Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
131
Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 16:29
I completely agree, MBJ. Unfortunately, many of these sweeping pieces of legislation have calcified on the books, and there is virtually no means to update the law (except piecemeal, through the courts) to reflect the changing social structure the laws were intended to address and "correct."
I'm not so sure that Kennedy is right in his majority opinion, but dealing with Title VII seems to be just a mess anyway.
132
Tree
ID: 41371322 Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 11:55
starting to watch the confirmation hearings on Sotomayor...
one of the things that struck me as most interesting is Orrin Hatch saying that there are concerns about Sotomayor's remarks in regards to race, and in practically the same breath saying "you didn't vote for our latino, why should we vote for your latina?"
maybe i'm wrong about this, but considering the level at which hispanics are fleeing the Republican party, this sort of strategy could be a pretty dangerous one for the GOP that are opposed to her nomination.
133
Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 12:20
I think Frank Ricci will be the star witness for the Republicans at the hearings. Considering that he's a serial litigator, he's probably not the best guy to have as your star witness.
I really don't see her not getting confirmed. If I were the GOP I'd be keeping my powder dry.
134
Tree
ID: 41371322 Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 12:38
it's just the battle some seem to be picking is...weird...i suppose it's par for the course for the current GOP, that honestly appears to have lost touch with reality and what the people of this nation want.
135
Seattle Zen
ID: 526181313 Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 14:21
Republicans have to raise a stink or they will be vilified by talk radio. Hey, I knew John Roberts was going to be confirmed but I wanted my senators to shred him apart, that's why I voted for them.
136
Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 22:37
this sort of strategy could be a pretty dangerous one for the GOP that are opposed to her nomination
Tell it to the protester who yelled, 'stop the abortion genocide of latino children'.
Lotta catholics there and there is no question that PP targets minorities and the poor.
137
Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 00:11
Tell it to the protester who yelled, 'stop the abortion genocide of latino children'.
because, of course, one nutcase speaks for all. i mean, i realize YOU subscribe to that theory, but most rational people don't.
138
Boldwin
ID: 467910 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 00:27
Lefties love protesters. When did this turn around?
139
DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 10:00
About the same time you started loving them, I think.
140
Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 10:34
i don't have any problem with protesters.
i have a problem with the generalities and lies you base your entire belief system on.
141
Boldwin
ID: 467910 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 11:43
About the same time you started loving them, I think.
You mean you guys were lieing all the time about how great protest was?
144
biliruben
ID: 461142511 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 11:51
Do I think protest is an important part of what it is to be America? Sure.
Are there important messages that can be imparted that the establishment isn't keen on? Of course.
Are there plenty of fanatics with more energy than sense that protest, both on the loony left and the radical right? You betcha.
I have no idea what your point is, Baldwin.
145
DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 12:30
"About the same time you started loving them, I think.
You mean you guys were lieing all the time about how great protest was?"
Exactly as much as 'you guys' were lying by decrying protesters as treasonous un-Americans, right? Which, I'm sure you'll tell me, is not at all.
146
Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 14:13
it should also be noted that standing up and screaming "Baby killer! Baby killer!" in the Senate chambers isn't exactly protesting.
It wasn't the fact that they were protesting that made them treasonous. That would start at the pictures of america's worst enemies proudly sported on their chests, extend past their spitting on american soldiers and so forth.
149
Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 21:04
What are you--in a freaking time machine stuck in 1968?
150
Boldwin
ID: 467910 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 21:12
Saul Alinsky never went away. He came but he didn't went.
151
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 21:30
"It wasn't the fact that they were protesting that made them treasonous. That would start at the pictures of america's worst enemies proudly sported on their chests, extend past their spitting on american soldiers and so forth."
Um, can we talk about things that happened in the time frame in the designated hitter was in existence? I claim no responsibility for things that happened before I was born.
152
Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 21:42
Um, can we talk about things that happened in the time frame in the designated hitter was in existence?
designated hitter? shoot, not only was the DH not in existence, but neither were the: Montreal Expos (now Washington Nationals) San Diego Padres Kansas City Royals Seattle Pilots Milwaukee Brewers Seattle Mariners Toronto Blue Jays Colorado Rockies Florida Marlins Arizona Diamondbacks Tampa Bay Devil Rays Tampa Bay Rays and the Washington Nationals...
...not to mention 8 NFL teams, 18 NHL teams, and 19 NBA teams.
good lord. Baldwin is our very own Japanese sniper, perched in a palm tree on his very own deserted island, unaware the war ended.
153
Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 21:58
That's his problem--he doesn't believe the world has changed since 1968.
i wish there were 2 political forums. I with a "R" and one with a "D".
There has never been a decent 'debate' between the letters. Just a screaming contest that has gone on for 8 years.
155
Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 22:30
RFS - i disagree. When MBJ posted regularly, when Madman posted, when Steve Houpt wrote novels, there was good, solid, debate.
156
Pancho Villa
ID: 336531421 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 22:54
That would start at the pictures of america's worst enemies proudly sported on their chests, extend past their spitting on american soldiers and so forth.
I fear you're the victim of propaganda and brainwashing. I say this because I lived in California in the late 60s, hung out on Telegraph in Berkeley, Golden Gate Park, the hill in Boulder, Co., and was in Washington DC on 11/15/69. Never, not once did I ever hear someone claim they had spit on a soldier or wished to do so. The people proudly sported on their T-Shirts were John Lennon and Jimi Hendrix. Of the hundreds of Vietnam vets I've known, not one has ever claimed to have been spit upon. But lots of them wore John Lennon shirts.
Maybe so, but I can pick up the morning paper and with 100% accuracy predict who (gurupies) will post what and start what threads and take what sides.
I've never seen a D-Gurupie ponder anything openly against the D party line and never see an R-Gurupie mull over an anti-R party line.
For example, I can't imagine Tree posting in advance of Soto's SC pick a conversation about reverse discrimination -- JUST FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. The same way Baldy would never kick around the "theory" that Soto has a solid judicial record.
I might as well be anticipating Keith Oberman vs. Rush Limbaugh.
158
chode
ID: 23412621 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 23:37
word
159
Boldwin
ID: 467910 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 23:47
You don't follow every discussion then. I must have posted 1000 posts about how neocons were Trotskyites who had taken over the republican party. Not exactly the republican line for three republican terms in the WH.
Do Bush and I agree on 9/11? We're polar opposites.
MITH and PV are capable of entertaining contrarian views and giving them half a fair shake.
Nerve is a closet contrarian.
B7 wouldn't be welcome at the republican convention most likely.
Who opposes the drug war? Me, that's who.
MBJ is an inverterate fence sitter. You rarely know who he'll side with.
The big change around here has been liberal packs of booing cheerleaders who never contribute anything.
Even my ignoring them half the time, leaves me and Tree filling the threads with petty bickering because I can't leave the drivel unanswered ALL the time and he can't shut up ever.
There's something screwy with expecting that principled people would flip flop on issues or that sheep would break with the zeitgeist. If you are waiting around for that naturally you will be disappointed.
It is only when people don't walk the party line that things get thot provoking. When PD never ever varies from it, no one says, 'how boring and predictable' and when I do break with the official version of events everyone calls me a nutter, so just how bad do you really want to see anything besides the predictable party talking points of the day?
160
Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 23:54
I've never seen a D-Gurupie ponder anything openly against the D party line and never see an R-Gurupie mull over an anti-R party line.
then you're absolutely not paying attention. off the top of my head, i can say with certainty that MITH, PV, and MBJ have expressed opinions that run counter to what you might "expect".
For example, I can't imagine Tree posting in advance of Soto's SC pick a conversation about reverse discrimination
because i don't believe it exists in that case. i do find it funny that a fireman who at least in part got where he was because of the ADA then turns around and says that what the city of New Haven did vis a vis the white vs. black firemen was wrong. that's absurd - you can't have it both ways, yet he wants it.
161
Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 00:23
For the most part I think he's absolutely right, tree. There are some differences, but alarmist language tends to make people defensive, appear to be less open, and spend more time attacking than mulling.
Wasn't always that way, however, as tree correctly points out. Madman rarely strayed from his Right positions, but it didn't make him less thoughtful. I certainly found, in reading posts from those on the "other side," that well written and thoughtful posts from houpt, Madman, Toral, and many others made me think a lot harder about my own positions (and the biases that sometimes make them up).
Sadly, Baldwin (and sometimes B7 & boikin) is all that's left of the Right, so to speak. A guy who spends much of his time trying to demonstrate that Obama is not a citizen and who is a Marxist in sheep's clothing.
With fewer quality posts coming from the Right side of the aisle, most of what goes on in the middle & left is wheel spinning, frankly.
162
Boldwin
ID: 467910 Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 00:34
Another factor is that there have been dozens of interesting points I just haven't had the energy to go into. There is no one from the conservative side holding up their end with any vigor. And I am not sure there is any neocon represented at all. The libertarian side would be covered by Nerve but he's too busy.
I just don't care like I used to. Too many attempts at retiring. Way too half-hearted in the return. Way less patience and I get that mirrored back.
That just leaves Obama yes men. Lurker bombthowers who do a drive by now and then. Tree wanna-be's who wanna try their troll hand at booing briefly and unaccountably. Who am I leaving out?
163
CanadianHack
ID: 747218 Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 05:07
What Baldwin is saying:
Yes he is doing a half-assed job of posting here and its the fault of liberals.
164
Tree
ID: 41371322 Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 09:37
Republicans have to raise a stink or they will be vilified by talk radio. Hey, I knew John Roberts was going to be confirmed but I wanted my senators to shred him apart, that's why I voted for them.
do you think that after all her years as a judge, the numerous questions from numerous senators about her "wise Latina" remark, is a bit much at this point?
165
DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 10:11
Re: 162--you might be surprised that there are a number of things that I don't necessarily agree with the "Obama yes men" on.
Please do a better job of not trying to lump every single person who disagrees with your views on a subject as a liberal Obama yes-man and I'll try to do a better job of bothering to point out where that label doesn't apply.
166
Tree
ID: 41371322 Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 10:16
re: 165
and i think that's the problem. Baldwin's arguments always revert to black and white, us and them, with generalities that range from "pro-choice = baby killers" to "Obama supporter = liberal/marxist/blind" etc...
167
Boldwin
ID: 467910 Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 10:35
Hack
Well that was clever at least. What I mean is that politics isn't my passion. It's just something I know real well and I hate to see know-nothings getting it all wrong.
To take up the thought on the Obama thread (I think) about the protester at the hearings, RWW has an interview by Alan Colmes of the protester in question.
Apparently the efforts by the Right to insist that education equals "uppity" is having an effect. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you your "real American": Norma McCorvey!
170
mith
ID: 266341623 Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 00:34
RFS might want to pay closer attention. Who started a thread specifically for the purpose of calling out Obama for continuing and expanding on Bush policies he regularly criticized for over 2 years?
My bad. 1 thread out of a couple thousand. i should never say never. I'm sure you can find more examples or individual posts, but I'll be 99+% correct.
172
Tree
ID: 41371322 Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 11:20
i don't even think you've read any post in this threads, with people from all sides of the aisle point out how wrong you are with your generalization.
He seemed to be coming around during the hearings, but this is a surprise (to me).
174
Boldwin
ID: 376192015 Wed, Jul 22, 2009, 22:44
Coming around? He started out admitting she was a shoo-in. Then he proceded to point out all the reasons he shouldn't vote for her. And then he is gonna magnanimously shaft his base just to make liberals like him. Which is ridiculous but somehow libs get republicans to fall for that false hope time and time again.
Some GOP members seem angry she wasn't empathetic enough to white people. Or something like that.
181
Boldwin
ID: 376192015 Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 21:44
A justice who can't make up her mind until she finds out the race of those before her, is not worthy of the job.
One who has travelled the country advocating for that style of [in]justice for years is even worse.
There is a reason the statue of justice wears a blindfold but Sotomayor is peeking.
182
Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 21:55
The most extended complaints against her decisions were about Ricci and her handgun case, both of which she applied the law and refused to legislate from the bench. For Ricci, the white GOP senators seemed put off that she refused to show Frank Ricci and empathy--implying that she should ignore the actual law and rule from a position of victim empathy.
She was taken to task about her "wise Latina" remark without any single decision (go ahead, find one) which can be pointed to in which that bias actually appeared.
The far right wants it both ways: Criticize her for saying empathy matters (though unable to show it through any decisions), and criticizing her for not showing that empathy in a sliver of cases in which the law clearly was against them.
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com