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
      • "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.

                      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
    • If you haven't read this, you should. Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition http://www.wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf [umd.edu]. Very intersting reading.
    • 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.

      That is an easy one and is from recent history. Just look at when Justice Ginsberg was appointed. The Repubilcans overwhelmingly voted for her even though she had serious issues. Turn that around with Robert and Alito. The Democrats were having spasms.

      • Ginsburg I really can't comment on as I have not followed her.

        However, I did hear a radio show that talked to ex-court assistents and the one comment I remember is that she is not really a threat and can be "brow-beaten" The fellow said that Scalia has "motivated" her a couple times.

        Part of the screaming is the fact that there could be 4 replacements with this President and the Ideology could fall hard to the right.

        I don't worry about it myself as with American politics; when you swing really hard one dir
        • Ginsburg I really can't comment on as I have not followed her.

          She was a very well-known liberal judge. She was top brass in the ACLU and an outspoken advocate of abortion rights. Everyone knew exactly what they were getting when they voted for her, and the conservatives, including the pro-life ones, voted for her anyway. Again, the vote was 96-3, and the Senate was cotrolled by Republicans.

          However, I did hear a radio show that talked to ex-court assistents and the one comment I remember is that she is no
    • So would the small government of your conservatism keep itself out of gay marriage, recreational drug use, prostitution, and such? Or just keep itself out of gun control?

      Insofar as they are unrelated to the government and do not harm other people, yes. Obviously, gay marriage -- as an issue -- is closely related to the government, since what is desired is a sanctioning of a particular type of a union by the government. It's extraordinarily specious to frame gay marriage as a private, personal issue, since
        • Are you crazy?

          No.

          How can you say that the modern U.S. term "conservative" is primarily a reference to libertarian ideals of small government?

          Because it is.

          Do you think legalizing recreational drug use, prostitution, and gay marriage are "conservative" goals of US conservatives?

          Broadly and vaguely, yes.

          Question: what is almost universally regarded as the premier journal of conservative thought of American conservatism? The easy and obviously true answer is National Review, which has come out in favor of dru
            • Buckley is conservative, Buckley espouses libertarian views, therefore conservative is libertarian.

              I didn't say that, of course. What I said was that the two have been, for many decades, been used interchangably with a certain form of conservativsm. And I offered evidence of it, and I favorably compared the views of each.

              Nice straw man, though. Logic, my ass.

              In citing Wikipedia's entries on conservatism and libertarianism, I hoped to get away from a strictly personal set of assertions.

              Again: logic, my as
        • Do you think legalizing recreational drug use, prostitution, and gay marriage are "conservative" goals of US conservatives?

          I am a US conservative, and I believe recreational drug use, prostitution, and gay marriage should all be legalized, as should any other victimless crimes, such as copyright infringement. As a matter of fact, I think marriage should be completely, 100% deregulated and the law should not in any way discriminate against people on the basis of marital status.

          Oh, and I'm a fundamenta

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
        • Oh, and by the way, Barry Goldwater, author of Conscience of a Conservative, and considered by some (including my father) to be the father of modern conservatism supported allowing homosexuals into the military [perl.org], as do I.

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers