS don't want them sitting on the appelllate court. They don't want to be in a position of opposing a minority to the SCt, and by nominating them, Bush can have a true conservative pass through the process and sit for 30 years to come.*

*This is not to suggest that either of them is not qualified for the job.


Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop Others have answered the objections to vouchers as well as I have. It is a little odd that conservative politicians attack teachers for not surrendering some of their money to benefit kids in public schools when that is exactly what they will not ask of their own constituents.
I don't understand this. Who said anything about asking teachers (other then unqualified ones) to surrender money?
sgtclub is offline  
Old 11-03-2003, 12:12 AM   #1065
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,076
The readers of Major News Outlets are "misinformed"

Quote:
Originally posted by rufus leeking
not bias. flat out fabrication. distain for facts, thank you.
help me Ty. the WP was quoting him and all, or quoting guys who supposedly reported to him, but they weren't. or is your point, its okay that they fabricated, or were, at best, grossly negligent, because what WP reported was sort of correct if you accept that what it says is true? you know, he lied but it is okay because he didn't need to.
I wasn't clear before maybe. here's your challenge: explain the second letter, you know from the Aussi guy who was directly quoted. I want to still believe in the press. Help me understand how I can, please?
Either that, or the guy they quoted now finds it convenient to deny some of what he said. Wouldn't be the first time. Other than that it gives you a chance to bash the WaPo, who particularly cares?
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:42 PM.