State of The Union play by play

[Larry Gude]

Nope...

...orgy was first. You can look it up.


I'm suggesting 2a may have called you annoying in response to the orgy comment. Y'all can work that out but that's the way the thread read to me.

As for your opinions I can't say for sure I've read one yet, so, here's a chance:

Why would there be a thread celebrating Alitos first action on the bench?

a. I doubt anyone cares about some loser in Missouri.

b. The argument all along was that Alito was not some reactionary right wing ideologue. If you read, as it seems you have, the story, Missouri has been made Alitos responsibility and it would seem a rational, good judge would want to hold things up until he got up to speed, as he has done.

So, wouldn't you agree that what we really need is a thread pointing out how wrong the Democratic nut jobs on the Senate judiciary commitee are, once again, and now about this guy? Maybe some aplogies are forthcoming?

Your opinion?

 

[Frank]

BTW...how come no one's started a thread celebrating Alito's first Supreme Court decision?

Because it's Thursday morning, and not everyone has had their morning coffee yet - let alone read the latest.

To me - who cares? It actually PROVES to me that I was right all along about Alito - and what a Supreme Court Justice SHOULD be. He should make his decisions based on the Constitution and the law - and his OWN opinion should be irrelevant.

Good on him.

 

[Larry Gude]

Frank...

Because it's Thursday morning, and not everyone has had their morning coffee yet - let alone read the latest.

To me - who cares? It actually PROVES to me that I was right all along about Alito - and what a Supreme Court Justice SHOULD be. He should make his decisions based on the Constitution and the law - and his OWN opinion should be irrelevant.

Good on him.

...we're not feeding Kerads preconceived world view very well, are we?

 

[Kerad]

Actually, it's EXTREMELY American....if you mean, by the way Americans *behave*. Nothing gets Americans more p!ssed than a good disagreement in politics.

Well, unless you're *me*. I'm so used to being disagreed with, it has almost no effect on me anymore.

But I hope you're not trying to imply that this is solely a characteristic of the right. From my experience, the left is at LEAST equally guilty if not moreso - because unlike most conservatives I know - who recognize that "right" and "left" are the balancing of different political views - most on the "left" do not see their views as "left" at all, but belonging to the mainstream. Thus, there are their own "normal" views, and those of the right-wing loonies.

As a consequence, from their perspective, it's like sharing the stage with people who believe in a flat-earth or in the phlogiston theory. It's no longer a matter of "balance" - it's a matter of rational versus ridiculous. In such a situation, it's ok to ridicule their views, because it's no longer a matter of respecting equally valid ideas - because - from their perspective - they're not valid. From any viewpoint.

This is why those on the left can tell a Harvard president to shut the hell up because his views on gender are just "wrong" - but can support a University of Colorado professor for calling 9/11 victims a bunch of Eichmanns.

In THAT respect - I favor the conservatives, because as much as they detest liberal views, they recognize them as the 'balance' to their own.

On the other hand ---

BOTH sides have similar approaches to disparaging views of the other side of the aisle. They both attack *motives*.

Those on the left, believing their side is enlightened and rational and unhindered by religious prejudice, will claim the other side is racist, bigoted, ignorant, old-fashioned, and motivated by heartlessness and greed. They're dismissive of the other side - without any regard to the MERITS of the argument - because of a prejudging of the person.

Those on the right are equally culpable in this approach, believing the other side is blinded by embracing the latest fad, motivated by cowardice, lacking any moral restraint. They regard the other side as moral weaklings without a backbone, spiritual heathen without a conscience who use class warfare as a tool for their own ends.

Should I go on? We've heard it all before.

I'm not above this, even in person - because it's hard NOT to get provoked when your opponent has wandered off the path of rational argument.

But hopefully - ONLINE - we can ALL be better arguers, since we actually TAKE THE TIME to write things out. I know from experience I've deleted - and NEVER answered - about half of everything I've ever attempted online.

I was finished with this thread...but since you put so much time into a response, I will add this.

I agree that the far left can be just as rediculous as the far right. I would make fun of both radical sides equally. This board is dominated by those on the far right...so they're the ones getting torqued.

I have many opinions that are aligned with the Dems...and many that are aligned with the moderate Repubs. The current administration has certainly shifted me more to the left, but that's irrelevent.

Regardless...those with absolutely NO sense of humor...or those just looking to be offended would indeed be better off ignoring me. I've been told that's easy to do.

Okay...have a nice day, everyone!

 

[Frank]

...we're not feeding Kerads preconceived world view very well, are we?

I have to admit, some conservative talking heads aren't helping matters much. Almost everywhere I read up to Alito's nomination was some article (albeit, none written by bona fide conservatives) demonstrating how so many appointees went against the conservative "philosophy" after their appointment.

I wish I had a nickel for every Limbaugh/Hannity type who has said something like they didn't want another Souter - a person who was supposed to be conservative, but turned out to be otherwise. What they frequently express is a sense of *betrayal* - as if his decisions should EVER be strictly conservative.

Actually, the one who strikes me as a "traitor" the most often - is Kennedy. Anyone who makes reference to the laws of other nations as a basis for his decisions strikes me as a guy who's wandered too far afield.

 

[Kerad]

...orgy was first. You can look it up.


I'm suggesting 2a may have called you annoying in response to the orgy comment. Y'all can work that out but that's the way the thread read to me.

As for your opinions I can't say for sure I've read one yet, so, here's a chance:

Why would there be a thread celebrating Alitos first action on the bench?

a. I doubt anyone cares about some loser in Missouri.

b. The argument all along was that Alito was not some reactionary right wing ideologue. If you read, as it seems you have, the story, Missouri has been made Alitos responsibility and it would seem a rational, good judge would want to hold things up until he got up to speed, as he has done.

So, wouldn't you agree that what we really need is a thread pointing out how wrong the Democratic nut jobs on the Senate judiciary commitee are, once again, and now about this guy? Maybe some aplogies are forthcoming?

Your opinion?

I keep getting pulled back into this thread. I sure am popular!

I did post in a different "Alito" thread that I had no big problem with him being confirmed. Of course Dubya's going to nominate a conservative. Alito seems exceptionally qualified to do the job, and the Dems should just get over it.

His first ruling did indeed throw a big wrench into the Dems dire predictions of him going crazy with a right wing agenda...and that's a good sign. Of course there will be bigger decisions ahead...but we'll just have to wait and see on those.

For the record...I am for the death penalty...so spare me the "pacifist hippy" cries.

 

[Larry Gude]

Kerad...

This board is dominated by those on the far right

Would you mind defining 'far right'?

 

[Kerad]

...we're not feeding Kerads preconceived world view very well, are we?

My world view comes from living in it...so no preconceptions here.

 

[Larry Gude]

How can I spare you...

I keep getting pulled back into this thread. I sure am popular!

I did post in a different "Alito" thread that I had no big problem with him being confirmed. Of course Dubya's going to nominate a conservative. Alito seems exceptionally qualified to do the job, and the Dems should just get over it.

His first ruling did indeed throw a big wrench into the Dems dire predictions of him going crazy with a right wing agenda...and that's a good sign. Of course there will be bigger decisions ahead...but we'll just have to wait and see on those.

For the record...I am for the death penalty...so spare me the "pacifist hippy" cries.

...something I haven't even suggested?

That's why I'd like you to define 'far right wing'; you seem to have alot of opinions of other people AND what you think they think of you and they seem to be based on preconceptions, not conversations in here.

 

[Kerad]

...something I haven't even suggested?

That's why I'd like you to define 'far right wing'; you seem to have alot of opinions of other people AND what you think they think of you and they seem to be based on preconceptions, not conversations in here.

I wasn't directing that hippy thing specifically at you, Larry.

I am not going to specifically define "far right". We all know that both parties have their more radical edges. Far right...just for the purpose of giving you an answer, I'm going to consider using the Bushies (Bush, Rove, Cheney, etc..)...and everyone even more to the right. I know it's vague, but we all know the far right/far lefts when we see it.

 

[Frank]

My world view comes from living in it...so no preconceptions here.

Including myself - that's impossible. Everyone brings their preconceptions to the table. It's absolutely impossible to be unbiased, because your experience will always shape your bias.

What WILL reveal a predilection to *cling* to preconceptions - is irrational support of something in the face of overwhelming evidence. This would be like the old joke about the woman who's convinced her husband is cheating, and when no hair is found on his overcoat, becomes convinced that his mistress is *bald*.

It can be very hard to change perspective if you've always believed Republicans to be the bad guys - and see something they do that's overblown in the press - and NOT believe it. It's MUCH easier to believe something you already ascribe to.

Personally - I've always respected the *police*. Mostly. Yeah, I've seen your lazy cop, the bully cop, the smart-azz cop - but mostly, I think they're doing a good job. I respect judges. And mostly, I respect the military - it's rare that I come face to face with a soldier who's seen combat and not admire him............BUT ..........I have met people who have feared cops all their lives....believe that soldiers are bloodthirsty killers who crave slaughter ....and hate judges. I can't think this way. But I do know that if my natural instinct is to trust a dog and want to pet him when he's wagging his tail, I have to try to understand that my neighbor who is utterly *TERRIFIED* by dogs has a different point of view.

Perspectives are shaped by our experiences. Most people who fear dogs have been hurt by them - and think all dogs are that way. Most people who fear cops have been abused by them - and fear all of them. I find it interesting that in the flap Joel Stein received recently - the "I don't support the troops" guy - he mentioned in an interview he has had almost zero contact with military his entire life. That didn't surprise me. Much of what he's written would sound a lot different coming from someone WITH THE EXPERIENCE that kind of perspective would bring.

 

[Larry Gude]

That's a cop out...

I wasn't directing that hippy thing specifically at you, Larry.

I am not going to specifically define "far right". We all know that both parties have their more radical edges. Far right...just for the purpose of giving you an answer, I'm going to consider using the Bushies (Bush, Rove, Cheney, etc..)...and everyone even more to the right. I know it's vague, but we all know the far right/far lefts when we see it.

Bush, 56 million votes. The second time. Huge growth in federal budget. Medicaire drug benfit. Conducting nation building war. Far right? OK.

You may 'know' far left/right when you see it. I'm merely trying to get you to share your clairvoyance with us less enlightened folk.

The vast majority of left or left leaning people that come on this site leave because they can not or will not make an argument for their point of view.

They throw bombs, call people names, say vauge, meaningless things like 'we all KNOW this or that when we see/hear it' and...still don't engage in debate. That doesn't make this 'far right' dominated. There's atheists in here that post alot, pro abortion people, I'm pro drug legalization and some folks devoutly religious in their views. There are Independents and Democrats.

Thing is, in pretty much every case, every issue, they know WHY they have the opinion they have because they've thought about and enjoy talking about it. Some people change their opinions. Some people are set in stone.

But they still KNOW and will tell you WHY.

On the other hand, our lefty friends, just about without exception, will NOT discuss their beleifs, will not explain their opinions, will not engage in debate.

They all throw up their hands and say things like 'bunch of right wingers'...'religious freaks'...'hard core conservatives...'

All we see is people who don't or can't or won't explain themselves.
Whether you fit that pattern or not is up to you.

What dominates in here is thinkers.

 

[Kerad]

Including myself - that's impossible. Everyone brings their preconceptions to the table. It's absolutely impossible to be unbiased, because your experience will always shape your bias.

What WILL reveal a predilection to *cling* to preconceptions - is irrational support of something in the face of overwhelming evidence. This would be like the old joke about the woman who's convinced her husband is cheating, and when no hair is found on his overcoat, becomes convinced that his mistress is *bald*.

It can be very hard to change perspective if you've always believed Republicans to be the bad guys - and see something they do that's overblown in the press - and NOT believe it. It's MUCH easier to believe something you already ascribe to.

Personally - I've always respected the *police*. Mostly. Yeah, I've seen your lazy cop, the bully cop, the smart-azz cop - but mostly, I think they're doing a good job. I respect judges. And mostly, I respect the military - it's rare that I come face to face with a soldier who's seen combat and not admire him............BUT ..........I have met people who have feared cops all their lives....believe that soldiers are bloodthirsty killers who crave slaughter ....and hate judges. I can't think this way. But I do know that if my natural instinct is to trust a dog and want to pet him when he's wagging his tail, I have to try to understand that my neighbor who is utterly *TERRIFIED* by dogs has a different point of view.

Perspectives are shaped by our experiences. Most people who fear dogs have been hurt by them - and think all dogs are that way. Most people who fear cops have been abused by them - and fear all of them. I find it interesting that in the flap Joel Stein received recently - the "I don't support the troops" guy - he mentioned in an interview he has had almost zero contact with military his entire life. That didn't surprise me. Much of what he's written would sound a lot different coming from someone WITH THE EXPERIENCE that kind of perspective would bring.

Excellent post. I agree wholeheartedly.

I did/do not believe all Republicans are the bad guys. (I was hoping to be able to vote for a Rupublican in the 2000 election, but the candidate I favored didn't win the nomination.) I just think that many of the ones in power now, are. I am now far less likely to ever vote Republican...but you never know.

 

[Kerad]

Bush, 56 million votes. The second time. Huge growth in federal budget. Medicaire drug benfit. Conducting nation building war. Far right? OK.

You may 'know' far left/right when you see it. I'm merely trying to get you to share your clairvoyance with us less enlightened folk.

The vast majority of left or left leaning people that come on this site leave because they can not or will not make an argument for their point of view.

They throw bombs, call people names, say vauge, meaningless things like 'we all KNOW this or that when we see/hear it' and...still don't engage in debate. That doesn't make this 'far right' dominated. There's atheists in here that post alot, pro abortion people, I'm pro drug legalization and some folks devoutly religious in their views. There are Independents and Democrats.

Thing is, in pretty much every case, every issue, they know WHY they have the opinion they have because they've thought about and enjoy talking about it. Some people change their opinions. Some people are set in stone.

But they still KNOW and will tell you WHY.

On the other hand, our lefty friends, just about without exception, will NOT discuss their beleifs, will not explain their opinions, will not engage in debate.

They all throw up their hands and say things like 'bunch of right wingers'...'religious freaks'...'hard core conservatives...'

All we see is people who don't or can't or won't explain themselves.
Whether you fit that pattern or not is up to you.

What dominates in here is thinkers.

I do not have the time, or desire to write and post and entire thesis detailing my political ideaology. I have posted thoughts on specific items/issues...and will continue to do so if I feel the urge.

If you honestly say that do not see wide, sweeping generalizations written about the left, then I will take your word for it. However, there are far, far more anti-left posts than anti-right. I'm fine with that, I understand. It's sometimes quite humorous.

You also don't see the oh-so-hurtful (unsigned) karma bombs I get. Often in response to the "non-offensive" comments, even. Actually, getting red karma from this forum is way more rewarding than green from another. Once again, it's humorous how easily some people get all tizzied over someone expressing differing views.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

...one of the big issues we have around here is reading for comprehension.

do not have the time, or desire to write and post and entire thesis detailing my political ideaology

Nobody asked for a thesis.

Here's a simple and timely one: Do you think 'advise and consent' means
that the ENTIRE Senate must give consent or just 51?

Back to comprehension:

If you honestly say that do not see wide, sweeping generalizations written about the left, then I will take your word for it. However, there are far, far more anti-left posts than anti-right.

There are no wide, sweeping generalizations about the left. The vast majority of them do not know WHY they think what they think. That was my point. The left is easy to stereotype because it's NOT a stereotype; The vast majority of the left go on feelings. They know how they feel about issues, not what they think because they don't think as much as feel and thus come in here unarmed when asked 'What do you think?"

Then, all in a huff, they lump everyone in here together in retaliation. Call it the Dixie Chick effect. They are free to say what they want but when challenged with other opinions...the feathers fly.

I can't speak to your karma bombs. I don't see 'em. Guess what? I get red ones too, without fail, unsigned, calling me mean, nasty and worse; a Republican!

So, we can apologize for each others bombers and call ourselves bigger than that?

 

[Toxick]

I know many Republicans can't handle opposing viewpoints...

Yeah - that's strictly a Republican trait.

 

[Frank]

There are no wide, sweeping generalizations about the left.

So far, so good....

The vast majority of them do not know WHY they think what they think.

Ok, this was hard to believe that it was the VERY NEXT SENTENCE.

Geez, Larry, you were doing so well.........

 

[Otter]

Pretty good editorial by Peggy Noonan in the WSJ.

It was the first State of the Union Mr. Bush has given in which Congress seemed utterly pre-9/11 in terms of battle lines drawn. Exactly half the chamber repeatedly leapt to its feet to applaud this banality or that. The other half remained resolutely glued to its widely cushioned seats. It seemed a metaphor for the Democratic Party: We don't know where to stand or what to stand for, and in fact we're not good at standing for anything anyway, but at least we know we can't stand Republicans.

 

[Kerad]

...one of the big issues we have around here is reading for comprehension.



Nobody asked for a thesis.

Here's a simple and timely one: Do you think 'advise and consent' means
that the ENTIRE Senate must give consent or just 51?

Back to comprehension:



There are no wide, sweeping generalizations about the left. The vast majority of them do not know WHY they think what they think. That was my point. The left is easy to stereotype because it's NOT a stereotype; The vast majority of the left go on feelings. They know how they feel about issues, not what they think because they don't think as much as feel and thus come in here unarmed when asked 'What do you think?"

Then, all in a huff, they lump everyone in here together in retaliation. Call it the Dixie Chick effect. They are free to say what they want but when challenged with other opinions...the feathers fly.

I can't speak to your karma bombs. I don't see 'em. Guess what? I get red ones too, without fail, unsigned, calling me mean, nasty and worse; a Republican!
So, we can apologize for each others bombers and call ourselves bigger than that?

That's funny!

I could direct you to certain posts...but it isn't really worth the time. (Doing a bit of multitasking at the moment). I, unlike some of my counterparts here, do not get all frothy at the mouth about it. It's predictable AND entertaining.

As far as the "advise and consent" thing, are you speaking specifically of the Bush "terrorist surveillance program" subject?

I don't have all the facts to that specific subject. I will just state that if whatever is up for a vote only requires a simple majority, then yes...51 would count as "consent". Now, if that's a strict party line vote, I wouldn't say that "true" congressional consent was reached...but technically, yes.

 

[Pete]

Excellent post. I agree wholeheartedly.

I did/do not believe all Republicans are the bad guys. (I was hoping to be able to vote for a Rupublican in the 2000 election, but the candidate I favored didn't win the nomination.) I just think that many of the ones in power now, are. I am now far less likely to ever vote Republican...but you never know.

Can you tell me with honesty that the behavior and frothing of Mukluski, Hoyer, Pelosi, Kerry, Biden, Durbin, Schumer or Ried makes them a better alternative to voting Republican?