It'sNotAFakeID Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Regardless of who is elected, do any of you think that things are going to change? BTW, more of Mr. Flip-Flop: Thursday he stated that he was fine with same-sex adoptions--Friday, not so much. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Regardless of who is elected, do any of you think that things are going to change? Somewhat, yes. IMO the most significant difference will be the nomination of Supreme Court justices. That's where we could see a shift that actually matters. Link to comment
Mavric Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 1. I concede I overstated the timeframe. 2. Yes. Democrats. I don't see how calling yourself an "independent" counts for much when you (a) were elected as a Democrat for 26 years and only changed to "Independent" when you were beaten or (b) describe yourself as a socialist or (a & b) caucus with the democrats. A Rose by any other name... 1. Wrong about the timeframe. 2. Wrong about Democrats. Other than that, good work. 1. Thank you for pointing out for the third time that I was wrong about the timeframe after I already admitted that. 2. Was there any filibuster those two supported or any major piece of legislation they voted against that would have helped the "GOP obstructionism"? If not, it doesn't matter what they call themselves, they were still in the democrat camp. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Was there any filibuster those two supported or any major piece of legislation they voted against that would have helped the "GOP obstructionism"? If not, it doesn't matter what they call themselves, they were still in the democrat camp. You're the one asserting that there was a filibuster proof majority. If you'd like to prove it you can certainly research it. Link to comment
Mavric Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Did any piece of legislation during those 14 months need a single GOP vote in favor to become law? Link to comment
Comish Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Comish? Can you back up your claims? http://www.huskerboa...post__p__953414 Well, first of all (and I know this will probably lead to a whole new thread) google is widely acknowledged as extremely biased to the left, so I don’t put total credence in it’s search results. See: http://cjv123.hubpag...es-Liberal-Bias I remember arguing years ago with a work colleague (who although otherwise seemingly moderately intelligent, never-the-less held fast to inexplicable liberal talking points) about the google bias. He pointed me to a number of google results based on questions that had terms similar to “failure” and the TOP of the google result page invariably had George Bush as the first answer. Gee, I’m sure when researching nouns most people would gravitate immediately to GB. (now if the response had been Jimmy Carter, they might be on to something). But to the immediate question, I probably erred in putting direct quotes around my statement, but it was certainly the intent of his mutterings in the aftermath of the November 2010 debacle for the Dems I’ll try to be more circumspect in the future as I know you are a well known stickler for the facts. Link to comment
Comish Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Regardless of who is elected, do any of you think that things are going to change? Somewhat, yes. IMO the most significant difference will be the nomination of Supreme Court justices. That's where we could see a shift that actually matters. I agree 100% with this. The future of the country for the next 30 years will be directed by the make-up of the Supreme Court as there will likely be at least 2 vacancies to be filled by the winner in November. And, just as important, a high number of appeals court justices and other lower level members of the judiciary are either vacant or soon to be vacant as retirements induce current members. That is why this is such a watershed election for the country. Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 14, 2012 Author Share Posted May 14, 2012 We can't afford any more Citizens United rulings. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Did any piece of legislation during those 14 months need a single GOP vote in favor to become law? You're the one saying that it did not need a single GOP vote (i.e. "filibuster proof majority") so you should certainly check that out. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Comish? Can you back up your claims? http://www.huskerboa...post__p__953414 Well, first of all (and I know this will probably lead to a whole new thread) google is widely acknowledged as extremely biased to the left, so I don’t put total credence in it’s search results. See: http://cjv123.hubpag...es-Liberal-Bias I remember arguing years ago with a work colleague (who although otherwise seemingly moderately intelligent, never-the-less held fast to inexplicable liberal talking points) about the google bias. He pointed me to a number of google results based on questions that had terms similar to “failure” and the TOP of the google result page invariably had George Bush as the first answer. Gee, I’m sure when researching nouns most people would gravitate immediately to GB. (now if the response had been Jimmy Carter, they might be on to something). You are trying to show that Google is biased by linking a blog post with a grammatical error in the title? Yikes. Feel free to use the search engine of your choice to research your fake quote. (Also, I laughed out loud when I realized that you probably googled "google liberal bias" to find that link. See here: http://bit.ly/IRhJ2X) But to the immediate question, I probably erred in putting direct quotes around my statement, but it was certainly the intent of his mutterings in the aftermath of the November 2010 debacle for the Dems Prove it. If it was "certainly the intent" then it shouldn't be difficult at all. This is the problem with the political discourse in our country. Bold (and false!) assertions are made as if they were incontrovertibly true . . . and fake quotes are defended as certainly accurate. Then when someone bothers to point out the lies the mistaken party responds with a blog post about how Google is Liberal and Bias. [sic] Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Regardless of who is elected, do any of you think that things are going to change? Somewhat, yes. IMO the most significant difference will be the nomination of Supreme Court justices. That's where we could see a shift that actually matters. I agree 100% with this. The future of the country for the next 30 years will be directed by the make-up of the Supreme Court as there will likely be at least 2 vacancies to be filled by the winner in November. And, just as important, a high number of appeals court justices and other lower level members of the judiciary are either vacant or soon to be vacant as retirements induce current members. That is why this is such a watershed election for the country. Agreed. Regarding the bold . . . the reason for the high number of vacancies is directly related to a problem discussed on this page of this thread. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 We can't afford any more Citizens United rulings. Exactly. That's what's scary. Link to comment
Comish Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 We can't afford any more Citizens United rulings. Exactly. That's what's scary. Also scary is the statement by Buzzy Ginsberg that emerging nations should NOT use the US constitution as a model. Methinks if she finds it so reprehensible, maybe she out to recuse herself right out of her current position. Link to comment
Comish Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Comish? Can you back up your claims? http://www.huskerboa...post__p__953414 Well, first of all (and I know this will probably lead to a whole new thread) google is widely acknowledged as extremely biased to the left, so I don’t put total credence in it’s search results. See: http://cjv123.hubpag...es-Liberal-Bias I remember arguing years ago with a work colleague (who although otherwise seemingly moderately intelligent, never-the-less held fast to inexplicable liberal talking points) about the google bias. He pointed me to a number of google results based on questions that had terms similar to “failure” and the TOP of the google result page invariably had George Bush as the first answer. Gee, I’m sure when researching nouns most people would gravitate immediately to GB. (now if the response had been Jimmy Carter, they might be on to something). You are trying to show that Google is biased by linking a blog post with a grammatical error in the title? Yikes. Feel free to use the search engine of your choice to research your fake quote. (Also, I laughed out loud when I realized that you probably googled "google liberal bias" to find that link. See here: http://bit.ly/IRhJ2X) But to the immediate question, I probably erred in putting direct quotes around my statement, but it was certainly the intent of his mutterings in the aftermath of the November 2010 debacle for the Dems Prove it. If it was "certainly the intent" then it shouldn't be difficult at all. This is the problem with the political discourse in our country. Bold (and false!) assertions are made as if they were incontrovertibly true . . . and fake quotes are defended as certainly accurate. Then when someone bothers to point out the lies the mistaken party responds with a blog post about how Google is Liberal and Bias. [sic] Speaking of political discourse, are you asserting that Google is not liberal and biased? Just asking for YOUR opinion. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 We can't afford any more Citizens United rulings. Exactly. That's what's scary. Also scary is the statement by Buzzy Ginsberg that emerging nations should NOT use the US constitution as a model. Methinks if she finds it so reprehensible, maybe she out to recuse herself right out of her current position. She said it was reprehensible? You aren't making things up again . . . are you? Because I'm familiar with the Egypt comment . . . but I certainly don't remember the word reprehensible. Could you use whatever search engine that you find accessible to help me out? Thanks. Link to comment
Recommended Posts