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 Republicans who acted on their own, and all of the Democratic judges (again, except for Fortas) were confirmed anyway.

                  Hence, the accurate statement that the Republicans never prevented confirmation of a Democratic judicial nominee with a filibuster. All the attempts failed miserably, except for Fortas, who would not have been confirmed anyway.

                  On the other hand, the Democrats voted as a party on all the filibusters, except for the Alito filibuster. Unlike the "Republican" filibusters, there was a majority of Democrats voting to filibuster Alito, but it was far short of the number they needed to defeat cloture.

                  You can try to chalk this up to "success" vs. "failure," but that ignores the fact that it was only a minority of Republicans who participated in the Clinton-era filibusters, as opposed to nearly universal support by the Democrats for the Bush-era filibusters.

                  Well I would say it probably started with Truman and the Dixicrat migration to the Republican party.

                  You'd be wrong. You're thinking only of social conservatism, which is really a different thing, and it's never even been a majority of the party until the last 15 years anyway, following on the coattails of conservatism. Eisenhower and Nixon were both pretty liberal on both scales. Reagan embodied both. Bush 41 embodied little of either. Bush 43 embodies some social conservatism, and little conservatism in general.

                  It was not until Reagan that conservatism, either kind, took solid root in the national Republican party. And it wasn't until 1994 when the conservatives really took control of the Republicans in Congress and the party at large. And since then, most of the 1994 class is gone, and real conservatives are a clear minority in Congress. They do, however, still dominate among the party activists, so the Presidential candidates still must tack to the right to be nominated.

                  Oh I get out more then you think.

                  Whatever. If you have never come across a liberal who will deny a conservative idea just because it came from a conservative, then whether you get out or not, you are not seeing something that is pervasively there.

                  California and the bay area tends to be more centrist and liberal. There are conservatives of course. Just don't run into any hardcore types. Or they could be just being polite.

                  I lived in California for 10 years, in the Alameda, L.A., and Orange Counties. I am well aware of many things about California, including that in the Bay Area, it is more common than in most places to see liberals who are so closed-minded that they will dimiss an idea just because it came from a conservative. It happens all the time in California, especially the Bay Area. More than most places. That you say you've never encountered it is simply not credible.

                  Eww nice turning of the subject again.

                  You directly implied that the majority of Republicans are in favor of censorship. That is a lie. I said so, and you accuse me of "turning the subject"? I did not "turn" the subject, I replied to what YOU said, and corrected you when you said something flatly incorrect.

                  Fact remains you don't really have any liberal groups getting books pulled out of the libraries

                  That is not a fact. I did not give specifics, but I gave you plenty of information to find them for yourself. In Canada, a book was not only pulled off the shelf, a man was convicted, and then deported, for merely publishing a book denying the Holocaust. Check out Ernst Zündel. Similar incidents have happened across Europe: in Germany, the UK, and so on.

                  This is not just about the U.S., so I feel no need to abide by your arbitrary limitation. If not for the strength of the First Amendment, these same books would surely be banned by the liberals in the U.S., if they could, as evidenced by their many attempts to ban hate speech.

                  but you do get conservative Religious groups that campaign for morality and seek removal all the time.

                  It happens more often with the fringe right, but so what? They are never successful, so who cares?

                  Well I do have to say I just remembered one person. Tipper Gore and her record labeling crap. So I have to grant you one. ;)

                  FWIW, she was not a liberal at the time, so it'd be unreasonable for me to bring her up as evidence in my favor. But if you want to talk about more than books, please: Hillary Clinton, icon of the left, is in favor of censoring video games.

                  And as mentioned before, *actual* speech (rather than books) is more often censored by liberals than conservatives, through hate speech laws. There are numerous examples of students expelled for exercising their right to free speech, and there are many people who have received extra time in jail for their speech, over and above their actual crime.

                  For example, in most states, if I burn your house, I will be in jail for a long time. But if I do that AND shout a racial epithet while I do it, I will get extra time in jail. That is about as big a violation of the right to free speech as I can imagine.

                  But are the liberals in Canada and Europe the same as they are in the US?

                  In wishing they could censor views they despise? Yes.

                  The hate laws here are more geared against racism and violence situations.

                  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?

                  And no, violence is a separate issue. There's always been laws against incitement to violence with speech. But criminalizing hate speech is new, and a clear violation of the First Amendment.
                  • "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