Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Well to say that Liberals are herd mentalities and conservatives do not is not exactly true.

    How would conservatives respond to a SCOTUS nomination of a Liberal even though it was shown he was a good judge? I can give you a few conservatives that would argue you can't be a good judge if you are liberal.

    What of the Church community? That can be called a herd mentality. What is that battle cry? "Family Values." How many conservatives scream about states rights and yet were calling for a constitutional amen
    • Well to say that Liberals are herd mentalities and conservatives do not is not exactly true.

      I never said such a thing. What I implied was the opposite: that it is as true of one group as the other. It's true for some people in each group, and not for many others.

      How would conservatives respond to a SCOTUS nomination of a Liberal even though it was shown he was a good judge? I can give you a few conservatives that would argue you can't be a good judge if you are liberal.

      Sure, but on the other hand, we also have history to guide us. A filibuster was attempted against some liberal nominees under Clinton, but even though the Republicans had a majority, there were not nearly enough Republicans to have a successful filibuster; however, with the Democrats in the minority, they filibustered many conservative nominees.

      Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, at least as liberal as Alito is conservative, was confirmed -- again, by a Republican Senate -- 96-3. This was a couple years after Thomas, a conservative, was confirmed by a vote of only 52-48.

      So if you're going to tell me conservatives are no more open to liberal judges than liberals are to conservative judges, I'm going to have to disagree, as history proves otherwise, at least for now. The next time a Democrat is President, the conservatives might -- in light of recent events -- change their previous course, and be as opposed to liberal judges as liberals have been to conservative judges, for the last 15 years.

      What of the Church community? That can be called a herd mentality.

      Not by someone familiar with it, no, I don't believe so.

      What is that battle cry? "Family Values."

      Of the "Church community"? Not really, no.

      How many conservatives scream about states rights and yet were calling for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage because of the actions of other states?

      Are you talking about a Constitutional amendment to protect a state's right to ban gay marriage, or about one to ban gay marriage for every state? The latter is a notion that actually not too many conservatives support. Most conservatives favor only federal protection of state law, not federal encroachment on state law.

      I know the one Constitutional amendment offered a couple of years ago likely would have banned gay marriage for every state, but despite the symbolic support for it among Republicans (and many Democrats), it never would have passed like that.

      Most conservatives instead support a Constitutional amendment preventing your gay marriage in Massachusetts from being recognized in South Dakota, which is now required by the Fourteenth Amendment. And such a new amendment would, of course, be perfectly consistent with the principle of states' rights.

      For starters why would a liberal want to listen to a conservative since many simply dismiss a liberal argument because it's well liberal.

      So since "many" do that, therefore you should dismiss all conservatives? Regardless, I certainly don't do that.

      How many conservatives like to use the word liberal like a dirty word?

      About as many as there are liberals who use "conservative" as a dirty word, probably.

      Declaring a liberal has no perspective doesn't really make one want to listen to a conservative perspective now does it?

      I didn't say he has no perspective because he is liberal. I said it because he myopically attacked conservatives for things that liberals are also just as guilty of. My attack on him was not ideological at all, but more methodological.

      Comments made by conservative fronts show the same lack of perspective as well.

      Yes, of course. I never implied otherwise.

      You mentioned that he doesn't understand Red Staters? Well I know many Red Staters(mainly relatives) that don't understand Blue Staters.

      Of course. I never implied otherwise.

      You missed the whole point of my post. I did not say conservatives are better than liberals. I said liberals are no better than conservatives.

      Then there is my new favorite comment. Liberalism is in decline because of abortion. Too many liberal babies are aborted you know.

      Someone told me that was on NPR the other day. It's actually sorta true. Demography is a bitch. But it has less to do with abortion than simply liberals being less likely to have as many kids as conservatives.

      Why can't a conservative simply not read a book rather then seek it's removal from the libraries?Why can't a conservative simply not look at pornography rather then seek it's censorship? Why can't a conservative simply change the radio/tv channel rather then seek censorship or killing it by harassing a shows advertisers?

      First of all, you misrepresent what I actually wrote. I was not talking about "liberals." I was talking about people who happen to be as myopic as TorgoX is, which has nothing to do with ideology.

      Second, liberals also seek removal of books from libraries, and censorship of TV/radio they dislike, and certainly engage in a significant amount of harassment of those show's advertisers.

      As to porn: that's different, when kids are involved. I do support censorship of porn from kids. A parent can give porn to kids, but no other adult should. I think you'll find that a huge majority of Americans agree with that notion, including a majority of liberals.

      Different approaches but the same thing in the end. My ideology is better then yours.

      I never said or implied in that post that my ideology was better than his. What I did imply is that I am far more open-minded than him, with a much greater sense of perspective. But that is irrespective of ideology.

      Finally; I disagree with you over some things. Don't have a heart attack and please don't delete me! :P

      I couldn't care less whether someone agrees with me. My heart won't palpitate over it, let alone arrest. Indeed, it annoys me far more when people do agree with me over everything (which, thankfully, is exceedingly rare).

      And I've never deleted anyone, or any post.
      • "Sure, but on the other hand, we also have history to guide us. A filibuster was attempted against some liberal nominees under Clinton, but even though the Republicans had a majority, there were not nearly enough Republicans to have a successful filibuster; however, with the Democrats in the minority, they filibustered many conservative nominees."

        Actually the history is somewhat balanced. Well there might be one group that did it more successfully. But I am not sure to the exact numbers. The concept of
        • Actually the history is somewhat balanced.

          Actually, no, it isn't.

          The concept of the filabuster on nominees started during LBJ. The Republican of the time(forgot his name) said "We filabustered the nomination" Since then both groups have used it man times.

          Actually, no, they haven't. It happened once with Abe Fortas under LBJ. But he was not filibustered on ideological grounds, but because there were serious concerns about corruption, and dishonesty in his testimony.

          The Republicans as a group did not filibu
          • Hmmm are you one of those Demos are the antichrist types? ;) Sorry I just flashed about my relatives. The only thing that is setting you apart is that you are sounding smarter. ;)

            "Actually the history is somewhat balanced.

            Actually, no, it isn't."

            As mentioned I don't have numbers so it would be foolish to argue on.

            "and there is a bill being discussed on the Senate called The Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act. Fourty-one states wrote a laundry list of things the Insurrence In
            • As mentioned I don't have numbers so it would be foolish to argue on.

              Yet you asserted it as true, even though it wasn't. I caution you not to merely reguritate liberal talking points to me without really being able to back it up, because I won't let you get away with it. :-)

              You commented that conservatives fight for states rights and I am just saying we shall see.

              Yes, we shall, but I think you think that I think that Republican == conservative. That's simply not the case. Until Reagan came along, the Rep
              • "Yet you asserted it as true, even though it wasn't. I caution you not to merely reguritate liberal talking points to me without really being able to back it up, because I won't let you get away with it. :-)" Ahh but then again you could show numbers and sources to prove you are right. ;) "That's simply not the case. Until Reagan came along, the Republican party was pretty liberal." Well I would say it probably started with Truman and the Dixicrat migration to the Republican party. "I am sure there are
                • Sorry about that. Wasn't paying attention and hit submit. You can ignore that mess.

                  Dumb question. Is their an edit function?
                • Ahh but then again you could show numbers and sources to prove you are right. ;)

                  I did give you numbers. Sources are common. Most of it I know from memory, and you can easily Google them given the information I provided.

                  The number of judges with attempted filibustered is about the same for both parties. But the Republicans as a group only actually filibustered one: Fortas, who is the only judge in question who actually would not have been confirmed anyway. The others were a small number of the Republican
                  • "Ah, so now it comes out. It's OK to censor someone if they are being racist.

                    Do you not see how hypocritical that is?"

                    Yes and that is reading into more then what I was saying. Did I say I believed that? It was nothing more then a statement.

                    So are you a libertarian?
                    • that is reading into more then what I was saying.

                      No. You actually said it. Whether you meant it is another thing.

                      Did I say I believed that?

                      You directly implied that you believe that a law censoring racist speech is somehow different from a law censoring other speech: when confronted with the fact of hate speech laws in the U.S., you dimissed those as different, because they are about "racism."

                      So, you did not say it is OK, but you did say it is not as bad, yes.
                    • Ok Difference in styles I guess. All I said is why they did it. I will just have to remember to tag on my stances to such comments in the future for you. ;)

                      So a libertarian or not? I am really curious.
                    • All I said is why they did it.

                      Yes, but you dismissed it as substantively different.

                      So a libertarian or not? I am really curious.

                      I don't care about labels, but I will answer you, if you answer me: is liberals censorsing racist speech as bad as conservatives censoring porn?
                    • It's not an effort to label you. Your debate style seems familiar.

                      You can't have Freedom of Speech and Expression without the ability to say stupid and or hateful things.

                      You can't stop racism by controlling language.

                      So yes it as bad if not worst then censoring porn.

                      Mind you porn should have controls as to keep young children from freely accessing it....
                    • It's not an effort to label you.

                      Well, of course it is. That is precisely what it is. You have a label, and are trying to see if it fits me.

                      You can't have Freedom of Speech and Expression without the ability to say stupid and or hateful things.

                      You can't stop racism by controlling language.

                      So yes it as bad if not worst then censoring porn.


                      Very good, and very Meiklejohnian of you.

                      Mind you porn should have controls as to keep young children from freely accessing it....

                      That's not very "liberal" of you (well, c
                    • Ahhh back from vacation! Not much for arguing today. ;)

                      I do have to confess I had to look up. Meiklejohnian. ;-)

                      I understand your description of your political attitudes. It does get "confusing" as the Liberts have taken on some of the ideas for themselves. If you listen to them talk; they created them.

                      Anyhows. You know your stuff Pudge! Much more then I do.

                      My "knowledge" only follows the history aspects (or tries to) as my interest stems from my grandfather x 7. He was Angus McDonald of Virgina