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
                • 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