by Doctor Science
I’ve got people arriving for dinner, but have at it.
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
by Doctor Science
I’ve got people arriving for dinner, but have at it.
Re-post your comments here, if you like.
Re-post your comments here, if you like.
Re-post your comments here, if you like.
Let’s say he was controversial and not in a good sense. His deeds will outlive him (and most of us too). Let’s hope (against all reason) we will not see his likes again.
Let’s say he was controversial and not in a good sense. His deeds will outlive him (and most of us too). Let’s hope (against all reason) we will not see his likes again.
Let’s say he was controversial and not in a good sense. His deeds will outlive him (and most of us too). Let’s hope (against all reason) we will not see his likes again.
Already noting that Republicans are saying that the next President should nominate his successor, and that the Senate “should ensure this”.
Is that even possible ?
Already noting that Republicans are saying that the next President should nominate his successor, and that the Senate “should ensure this”.
Is that even possible ?
Already noting that Republicans are saying that the next President should nominate his successor, and that the Senate “should ensure this”.
Is that even possible ?
I guess in the sense that they won’t approve any Obama nominee, it is.
I guess in the sense that they won’t approve any Obama nominee, it is.
I guess in the sense that they won’t approve any Obama nominee, it is.
If the GOP gets Trump as a nominee and decides to slow roll Obama’s nominee they could end up with a Hilary (or Sanders!) nomination and a Democrat controlled senate. If they want to hedge their bets, they might take an Obama nominee while they control the senate.
If I was Obama I would nominate an Hispanic, the more radical the better, and the dare the GOP to block his/her nomination in the midst of an election where they already have major problems with the Latino community.
If the GOP gets Trump as a nominee and decides to slow roll Obama’s nominee they could end up with a Hilary (or Sanders!) nomination and a Democrat controlled senate. If they want to hedge their bets, they might take an Obama nominee while they control the senate.
If I was Obama I would nominate an Hispanic, the more radical the better, and the dare the GOP to block his/her nomination in the midst of an election where they already have major problems with the Latino community.
If the GOP gets Trump as a nominee and decides to slow roll Obama’s nominee they could end up with a Hilary (or Sanders!) nomination and a Democrat controlled senate. If they want to hedge their bets, they might take an Obama nominee while they control the senate.
If I was Obama I would nominate an Hispanic, the more radical the better, and the dare the GOP to block his/her nomination in the midst of an election where they already have major problems with the Latino community.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says: “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” But while this is a predictable knee-jerk reaction, it does put the Republicans in a difficult position.
Sans Scalia, the Court looks positioned to make a number of rulings with one less conservativce justice. At best, there will be some 4-4 split decisions, failing to overturn situations that conservatives like. At worst, those 4-4 splits will fail to overturn lower court decisions that they dislike. And there are a lot of controversial cases on the current docket.
And meanwhile, I look for some serious (albeit not in the sense of seriousness) political focus on the fact that there is an appointment to be made. It might even shove immigration and Obamacare off center stage at the next Republican debate.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says: “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” But while this is a predictable knee-jerk reaction, it does put the Republicans in a difficult position.
Sans Scalia, the Court looks positioned to make a number of rulings with one less conservativce justice. At best, there will be some 4-4 split decisions, failing to overturn situations that conservatives like. At worst, those 4-4 splits will fail to overturn lower court decisions that they dislike. And there are a lot of controversial cases on the current docket.
And meanwhile, I look for some serious (albeit not in the sense of seriousness) political focus on the fact that there is an appointment to be made. It might even shove immigration and Obamacare off center stage at the next Republican debate.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says: “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” But while this is a predictable knee-jerk reaction, it does put the Republicans in a difficult position.
Sans Scalia, the Court looks positioned to make a number of rulings with one less conservativce justice. At best, there will be some 4-4 split decisions, failing to overturn situations that conservatives like. At worst, those 4-4 splits will fail to overturn lower court decisions that they dislike. And there are a lot of controversial cases on the current docket.
And meanwhile, I look for some serious (albeit not in the sense of seriousness) political focus on the fact that there is an appointment to be made. It might even shove immigration and Obamacare off center stage at the next Republican debate.
GOP debate is tonight is it not?
GOP debate is tonight is it not?
GOP debate is tonight is it not?
Well, well. If there is a god, he sure has a puckish sense of humor.
Lindsey Graham was on my TV just now, declaring that Obama has to nominate a “consensus choice”, which Graham defined, when pressed, as “somebody that at least 25 Republicans can vote for.” That leaves Ted Cruz out, so let us be grateful for small favors.
–TP
Well, well. If there is a god, he sure has a puckish sense of humor.
Lindsey Graham was on my TV just now, declaring that Obama has to nominate a “consensus choice”, which Graham defined, when pressed, as “somebody that at least 25 Republicans can vote for.” That leaves Ted Cruz out, so let us be grateful for small favors.
–TP
Well, well. If there is a god, he sure has a puckish sense of humor.
Lindsey Graham was on my TV just now, declaring that Obama has to nominate a “consensus choice”, which Graham defined, when pressed, as “somebody that at least 25 Republicans can vote for.” That leaves Ted Cruz out, so let us be grateful for small favors.
–TP
“If I was Obama I would nominate an Hispanic, the more radical the better, and the dare the GOP to block his/her nomination in the midst of an election where they already have major problems with the Latino community.”
They’d like more nothing more over the next 8 months than to gin up long-ago immigration charges (via House Committee, INS not invited) against whomever radical wetback/spic (their words, I guarantee it, through their proxies, basically Ann Coulter’s nativist twat) nominee’s mother Obama cares to introduce.
Actually, I think Obama should nominate himself, and if confirmed, more likely assassinated, hand over the Presidency to Joe Biden for the duration.
Or, Obama should nominate Rush Limbaugh. His briefs will actually be written on his jockey shorts, the American Tea Party parchment.
He’ll be confirmed. Rubio won’t show up for the vote, having a panic attack.
Hilarity will ensue.
Which is better than savage violence on a national scale, the only other choice available.
The Bundys are sure to be releasing an opinion of Scalia’s replacement through their lawyer, by tomorrow.
“If I was Obama I would nominate an Hispanic, the more radical the better, and the dare the GOP to block his/her nomination in the midst of an election where they already have major problems with the Latino community.”
They’d like more nothing more over the next 8 months than to gin up long-ago immigration charges (via House Committee, INS not invited) against whomever radical wetback/spic (their words, I guarantee it, through their proxies, basically Ann Coulter’s nativist twat) nominee’s mother Obama cares to introduce.
Actually, I think Obama should nominate himself, and if confirmed, more likely assassinated, hand over the Presidency to Joe Biden for the duration.
Or, Obama should nominate Rush Limbaugh. His briefs will actually be written on his jockey shorts, the American Tea Party parchment.
He’ll be confirmed. Rubio won’t show up for the vote, having a panic attack.
Hilarity will ensue.
Which is better than savage violence on a national scale, the only other choice available.
The Bundys are sure to be releasing an opinion of Scalia’s replacement through their lawyer, by tomorrow.
“If I was Obama I would nominate an Hispanic, the more radical the better, and the dare the GOP to block his/her nomination in the midst of an election where they already have major problems with the Latino community.”
They’d like more nothing more over the next 8 months than to gin up long-ago immigration charges (via House Committee, INS not invited) against whomever radical wetback/spic (their words, I guarantee it, through their proxies, basically Ann Coulter’s nativist twat) nominee’s mother Obama cares to introduce.
Actually, I think Obama should nominate himself, and if confirmed, more likely assassinated, hand over the Presidency to Joe Biden for the duration.
Or, Obama should nominate Rush Limbaugh. His briefs will actually be written on his jockey shorts, the American Tea Party parchment.
He’ll be confirmed. Rubio won’t show up for the vote, having a panic attack.
Hilarity will ensue.
Which is better than savage violence on a national scale, the only other choice available.
The Bundys are sure to be releasing an opinion of Scalia’s replacement through their lawyer, by tomorrow.
And if I were Hillary and Bermie I would start talking about how much respect and admiration they had for Brennan and Marshall. On the flip side, the GOP turnout is like to be a bit bigger because of this.
And if I were Hillary and Bermie I would start talking about how much respect and admiration they had for Brennan and Marshall. On the flip side, the GOP turnout is like to be a bit bigger because of this.
And if I were Hillary and Bermie I would start talking about how much respect and admiration they had for Brennan and Marshall. On the flip side, the GOP turnout is like to be a bit bigger because of this.
Although I guess if McConnell has already said he will it allow a vote then maybe the discussion is already over.
Although I guess if McConnell has already said he will it allow a vote then maybe the discussion is already over.
Although I guess if McConnell has already said he will it allow a vote then maybe the discussion is already over.
NOT allow
NOT allow
NOT allow
“Sans Scalia, the Court looks positioned to make a number of rulings with one less conservativce justice”
The rulings will be mysteriously delayed until after the election, not unlike the mysterious outcome of the Bush/Gore stolen election.
You think Justice Thomas is sitting over there just counting sheep? He’s maneuvering right now.
“Sans Scalia, the Court looks positioned to make a number of rulings with one less conservativce justice”
The rulings will be mysteriously delayed until after the election, not unlike the mysterious outcome of the Bush/Gore stolen election.
You think Justice Thomas is sitting over there just counting sheep? He’s maneuvering right now.
“Sans Scalia, the Court looks positioned to make a number of rulings with one less conservativce justice”
The rulings will be mysteriously delayed until after the election, not unlike the mysterious outcome of the Bush/Gore stolen election.
You think Justice Thomas is sitting over there just counting sheep? He’s maneuvering right now.
I nominate Anita Hill.
I nominate Anita Hill.
I nominate Anita Hill.
Though Justice Scalia aspired to greatness, Bush v Gore will forever be his epitaph.
Though Justice Scalia aspired to greatness, Bush v Gore will forever be his epitaph.
Though Justice Scalia aspired to greatness, Bush v Gore will forever be his epitaph.
“Although I guess if McConnell has already said he will it allow a vote then maybe the discussion is already over.”
The Founders had an answer to the fact that I am not represented.
Massive violence and killing.
“Although I guess if McConnell has already said he will it allow a vote then maybe the discussion is already over.”
The Founders had an answer to the fact that I am not represented.
Massive violence and killing.
“Although I guess if McConnell has already said he will it allow a vote then maybe the discussion is already over.”
The Founders had an answer to the fact that I am not represented.
Massive violence and killing.
Reid and Sanders take the high road, conceding Salia’s brilliance. See TPM.
John Cole, a former Board member and contributor to Redstate, Hillary mocker, all-around dyspeptic, goes the other way.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/02/13/good-riddance-to-bad-rubbish-3/
Reid and Sanders take the high road, conceding Salia’s brilliance. See TPM.
John Cole, a former Board member and contributor to Redstate, Hillary mocker, all-around dyspeptic, goes the other way.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/02/13/good-riddance-to-bad-rubbish-3/
Reid and Sanders take the high road, conceding Salia’s brilliance. See TPM.
John Cole, a former Board member and contributor to Redstate, Hillary mocker, all-around dyspeptic, goes the other way.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/02/13/good-riddance-to-bad-rubbish-3/
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/scalia-death-2016-implications
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/scalia-death-2016-implications
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/scalia-death-2016-implications
Tony P: Lindsey Graham was on my TV just now, declaring that Obama has to nominate a “consensus choice”, which Graham defined, when pressed, as “somebody that at least 25 Republicans can vote for.”
Then Obama should nominate somebody like Sri Srinivasan, who was approved unanimously by the Senate for his current position on the DC Circuit. It should be hard for the Republicans to argue that he was acceptable to everyone in 2013 but is dead on arrival today.
Tony P: Lindsey Graham was on my TV just now, declaring that Obama has to nominate a “consensus choice”, which Graham defined, when pressed, as “somebody that at least 25 Republicans can vote for.”
Then Obama should nominate somebody like Sri Srinivasan, who was approved unanimously by the Senate for his current position on the DC Circuit. It should be hard for the Republicans to argue that he was acceptable to everyone in 2013 but is dead on arrival today.
Tony P: Lindsey Graham was on my TV just now, declaring that Obama has to nominate a “consensus choice”, which Graham defined, when pressed, as “somebody that at least 25 Republicans can vote for.”
Then Obama should nominate somebody like Sri Srinivasan, who was approved unanimously by the Senate for his current position on the DC Circuit. It should be hard for the Republicans to argue that he was acceptable to everyone in 2013 but is dead on arrival today.
“It should be hard … to argue …”
When in recent times, forever, has it been hard for Republicans to argue any damn-fool thing and have it come back negatively on them electorally?
“Dead On Arrival” is in the Republican platform and the Senate rules, as long as the black moderate is President.
You think Srinivasen, whatever his biases, wants to spend the next number of months having right wing racist vermin mispronounce his name far and wide.
Does he have kids?
I’d hire security if I were him, even if he slants conservative.
Obama, a very smart, canny moderate will probably nominate him, as wikipedia updates immediately:
“On February 13, 2016, within hours after the death of Supreme Court of the United States Justice Antonin Scalia, many rumors were circulating that Srinivasan was topping the list of potential replacement nominees President Barack Obama is going to put forward to replace Scalia.”
“It should be hard … to argue …”
When in recent times, forever, has it been hard for Republicans to argue any damn-fool thing and have it come back negatively on them electorally?
“Dead On Arrival” is in the Republican platform and the Senate rules, as long as the black moderate is President.
You think Srinivasen, whatever his biases, wants to spend the next number of months having right wing racist vermin mispronounce his name far and wide.
Does he have kids?
I’d hire security if I were him, even if he slants conservative.
Obama, a very smart, canny moderate will probably nominate him, as wikipedia updates immediately:
“On February 13, 2016, within hours after the death of Supreme Court of the United States Justice Antonin Scalia, many rumors were circulating that Srinivasan was topping the list of potential replacement nominees President Barack Obama is going to put forward to replace Scalia.”
“It should be hard … to argue …”
When in recent times, forever, has it been hard for Republicans to argue any damn-fool thing and have it come back negatively on them electorally?
“Dead On Arrival” is in the Republican platform and the Senate rules, as long as the black moderate is President.
You think Srinivasen, whatever his biases, wants to spend the next number of months having right wing racist vermin mispronounce his name far and wide.
Does he have kids?
I’d hire security if I were him, even if he slants conservative.
Obama, a very smart, canny moderate will probably nominate him, as wikipedia updates immediately:
“On February 13, 2016, within hours after the death of Supreme Court of the United States Justice Antonin Scalia, many rumors were circulating that Srinivasan was topping the list of potential replacement nominees President Barack Obama is going to put forward to replace Scalia.”
I think that Obama should head-fake that he’s appointing Trump, because “you need someone who can convince GOPers that he’s one of them, but really isn’t”, then go ahead with a real nomination.
Just to fnck them up.
I think that Obama should head-fake that he’s appointing Trump, because “you need someone who can convince GOPers that he’s one of them, but really isn’t”, then go ahead with a real nomination.
Just to fnck them up.
I think that Obama should head-fake that he’s appointing Trump, because “you need someone who can convince GOPers that he’s one of them, but really isn’t”, then go ahead with a real nomination.
Just to fnck them up.
before anybody starts in on saying the Dems started it with The Borking, read some history.
The Senate, by serially Borking a succession of Obama nominees for Scalia’s replacement will hand the Presidency, and possibly the Senate, to the dems.
McConnell is in a tough spot.
before anybody starts in on saying the Dems started it with The Borking, read some history.
The Senate, by serially Borking a succession of Obama nominees for Scalia’s replacement will hand the Presidency, and possibly the Senate, to the dems.
McConnell is in a tough spot.
before anybody starts in on saying the Dems started it with The Borking, read some history.
The Senate, by serially Borking a succession of Obama nominees for Scalia’s replacement will hand the Presidency, and possibly the Senate, to the dems.
McConnell is in a tough spot.
Scalia has faked his death, with help from Texas conservatives. After all, if they can actually kill a guy from the grassy knoll, they can fake killing a guy while he’s receiving a massage with an unhappy ending at a hunting splodge.
Trump/Cruz will win and appoint some other rude monster as Justice and then Scalia will emerge bedraggled, with arrows in his back, his appendages reduced, from the West Texas hill country and claim he was kidnapped by liberal, gay Comanches and made Hillary’s wife in the interim.
Trump/Cruz will then nominate Scalia, again, for the tenth Justice on the Court.
Scalia has faked his death, with help from Texas conservatives. After all, if they can actually kill a guy from the grassy knoll, they can fake killing a guy while he’s receiving a massage with an unhappy ending at a hunting splodge.
Trump/Cruz will win and appoint some other rude monster as Justice and then Scalia will emerge bedraggled, with arrows in his back, his appendages reduced, from the West Texas hill country and claim he was kidnapped by liberal, gay Comanches and made Hillary’s wife in the interim.
Trump/Cruz will then nominate Scalia, again, for the tenth Justice on the Court.
Scalia has faked his death, with help from Texas conservatives. After all, if they can actually kill a guy from the grassy knoll, they can fake killing a guy while he’s receiving a massage with an unhappy ending at a hunting splodge.
Trump/Cruz will win and appoint some other rude monster as Justice and then Scalia will emerge bedraggled, with arrows in his back, his appendages reduced, from the West Texas hill country and claim he was kidnapped by liberal, gay Comanches and made Hillary’s wife in the interim.
Trump/Cruz will then nominate Scalia, again, for the tenth Justice on the Court.
I don’t celebrate the death of anyone except in the case of those boss fights with gave me a particularly rough time in whatever video game I happen to be playing at the time.
I extend my condolences to his wife and especially to his children. I remember my own father’s death quite well, and I’ve no doubt they feel the same now as I did then especially since in both cases it was sudden and unexpected, thus giving them no chance to prepare. For their loss, I am truly, deeply sorry. I would not wish such things on my worst enemy. The emptiness in the aftermath of a death like this is, both literally and metaphorically, Hell.
But for the loss of what he stood for while performing his duty as a justice of the Supreme Court, there will be no wailing, no gnashing of teeth, and no tears. His opinions on gay marriage, reproductive rights, and capital punishment are ones I am pleased to see gone, though I would never advocate for their removal in this fashion. I will not mourn their absence.
For his family, his friends, and his loved ones though? I still believe the death of one diminishes all. And because that, I will say: rest in peace, Your Honor. If there is a hereaftermath, I hope you have found comfort there.
I don’t celebrate the death of anyone except in the case of those boss fights with gave me a particularly rough time in whatever video game I happen to be playing at the time.
I extend my condolences to his wife and especially to his children. I remember my own father’s death quite well, and I’ve no doubt they feel the same now as I did then especially since in both cases it was sudden and unexpected, thus giving them no chance to prepare. For their loss, I am truly, deeply sorry. I would not wish such things on my worst enemy. The emptiness in the aftermath of a death like this is, both literally and metaphorically, Hell.
But for the loss of what he stood for while performing his duty as a justice of the Supreme Court, there will be no wailing, no gnashing of teeth, and no tears. His opinions on gay marriage, reproductive rights, and capital punishment are ones I am pleased to see gone, though I would never advocate for their removal in this fashion. I will not mourn their absence.
For his family, his friends, and his loved ones though? I still believe the death of one diminishes all. And because that, I will say: rest in peace, Your Honor. If there is a hereaftermath, I hope you have found comfort there.
I don’t celebrate the death of anyone except in the case of those boss fights with gave me a particularly rough time in whatever video game I happen to be playing at the time.
I extend my condolences to his wife and especially to his children. I remember my own father’s death quite well, and I’ve no doubt they feel the same now as I did then especially since in both cases it was sudden and unexpected, thus giving them no chance to prepare. For their loss, I am truly, deeply sorry. I would not wish such things on my worst enemy. The emptiness in the aftermath of a death like this is, both literally and metaphorically, Hell.
But for the loss of what he stood for while performing his duty as a justice of the Supreme Court, there will be no wailing, no gnashing of teeth, and no tears. His opinions on gay marriage, reproductive rights, and capital punishment are ones I am pleased to see gone, though I would never advocate for their removal in this fashion. I will not mourn their absence.
For his family, his friends, and his loved ones though? I still believe the death of one diminishes all. And because that, I will say: rest in peace, Your Honor. If there is a hereaftermath, I hope you have found comfort there.
For his family, his friends, and his loved ones though? I still believe the death of one diminishes all.
I call bs. We’re all going to die, and in this death we see the light. And he saw that it was good,
For his family, his friends, and his loved ones though? I still believe the death of one diminishes all.
I call bs. We’re all going to die, and in this death we see the light. And he saw that it was good,
For his family, his friends, and his loved ones though? I still believe the death of one diminishes all.
I call bs. We’re all going to die, and in this death we see the light. And he saw that it was good,
On the other hand, Areala, like Girl of the North Country, is a better person than I, and it is they and their better natures on whose behalf a less mean world will come to be.
On the other hand, Areala, like Girl of the North Country, is a better person than I, and it is they and their better natures on whose behalf a less mean world will come to be.
On the other hand, Areala, like Girl of the North Country, is a better person than I, and it is they and their better natures on whose behalf a less mean world will come to be.
“boss fights WHICH”.
“and because OF that”. Where’s the edit button? 🙂
“boss fights WHICH”.
“and because OF that”. Where’s the edit button? 🙂
“boss fights WHICH”.
“and because OF that”. Where’s the edit button? 🙂
Charles Pierce covers the ground:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42134/antonin-scalia-death-charles-pierce/
Charles Pierce covers the ground:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42134/antonin-scalia-death-charles-pierce/
Charles Pierce covers the ground:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42134/antonin-scalia-death-charles-pierce/
John Cole, a former Board member and contributor to Redstate, Hillary mocker, all-around dyspeptic
… a thoughtful veteran who eventually noticed that the claims of his Redstate tribemates were indefensible, and actually changed his mind in response to Popperian falsification, an event more rare than the detection of a Higgs boson or the bell-ring gravity waves from merging black holes.
John Cole, a former Board member and contributor to Redstate, Hillary mocker, all-around dyspeptic
… a thoughtful veteran who eventually noticed that the claims of his Redstate tribemates were indefensible, and actually changed his mind in response to Popperian falsification, an event more rare than the detection of a Higgs boson or the bell-ring gravity waves from merging black holes.
John Cole, a former Board member and contributor to Redstate, Hillary mocker, all-around dyspeptic
… a thoughtful veteran who eventually noticed that the claims of his Redstate tribemates were indefensible, and actually changed his mind in response to Popperian falsification, an event more rare than the detection of a Higgs boson or the bell-ring gravity waves from merging black holes.
@Count: “Scalia has faked his death, with help from Texas conservatives.”
Did you notice that the news report said:
Not “Scalia’s body”, but “a” body.
Could it be one of those “dead girl/live boy” things, with Scalia in the RWNJ witless protection program? It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
@Count: “Scalia has faked his death, with help from Texas conservatives.”
Did you notice that the news report said:
Not “Scalia’s body”, but “a” body.
Could it be one of those “dead girl/live boy” things, with Scalia in the RWNJ witless protection program? It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
@Count: “Scalia has faked his death, with help from Texas conservatives.”
Did you notice that the news report said:
Not “Scalia’s body”, but “a” body.
Could it be one of those “dead girl/live boy” things, with Scalia in the RWNJ witless protection program? It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
I’m celebrating his death. He was a harmful person who abused his power to do harm to all of us. I’m glad he is dead.
I’m celebrating his death. He was a harmful person who abused his power to do harm to all of us. I’m glad he is dead.
I’m celebrating his death. He was a harmful person who abused his power to do harm to all of us. I’m glad he is dead.
I was actually really, uncharacteristically mild in choosing the post title.
When Scalia was nominated, when we asked my former college roommate — then in law school — about him, she said he was “the Antichrist”. I never saw a real reason to think she was wrong.
I was actually really, uncharacteristically mild in choosing the post title.
When Scalia was nominated, when we asked my former college roommate — then in law school — about him, she said he was “the Antichrist”. I never saw a real reason to think she was wrong.
I was actually really, uncharacteristically mild in choosing the post title.
When Scalia was nominated, when we asked my former college roommate — then in law school — about him, she said he was “the Antichrist”. I never saw a real reason to think she was wrong.
Yes, peculiar word choice … “a” body.
As if Maggie Smith, feigning the vapors and her mouth puckered all astringent lemony as she attempts some household power play, and pointing to the drawing room without looking, was announcing the fact to Hercule Poirot.
Perhaps the body is Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s, and the news will be kept from the White House, as Scalia dips into hiding, and the President will nominate some closet conservative in moderate clothing, as another one of his endless attempts to bring us together, but for the forseeable future the votes will be 6-3, or at least 5-4, to kill those with pre-existing conditions by directing the spew from lead plumbing directing into their mouths, on account of the government nearest you can murder you more expeditiously, on the further account of Thomas Jefferson being in one of his moods long ago.
Yes, peculiar word choice … “a” body.
As if Maggie Smith, feigning the vapors and her mouth puckered all astringent lemony as she attempts some household power play, and pointing to the drawing room without looking, was announcing the fact to Hercule Poirot.
Perhaps the body is Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s, and the news will be kept from the White House, as Scalia dips into hiding, and the President will nominate some closet conservative in moderate clothing, as another one of his endless attempts to bring us together, but for the forseeable future the votes will be 6-3, or at least 5-4, to kill those with pre-existing conditions by directing the spew from lead plumbing directing into their mouths, on account of the government nearest you can murder you more expeditiously, on the further account of Thomas Jefferson being in one of his moods long ago.
Yes, peculiar word choice … “a” body.
As if Maggie Smith, feigning the vapors and her mouth puckered all astringent lemony as she attempts some household power play, and pointing to the drawing room without looking, was announcing the fact to Hercule Poirot.
Perhaps the body is Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s, and the news will be kept from the White House, as Scalia dips into hiding, and the President will nominate some closet conservative in moderate clothing, as another one of his endless attempts to bring us together, but for the forseeable future the votes will be 6-3, or at least 5-4, to kill those with pre-existing conditions by directing the spew from lead plumbing directing into their mouths, on account of the government nearest you can murder you more expeditiously, on the further account of Thomas Jefferson being in one of his moods long ago.
Scalia died at a hunting lodge in Texas. I want to know where Dick Cheney was.
Scalia died at a hunting lodge in Texas. I want to know where Dick Cheney was.
Scalia died at a hunting lodge in Texas. I want to know where Dick Cheney was.
I’m torn. On one hand, Scalia demonstrated an ability to survive a hunting trick with Cheney unharmed. On the other, that could just mean Cheney was biding his time…
I’m torn. On one hand, Scalia demonstrated an ability to survive a hunting trick with Cheney unharmed. On the other, that could just mean Cheney was biding his time…
I’m torn. On one hand, Scalia demonstrated an ability to survive a hunting trick with Cheney unharmed. On the other, that could just mean Cheney was biding his time…
*hunting trip
*hunting trip
*hunting trip
I have to say I agree with Areala, tempting though it is to take the John Cole line. Surely part of the fight against the inhumanity exemplified in various Scalia opinions is to retain one’s own humanity ?
That said, I fully approve Cole’s penultimate paragraph:
“In his death, he will do us one final favor- to further demonstrate how phony originalism is, as right-wing Constitution fetishists spend the next couple weeks just flat out making shit up on how a Supreme Court Justice is appointed, as they attempt to come up with a way to deny Obama the right to appoint a justice this year.”
I have to say I agree with Areala, tempting though it is to take the John Cole line. Surely part of the fight against the inhumanity exemplified in various Scalia opinions is to retain one’s own humanity ?
That said, I fully approve Cole’s penultimate paragraph:
“In his death, he will do us one final favor- to further demonstrate how phony originalism is, as right-wing Constitution fetishists spend the next couple weeks just flat out making shit up on how a Supreme Court Justice is appointed, as they attempt to come up with a way to deny Obama the right to appoint a justice this year.”
I have to say I agree with Areala, tempting though it is to take the John Cole line. Surely part of the fight against the inhumanity exemplified in various Scalia opinions is to retain one’s own humanity ?
That said, I fully approve Cole’s penultimate paragraph:
“In his death, he will do us one final favor- to further demonstrate how phony originalism is, as right-wing Constitution fetishists spend the next couple weeks just flat out making shit up on how a Supreme Court Justice is appointed, as they attempt to come up with a way to deny Obama the right to appoint a justice this year.”
I prefer hunting “trick”.
I prefer hunting “trick”.
I prefer hunting “trick”.
A perhaps more nuanced assessment of Scalia from a liberal perspective:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/02/13/el-nino-scalia/
The point about his 6th amendment opinions is well made.
A perhaps more nuanced assessment of Scalia from a liberal perspective:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/02/13/el-nino-scalia/
The point about his 6th amendment opinions is well made.
A perhaps more nuanced assessment of Scalia from a liberal perspective:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/02/13/el-nino-scalia/
The point about his 6th amendment opinions is well made.
OT Why should anyone listen to John Cole?
Contrition is commendable, but if one has been so wrong about something so gravely important – why can’t they just STOP TALKING? And why should we keep listening to them?
OT Why should anyone listen to John Cole?
Contrition is commendable, but if one has been so wrong about something so gravely important – why can’t they just STOP TALKING? And why should we keep listening to them?
OT Why should anyone listen to John Cole?
Contrition is commendable, but if one has been so wrong about something so gravely important – why can’t they just STOP TALKING? And why should we keep listening to them?
The same goes for the execrable Andrew Sullivan – and if you think that’s harsh I dare you to google some blog entries from 2003 onwards.
The same goes for the execrable Andrew Sullivan – and if you think that’s harsh I dare you to google some blog entries from 2003 onwards.
The same goes for the execrable Andrew Sullivan – and if you think that’s harsh I dare you to google some blog entries from 2003 onwards.
Scalia does have some decent jurisprudence from a liberal perspective, although clearly outweighed by the rest. If I had to rank him among the conservative SCOTUS justices he recently served with in terms of which is “best for liberals” he’d be in the middle. Behind Kennedy and Roberts and ahead of Alito and Thomas.
That would be an interesting rankng actually. Kennedy first for auberge fell and his jurisprudence on homosexuals rights? Or Roberts for saving Obama care? Guess Id have to go with Kennedy there. With Thomas fourth and Alito last. Oh Harriet Miers, where art though?
Scalia does have some decent jurisprudence from a liberal perspective, although clearly outweighed by the rest. If I had to rank him among the conservative SCOTUS justices he recently served with in terms of which is “best for liberals” he’d be in the middle. Behind Kennedy and Roberts and ahead of Alito and Thomas.
That would be an interesting rankng actually. Kennedy first for auberge fell and his jurisprudence on homosexuals rights? Or Roberts for saving Obama care? Guess Id have to go with Kennedy there. With Thomas fourth and Alito last. Oh Harriet Miers, where art though?
Scalia does have some decent jurisprudence from a liberal perspective, although clearly outweighed by the rest. If I had to rank him among the conservative SCOTUS justices he recently served with in terms of which is “best for liberals” he’d be in the middle. Behind Kennedy and Roberts and ahead of Alito and Thomas.
That would be an interesting rankng actually. Kennedy first for auberge fell and his jurisprudence on homosexuals rights? Or Roberts for saving Obama care? Guess Id have to go with Kennedy there. With Thomas fourth and Alito last. Oh Harriet Miers, where art though?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/14/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-legacy-opinions-partisan-america
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/14/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-legacy-opinions-partisan-america
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/14/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-legacy-opinions-partisan-america
Can anyone account for the whereabouts of the notorious RBG at the time of Scalia’s death?
🙂
Thanks Areala for remembering that life is not 100% politics.
As an aside, I’m not sure the cases of John Cole and Andrew Sullivan are completely comparable. Cole somehow seemed to be able to change his mind without resenting everyone else for his own need to do so. See also McArdle.
Can anyone account for the whereabouts of the notorious RBG at the time of Scalia’s death?
🙂
Thanks Areala for remembering that life is not 100% politics.
As an aside, I’m not sure the cases of John Cole and Andrew Sullivan are completely comparable. Cole somehow seemed to be able to change his mind without resenting everyone else for his own need to do so. See also McArdle.
Can anyone account for the whereabouts of the notorious RBG at the time of Scalia’s death?
🙂
Thanks Areala for remembering that life is not 100% politics.
As an aside, I’m not sure the cases of John Cole and Andrew Sullivan are completely comparable. Cole somehow seemed to be able to change his mind without resenting everyone else for his own need to do so. See also McArdle.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scotus-precedent-senate-fight
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scotus-precedent-senate-fight
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scotus-precedent-senate-fight
The problem with Sullivan’s changes of mind was that they were so damn frequent. It’s admirable to be able to admit you were wrong – especially after espousing the bad idea really passionately.
But after the 27th mea culpa, it’s hard not to think, “Well if your judgment and logic are so terrible, maybe you’d soberer to shut up and listen and think for a bit”.
Re Scalia, a friend tells me there is precedent for appointing a justice during a senate recess. I’m assuming that’s a no-go as it would guarantee losing the general election – if it didn’t cause outright civil war.
The problem with Sullivan’s changes of mind was that they were so damn frequent. It’s admirable to be able to admit you were wrong – especially after espousing the bad idea really passionately.
But after the 27th mea culpa, it’s hard not to think, “Well if your judgment and logic are so terrible, maybe you’d soberer to shut up and listen and think for a bit”.
Re Scalia, a friend tells me there is precedent for appointing a justice during a senate recess. I’m assuming that’s a no-go as it would guarantee losing the general election – if it didn’t cause outright civil war.
The problem with Sullivan’s changes of mind was that they were so damn frequent. It’s admirable to be able to admit you were wrong – especially after espousing the bad idea really passionately.
But after the 27th mea culpa, it’s hard not to think, “Well if your judgment and logic are so terrible, maybe you’d soberer to shut up and listen and think for a bit”.
Re Scalia, a friend tells me there is precedent for appointing a justice during a senate recess. I’m assuming that’s a no-go as it would guarantee losing the general election – if it didn’t cause outright civil war.
“Soberer” = *do better*. Though actually it might be more to the point.
“Soberer” = *do better*. Though actually it might be more to the point.
“Soberer” = *do better*. Though actually it might be more to the point.
On the other hand, Areala, like Girl of the North Country, is a better person than I, and it is they and their better natures on whose behalf a less mean world will come to be
Beloved Count, you give me too much credit. While of course I sympathise with the grief of any of his family members, and like Areala grieve to this day the death of my own father, I regard Scalia, and all (OK, maybe most of) his works, with horror and dismay. I believe that he and his kind have contributed disproportionately to the degradation of the American body politic, and therefore to some extent of the American project (“a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”).
When I read his comments on torture here the die was finally and definitively cast, and so I am pretty sure the world is a better place without him. On the other hand, given the current state of affairs, and unless Obama is adroit enough, there is no saying that what comes after him will necessarily be any better…
On the other hand, Areala, like Girl of the North Country, is a better person than I, and it is they and their better natures on whose behalf a less mean world will come to be
Beloved Count, you give me too much credit. While of course I sympathise with the grief of any of his family members, and like Areala grieve to this day the death of my own father, I regard Scalia, and all (OK, maybe most of) his works, with horror and dismay. I believe that he and his kind have contributed disproportionately to the degradation of the American body politic, and therefore to some extent of the American project (“a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”).
When I read his comments on torture here the die was finally and definitively cast, and so I am pretty sure the world is a better place without him. On the other hand, given the current state of affairs, and unless Obama is adroit enough, there is no saying that what comes after him will necessarily be any better…
On the other hand, Areala, like Girl of the North Country, is a better person than I, and it is they and their better natures on whose behalf a less mean world will come to be
Beloved Count, you give me too much credit. While of course I sympathise with the grief of any of his family members, and like Areala grieve to this day the death of my own father, I regard Scalia, and all (OK, maybe most of) his works, with horror and dismay. I believe that he and his kind have contributed disproportionately to the degradation of the American body politic, and therefore to some extent of the American project (“a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”).
When I read his comments on torture here the die was finally and definitively cast, and so I am pretty sure the world is a better place without him. On the other hand, given the current state of affairs, and unless Obama is adroit enough, there is no saying that what comes after him will necessarily be any better…
I gotta admit, I’m *stunned* at how quickly Republicans went to playing Calvinball with the Constitution about this.
wj, you said McConnell’s statement was “predictable knee-jerk reaction”, but I don’t even get *how*.
I mean, one of the driving fears for Democrats during the 2008 Presidential campaign was that Justice Stevens wouldn’t make it to February 2009. We sure as hell didn’t relax in early 2008 because Bush was a “lame duck” who wouldn’t try to replace Stevens if he died. Nor would that have been our “knee-jerk reaction”.
How is “your Presidenting doesn’t count!” the obvious response to a SCOTUS vacancy?!? Clearly you’re correct that it *is*, for many Republicans, because too many are having that exact reaction at the same time, but what thought process has gotten them there?
I gotta admit, I’m *stunned* at how quickly Republicans went to playing Calvinball with the Constitution about this.
wj, you said McConnell’s statement was “predictable knee-jerk reaction”, but I don’t even get *how*.
I mean, one of the driving fears for Democrats during the 2008 Presidential campaign was that Justice Stevens wouldn’t make it to February 2009. We sure as hell didn’t relax in early 2008 because Bush was a “lame duck” who wouldn’t try to replace Stevens if he died. Nor would that have been our “knee-jerk reaction”.
How is “your Presidenting doesn’t count!” the obvious response to a SCOTUS vacancy?!? Clearly you’re correct that it *is*, for many Republicans, because too many are having that exact reaction at the same time, but what thought process has gotten them there?
I gotta admit, I’m *stunned* at how quickly Republicans went to playing Calvinball with the Constitution about this.
wj, you said McConnell’s statement was “predictable knee-jerk reaction”, but I don’t even get *how*.
I mean, one of the driving fears for Democrats during the 2008 Presidential campaign was that Justice Stevens wouldn’t make it to February 2009. We sure as hell didn’t relax in early 2008 because Bush was a “lame duck” who wouldn’t try to replace Stevens if he died. Nor would that have been our “knee-jerk reaction”.
How is “your Presidenting doesn’t count!” the obvious response to a SCOTUS vacancy?!? Clearly you’re correct that it *is*, for many Republicans, because too many are having that exact reaction at the same time, but what thought process has gotten them there?
This, from a former front pager’s FB, was fascinating
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/13/3749464/the-simply-breathtaking-consequences-of-justice-scalias-death/
Of course, reading about this, one would think that Obama has a week or two, so I was surprised to learn that the longest time for 150 days or so, and Obama has twice that left.
Lithwick has this article about potential qualified candidates,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/obama_s_supreme_court_shortlist_is_full_of_great_candidates.html
and I was disappointed there wasn’t a Hispanic there, cause part of me wants Obama to nominate another liberal Hispanic and toss a stink bomb in the Republican nomination process, though I imagine that is impossible because Sotomayor was the latest. Still, one can dream…
This, from a former front pager’s FB, was fascinating
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/13/3749464/the-simply-breathtaking-consequences-of-justice-scalias-death/
Of course, reading about this, one would think that Obama has a week or two, so I was surprised to learn that the longest time for 150 days or so, and Obama has twice that left.
Lithwick has this article about potential qualified candidates,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/obama_s_supreme_court_shortlist_is_full_of_great_candidates.html
and I was disappointed there wasn’t a Hispanic there, cause part of me wants Obama to nominate another liberal Hispanic and toss a stink bomb in the Republican nomination process, though I imagine that is impossible because Sotomayor was the latest. Still, one can dream…
This, from a former front pager’s FB, was fascinating
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/13/3749464/the-simply-breathtaking-consequences-of-justice-scalias-death/
Of course, reading about this, one would think that Obama has a week or two, so I was surprised to learn that the longest time for 150 days or so, and Obama has twice that left.
Lithwick has this article about potential qualified candidates,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/obama_s_supreme_court_shortlist_is_full_of_great_candidates.html
and I was disappointed there wasn’t a Hispanic there, cause part of me wants Obama to nominate another liberal Hispanic and toss a stink bomb in the Republican nomination process, though I imagine that is impossible because Sotomayor was the latest. Still, one can dream…
I’m stunned that anyone would think the Senate would cede the court to a President who would be king. Lots if artificial hand wringing.
I’m stunned that anyone would think the Senate would cede the court to a President who would be king. Lots if artificial hand wringing.
I’m stunned that anyone would think the Senate would cede the court to a President who would be king. Lots if artificial hand wringing.
@ Doctor Science –
Isn’t the GOP’s MO these days just to stake out the most extreme position as if it was the most natural thing in the world, and then double down? The logic being that they then position the terms of the debate as far in their court (so to speak) as possible.
And it works. The current debate is now about whether Obama is within his rights to even try to appoint a justice. Of course, Democrats are saying “Yes obviously he is,” but now it’s too late: it’s already a contested issue. So proposing a moderate is already positioned as a bold, polarising move, and prposing a liberal as an outrageous one.
It may be playground politics, but it works every single time, so why would they stop?
@ Doctor Science –
Isn’t the GOP’s MO these days just to stake out the most extreme position as if it was the most natural thing in the world, and then double down? The logic being that they then position the terms of the debate as far in their court (so to speak) as possible.
And it works. The current debate is now about whether Obama is within his rights to even try to appoint a justice. Of course, Democrats are saying “Yes obviously he is,” but now it’s too late: it’s already a contested issue. So proposing a moderate is already positioned as a bold, polarising move, and prposing a liberal as an outrageous one.
It may be playground politics, but it works every single time, so why would they stop?
@ Doctor Science –
Isn’t the GOP’s MO these days just to stake out the most extreme position as if it was the most natural thing in the world, and then double down? The logic being that they then position the terms of the debate as far in their court (so to speak) as possible.
And it works. The current debate is now about whether Obama is within his rights to even try to appoint a justice. Of course, Democrats are saying “Yes obviously he is,” but now it’s too late: it’s already a contested issue. So proposing a moderate is already positioned as a bold, polarising move, and prposing a liberal as an outrageous one.
It may be playground politics, but it works every single time, so why would they stop?
“Who would be King”?!? Marty, you should examine where you’re getting your news & opinions, because that is patent nonsense.
If you’re talking about Executive Orders, Obama is on the low side for presidents since the 19th century.
I’ve seen various paranoid fantasies about Obama’s “monarchical ambitions” floating around for years now, but they are *clearly* preposterous. You need to get better at the smell test.
“Who would be King”?!? Marty, you should examine where you’re getting your news & opinions, because that is patent nonsense.
If you’re talking about Executive Orders, Obama is on the low side for presidents since the 19th century.
I’ve seen various paranoid fantasies about Obama’s “monarchical ambitions” floating around for years now, but they are *clearly* preposterous. You need to get better at the smell test.
“Who would be King”?!? Marty, you should examine where you’re getting your news & opinions, because that is patent nonsense.
If you’re talking about Executive Orders, Obama is on the low side for presidents since the 19th century.
I’ve seen various paranoid fantasies about Obama’s “monarchical ambitions” floating around for years now, but they are *clearly* preposterous. You need to get better at the smell test.
Linda Hirshman at the WaPo explains that if the Senate blocks Obama’s SCOTUS nomination, he wins anyway — because most of the circuit courts are filled with his appointees (as is normal toward the end of a 2nd term).
Linda Hirshman at the WaPo explains that if the Senate blocks Obama’s SCOTUS nomination, he wins anyway — because most of the circuit courts are filled with his appointees (as is normal toward the end of a 2nd term).
Linda Hirshman at the WaPo explains that if the Senate blocks Obama’s SCOTUS nomination, he wins anyway — because most of the circuit courts are filled with his appointees (as is normal toward the end of a 2nd term).
I’m stunned that anyone would think the Senate would cede the court to a President who would be king. Lots if artificial hand wringing.
No one had a problem thinking the Senate would do it for Bush. Or is being emperor different?
I’m stunned that anyone would think the Senate would cede the court to a President who would be king. Lots if artificial hand wringing.
No one had a problem thinking the Senate would do it for Bush. Or is being emperor different?
I’m stunned that anyone would think the Senate would cede the court to a President who would be king. Lots if artificial hand wringing.
No one had a problem thinking the Senate would do it for Bush. Or is being emperor different?
I guess The only thing that will get the GOP to confirm an Obama Nominee at present is if the consequences of not confirming are worse than confirming. The only thing that comes close is losing a presidential election that they might have otherwise won. Since we won’t have a sense of that until late summer at the earliest, nothing will happen until then in terms of Senate movement. Perhaps at best a lame duck GOP senate confirms Obama’s nominee after they lose the presidential election
Even then, if they hold the senate they may wait, so we may have a full term and a half of an eight member Court.
I guess The only thing that will get the GOP to confirm an Obama Nominee at present is if the consequences of not confirming are worse than confirming. The only thing that comes close is losing a presidential election that they might have otherwise won. Since we won’t have a sense of that until late summer at the earliest, nothing will happen until then in terms of Senate movement. Perhaps at best a lame duck GOP senate confirms Obama’s nominee after they lose the presidential election
Even then, if they hold the senate they may wait, so we may have a full term and a half of an eight member Court.
I guess The only thing that will get the GOP to confirm an Obama Nominee at present is if the consequences of not confirming are worse than confirming. The only thing that comes close is losing a presidential election that they might have otherwise won. Since we won’t have a sense of that until late summer at the earliest, nothing will happen until then in terms of Senate movement. Perhaps at best a lame duck GOP senate confirms Obama’s nominee after they lose the presidential election
Even then, if they hold the senate they may wait, so we may have a full term and a half of an eight member Court.
The punditocracy talks about “lanes” in the GOP primary, and their “establishment lane” emphatically excludes He, Trump. Yet in last night’s debate He, Trump admonished The GOP Establishment to do exactly what it is proposing to do: “delay, delay, delay!” The other five clowns in the car agreed, and then some.
To his credit, Jeb! went so far as to admit that Obama has every right to nominate a replacement for Scalia. It was big of Jeb! to agree with the Constitution, as his implicit acknowledgement that Obama is constitutionally the President will hurt him with The Base.
The Cruzader was asked whether, if elected president, he would accept the same limitation he insists on for Obama, namely no SCOTUS nominations in a presidential election year. And he … what, did you really expect that eely, oily, slimy god-botherer to actually answer the question?
Even Yertl, aka Mitch McConnell, knows that Jeb! is correct: the GOP can’t cow Obama into forgoing a nomination. So He, Trump’s position is Yertl’s strategy: “We shall delay him in the hearings; we shall delay him on the floor; we shall never surrender, y’all.”
In light of the supposedly-divided GOP’s unanimity on the issue, Obama’s choice is constrained to “who is willing to sit in limbo for a year?” Obama himself may have no more f*cks to give, but he cannot dragoon anybody who is less than heroically public-spirited into accepting the nomination.
–TP
The punditocracy talks about “lanes” in the GOP primary, and their “establishment lane” emphatically excludes He, Trump. Yet in last night’s debate He, Trump admonished The GOP Establishment to do exactly what it is proposing to do: “delay, delay, delay!” The other five clowns in the car agreed, and then some.
To his credit, Jeb! went so far as to admit that Obama has every right to nominate a replacement for Scalia. It was big of Jeb! to agree with the Constitution, as his implicit acknowledgement that Obama is constitutionally the President will hurt him with The Base.
The Cruzader was asked whether, if elected president, he would accept the same limitation he insists on for Obama, namely no SCOTUS nominations in a presidential election year. And he … what, did you really expect that eely, oily, slimy god-botherer to actually answer the question?
Even Yertl, aka Mitch McConnell, knows that Jeb! is correct: the GOP can’t cow Obama into forgoing a nomination. So He, Trump’s position is Yertl’s strategy: “We shall delay him in the hearings; we shall delay him on the floor; we shall never surrender, y’all.”
In light of the supposedly-divided GOP’s unanimity on the issue, Obama’s choice is constrained to “who is willing to sit in limbo for a year?” Obama himself may have no more f*cks to give, but he cannot dragoon anybody who is less than heroically public-spirited into accepting the nomination.
–TP
The punditocracy talks about “lanes” in the GOP primary, and their “establishment lane” emphatically excludes He, Trump. Yet in last night’s debate He, Trump admonished The GOP Establishment to do exactly what it is proposing to do: “delay, delay, delay!” The other five clowns in the car agreed, and then some.
To his credit, Jeb! went so far as to admit that Obama has every right to nominate a replacement for Scalia. It was big of Jeb! to agree with the Constitution, as his implicit acknowledgement that Obama is constitutionally the President will hurt him with The Base.
The Cruzader was asked whether, if elected president, he would accept the same limitation he insists on for Obama, namely no SCOTUS nominations in a presidential election year. And he … what, did you really expect that eely, oily, slimy god-botherer to actually answer the question?
Even Yertl, aka Mitch McConnell, knows that Jeb! is correct: the GOP can’t cow Obama into forgoing a nomination. So He, Trump’s position is Yertl’s strategy: “We shall delay him in the hearings; we shall delay him on the floor; we shall never surrender, y’all.”
In light of the supposedly-divided GOP’s unanimity on the issue, Obama’s choice is constrained to “who is willing to sit in limbo for a year?” Obama himself may have no more f*cks to give, but he cannot dragoon anybody who is less than heroically public-spirited into accepting the nomination.
–TP
“Isn’t the GOP’s MO these days just to stake out the most extreme position as if it was the most natural thing in the world, and then double down? The logic being that they then position the terms of the debate as far in their court (so to speak) as possible.
And it works.”
Adam is right. That’s exactly what they do. They make up their own self-serving dishonest and frequently hypocritical reality, their base believes it, the media treas it like a legitimate point of view and the Democrats end up in a defensive position. The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.
“Isn’t the GOP’s MO these days just to stake out the most extreme position as if it was the most natural thing in the world, and then double down? The logic being that they then position the terms of the debate as far in their court (so to speak) as possible.
And it works.”
Adam is right. That’s exactly what they do. They make up their own self-serving dishonest and frequently hypocritical reality, their base believes it, the media treas it like a legitimate point of view and the Democrats end up in a defensive position. The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.
“Isn’t the GOP’s MO these days just to stake out the most extreme position as if it was the most natural thing in the world, and then double down? The logic being that they then position the terms of the debate as far in their court (so to speak) as possible.
And it works.”
Adam is right. That’s exactly what they do. They make up their own self-serving dishonest and frequently hypocritical reality, their base believes it, the media treas it like a legitimate point of view and the Democrats end up in a defensive position. The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.
Doc, the executive order discussion isn’t a question of how many, it is a question of what. He has purposefully and with astounding hubris rewritten laws. Maybe you should put a few brain cells into the longer term implications of a President simply telling the executive branch to stop enforcing any law he doesn’t like. He is trying to get a legacy he couldn’t achieve. And now he killed a Supreme.
A man who would be king.
Doc, the executive order discussion isn’t a question of how many, it is a question of what. He has purposefully and with astounding hubris rewritten laws. Maybe you should put a few brain cells into the longer term implications of a President simply telling the executive branch to stop enforcing any law he doesn’t like. He is trying to get a legacy he couldn’t achieve. And now he killed a Supreme.
A man who would be king.
Doc, the executive order discussion isn’t a question of how many, it is a question of what. He has purposefully and with astounding hubris rewritten laws. Maybe you should put a few brain cells into the longer term implications of a President simply telling the executive branch to stop enforcing any law he doesn’t like. He is trying to get a legacy he couldn’t achieve. And now he killed a Supreme.
A man who would be king.
Marty: And now he killed a Supreme.
Marty, I see a mind rolling around loose on my screen. It seems to be yours. Let me know if you need it back.
–TP
Marty: And now he killed a Supreme.
Marty, I see a mind rolling around loose on my screen. It seems to be yours. Let me know if you need it back.
–TP
Marty: And now he killed a Supreme.
Marty, I see a mind rolling around loose on my screen. It seems to be yours. Let me know if you need it back.
–TP
Adam:
The speed and near-unanimity with which the GOP went to “lame duck Presidents don’t get SCOTUS appointments! It’s a rule!” made me realize that there’s something else involved, and it’s intra-party politics.
Currently in the GOP, every incumbent is vulnerable to attacks from the right. It’s thus in the interests of each individual GOP Senator to promise to stonewall Obama re: SCOTUS, regardless of whether it’s better for the party (much less the country) for them to actually, ya know, do their jobs.
Adam:
The speed and near-unanimity with which the GOP went to “lame duck Presidents don’t get SCOTUS appointments! It’s a rule!” made me realize that there’s something else involved, and it’s intra-party politics.
Currently in the GOP, every incumbent is vulnerable to attacks from the right. It’s thus in the interests of each individual GOP Senator to promise to stonewall Obama re: SCOTUS, regardless of whether it’s better for the party (much less the country) for them to actually, ya know, do their jobs.
Adam:
The speed and near-unanimity with which the GOP went to “lame duck Presidents don’t get SCOTUS appointments! It’s a rule!” made me realize that there’s something else involved, and it’s intra-party politics.
Currently in the GOP, every incumbent is vulnerable to attacks from the right. It’s thus in the interests of each individual GOP Senator to promise to stonewall Obama re: SCOTUS, regardless of whether it’s better for the party (much less the country) for them to actually, ya know, do their jobs.
Justice Kennedy was confirmed in an election year. That really should end the debate but craven hypocrisy means nothing in national politics.
Justice Kennedy was confirmed in an election year. That really should end the debate but craven hypocrisy means nothing in national politics.
Justice Kennedy was confirmed in an election year. That really should end the debate but craven hypocrisy means nothing in national politics.
Doc, the executive order discussion isn’t a question of how many, it is a question of what. He has purposefully and with astounding hubris rewritten laws. Maybe you should put a few brain cells into the longer term implications of a President simply telling the executive branch to stop enforcing any law he doesn’t like.
…this does nothing to address your claim that we shouldn’t expect the Senate to “hand SCOTUS to” a President with autocratic ambitions, as – again – Bush II’s recent experiences suggest precisely the opposite. Or is it somehow meaningfully different to announce you’ll not enforce a law as written than to state that a law as written doesn’t mean what it says, so you’ll be enforcing a different policy instead?
Doc, the executive order discussion isn’t a question of how many, it is a question of what. He has purposefully and with astounding hubris rewritten laws. Maybe you should put a few brain cells into the longer term implications of a President simply telling the executive branch to stop enforcing any law he doesn’t like.
…this does nothing to address your claim that we shouldn’t expect the Senate to “hand SCOTUS to” a President with autocratic ambitions, as – again – Bush II’s recent experiences suggest precisely the opposite. Or is it somehow meaningfully different to announce you’ll not enforce a law as written than to state that a law as written doesn’t mean what it says, so you’ll be enforcing a different policy instead?
Doc, the executive order discussion isn’t a question of how many, it is a question of what. He has purposefully and with astounding hubris rewritten laws. Maybe you should put a few brain cells into the longer term implications of a President simply telling the executive branch to stop enforcing any law he doesn’t like.
…this does nothing to address your claim that we shouldn’t expect the Senate to “hand SCOTUS to” a President with autocratic ambitions, as – again – Bush II’s recent experiences suggest precisely the opposite. Or is it somehow meaningfully different to announce you’ll not enforce a law as written than to state that a law as written doesn’t mean what it says, so you’ll be enforcing a different policy instead?
Justice Kennedy was the last in a string of nominations stretching well back into the previous year and completed by February. Nuance is important. So I’m ok if Obama nominates three people and the nominee gets confirmed next October.
Justice Kennedy was the last in a string of nominations stretching well back into the previous year and completed by February. Nuance is important. So I’m ok if Obama nominates three people and the nominee gets confirmed next October.
Justice Kennedy was the last in a string of nominations stretching well back into the previous year and completed by February. Nuance is important. So I’m ok if Obama nominates three people and the nominee gets confirmed next October.
“Now he killed a Supreme”
You are either insane or trolling.
“Now he killed a Supreme”
You are either insane or trolling.
“Now he killed a Supreme”
You are either insane or trolling.
@ Doctor Science –
Right. But what I don’t get is why they don’t seem to pay any price for this sort of thing. What real price did they pay for the debt ceiling shenanigans, the sequester and the government shutdown?
In my (admittedly not hugely informed) understanding, the inherent flaw in the Madisonian system – that the out party under divided government has both incentive and power to govern badly – has generally been avoided because governing badly itself has an electoral price.
Is polarisation responsible for both increased obstructionism and the failure to penalise it? Because the electorate is so partisan that this kind of behaviour in office doesn’t actually change very many voters’ allegiances?
@ Doctor Science –
Right. But what I don’t get is why they don’t seem to pay any price for this sort of thing. What real price did they pay for the debt ceiling shenanigans, the sequester and the government shutdown?
In my (admittedly not hugely informed) understanding, the inherent flaw in the Madisonian system – that the out party under divided government has both incentive and power to govern badly – has generally been avoided because governing badly itself has an electoral price.
Is polarisation responsible for both increased obstructionism and the failure to penalise it? Because the electorate is so partisan that this kind of behaviour in office doesn’t actually change very many voters’ allegiances?
@ Doctor Science –
Right. But what I don’t get is why they don’t seem to pay any price for this sort of thing. What real price did they pay for the debt ceiling shenanigans, the sequester and the government shutdown?
In my (admittedly not hugely informed) understanding, the inherent flaw in the Madisonian system – that the out party under divided government has both incentive and power to govern badly – has generally been avoided because governing badly itself has an electoral price.
Is polarisation responsible for both increased obstructionism and the failure to penalise it? Because the electorate is so partisan that this kind of behaviour in office doesn’t actually change very many voters’ allegiances?
So I’m ok if Obama nominates three people and the nominee gets confirmed next October.
That would require an up-or-down vote, and I just plain don’t see that happening so long as obstructionism as advertised continued.
Which leads to an interesting point if we’re looking at this strictly in terms of historical precedents (and not, ya know, the Constitution – that wouldn’t be very Originalist of us, would it?): no SCOTUS nominee has languished more than 125 days w/o action one way or the other by the Senate. Fortunately, consistency only matters sometimes.
So I’m ok if Obama nominates three people and the nominee gets confirmed next October.
That would require an up-or-down vote, and I just plain don’t see that happening so long as obstructionism as advertised continued.
Which leads to an interesting point if we’re looking at this strictly in terms of historical precedents (and not, ya know, the Constitution – that wouldn’t be very Originalist of us, would it?): no SCOTUS nominee has languished more than 125 days w/o action one way or the other by the Senate. Fortunately, consistency only matters sometimes.
So I’m ok if Obama nominates three people and the nominee gets confirmed next October.
That would require an up-or-down vote, and I just plain don’t see that happening so long as obstructionism as advertised continued.
Which leads to an interesting point if we’re looking at this strictly in terms of historical precedents (and not, ya know, the Constitution – that wouldn’t be very Originalist of us, would it?): no SCOTUS nominee has languished more than 125 days w/o action one way or the other by the Senate. Fortunately, consistency only matters sometimes.
you said McConnell’s statement was “predictable knee-jerk reaction”, but I don’t even get *how*.
Dr S, consider that Mcconnell started Obama’s first term by saying that their #1 priority was making him a 1 term President. Which is to say, opposing anything and everything he favored. That makes opposing even the possibility of him nominating someone, before anyone has even been suggested as a possiblity, look like a knee-jerk to me.
In 2008, Democrats would have been reluctant to approve someone that Bush might have put forward. But reject them sight unseen? That was not my impression — admittedly very much from the outside.
you said McConnell’s statement was “predictable knee-jerk reaction”, but I don’t even get *how*.
Dr S, consider that Mcconnell started Obama’s first term by saying that their #1 priority was making him a 1 term President. Which is to say, opposing anything and everything he favored. That makes opposing even the possibility of him nominating someone, before anyone has even been suggested as a possiblity, look like a knee-jerk to me.
In 2008, Democrats would have been reluctant to approve someone that Bush might have put forward. But reject them sight unseen? That was not my impression — admittedly very much from the outside.
you said McConnell’s statement was “predictable knee-jerk reaction”, but I don’t even get *how*.
Dr S, consider that Mcconnell started Obama’s first term by saying that their #1 priority was making him a 1 term President. Which is to say, opposing anything and everything he favored. That makes opposing even the possibility of him nominating someone, before anyone has even been suggested as a possiblity, look like a knee-jerk to me.
In 2008, Democrats would have been reluctant to approve someone that Bush might have put forward. But reject them sight unseen? That was not my impression — admittedly very much from the outside.
I’m stunned that anyone would think the Senate would cede the court to a President who would be king. Lots if artificial hand wringing.
Oh come on, Marty! To pick just one example, Sri Srinivasan was confirmed by the Senate in 2013 by a 97-0 vote. Does he suddenly and magically become a terrible nominee? How?
The only reason I can see, in his case, is raw petulance. Or does he have some particular opinion since his appointment to the Appeals Court which offends you? If so, what was it?
I’m stunned that anyone would think the Senate would cede the court to a President who would be king. Lots if artificial hand wringing.
Oh come on, Marty! To pick just one example, Sri Srinivasan was confirmed by the Senate in 2013 by a 97-0 vote. Does he suddenly and magically become a terrible nominee? How?
The only reason I can see, in his case, is raw petulance. Or does he have some particular opinion since his appointment to the Appeals Court which offends you? If so, what was it?
I’m stunned that anyone would think the Senate would cede the court to a President who would be king. Lots if artificial hand wringing.
Oh come on, Marty! To pick just one example, Sri Srinivasan was confirmed by the Senate in 2013 by a 97-0 vote. Does he suddenly and magically become a terrible nominee? How?
The only reason I can see, in his case, is raw petulance. Or does he have some particular opinion since his appointment to the Appeals Court which offends you? If so, what was it?
Yeah nv, and no lame duck president has nominated a Supreme in 80 years. Pick your precedent.
Yeah nv, and no lame duck president has nominated a Supreme in 80 years. Pick your precedent.
Yeah nv, and no lame duck president has nominated a Supreme in 80 years. Pick your precedent.
Wj, I belief that he was not confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court?
Wj, I belief that he was not confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court?
Wj, I belief that he was not confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court?
Marty seems to have a *hint* as to the real nature of Obama’s Imperial reign.
The answer can be found in the long-form birth certificate, in the later addendum where Obama was secretly adopted and made heir of the Hawai’ian Imperial family.
So now Obama is “Emperor of Hawai’i and Conqueror of the Haoles”.
Suck it, conservadorks. McCain *could* have prevented this, if he hadn’t have wimped out of the surfing contest with Obama (a traditional method of settling the Hawai’ian Imperial succession). But McCain brushed it off, and wiped out anyway.
It really is terrible how the GOP allowed ONE family to become near-royalty, with father, kid, sibling, all lining up for the presidency, but Pres. Malia would probably be mostly okay.
Marty seems to have a *hint* as to the real nature of Obama’s Imperial reign.
The answer can be found in the long-form birth certificate, in the later addendum where Obama was secretly adopted and made heir of the Hawai’ian Imperial family.
So now Obama is “Emperor of Hawai’i and Conqueror of the Haoles”.
Suck it, conservadorks. McCain *could* have prevented this, if he hadn’t have wimped out of the surfing contest with Obama (a traditional method of settling the Hawai’ian Imperial succession). But McCain brushed it off, and wiped out anyway.
It really is terrible how the GOP allowed ONE family to become near-royalty, with father, kid, sibling, all lining up for the presidency, but Pres. Malia would probably be mostly okay.
Marty seems to have a *hint* as to the real nature of Obama’s Imperial reign.
The answer can be found in the long-form birth certificate, in the later addendum where Obama was secretly adopted and made heir of the Hawai’ian Imperial family.
So now Obama is “Emperor of Hawai’i and Conqueror of the Haoles”.
Suck it, conservadorks. McCain *could* have prevented this, if he hadn’t have wimped out of the surfing contest with Obama (a traditional method of settling the Hawai’ian Imperial succession). But McCain brushed it off, and wiped out anyway.
It really is terrible how the GOP allowed ONE family to become near-royalty, with father, kid, sibling, all lining up for the presidency, but Pres. Malia would probably be mostly okay.
And, in general, the last seven years have been a as much Obama’s obstinance as much as the GOP. So the price is Trump and Sanders.
And, in general, the last seven years have been a as much Obama’s obstinance as much as the GOP. So the price is Trump and Sanders.
And, in general, the last seven years have been a as much Obama’s obstinance as much as the GOP. So the price is Trump and Sanders.
As usual, any discussion of Obama’s clear and continuing illegal and unprecedented abuse of power is greeted with mocking, because the Left knows no other way to have a discussion. I can’t understand why anyone would be angry. Conservadorks? Really? “Suck it” is how we talk now?
As usual, any discussion of Obama’s clear and continuing illegal and unprecedented abuse of power is greeted with mocking, because the Left knows no other way to have a discussion. I can’t understand why anyone would be angry. Conservadorks? Really? “Suck it” is how we talk now?
As usual, any discussion of Obama’s clear and continuing illegal and unprecedented abuse of power is greeted with mocking, because the Left knows no other way to have a discussion. I can’t understand why anyone would be angry. Conservadorks? Really? “Suck it” is how we talk now?
Marty: … no lame duck president has nominated a Supreme in 80 years. Pick your precedent.
What’s wrong with the Constitution?
–TP
Marty: … no lame duck president has nominated a Supreme in 80 years. Pick your precedent.
What’s wrong with the Constitution?
–TP
Marty: … no lame duck president has nominated a Supreme in 80 years. Pick your precedent.
What’s wrong with the Constitution?
–TP
Conservadorks? Really? “Suck it” is how we talk now?
Come on Marty, the clue’s in the name. She’s Snarki, Child of Loki. It’s like the scorpion in the tale of the scorpion and the frog, she can’t help it, it is her nature. Plus, we wouldn’t really want her to help it, would we? Life would be considerably more boring without her.
Conservadorks? Really? “Suck it” is how we talk now?
Come on Marty, the clue’s in the name. She’s Snarki, Child of Loki. It’s like the scorpion in the tale of the scorpion and the frog, she can’t help it, it is her nature. Plus, we wouldn’t really want her to help it, would we? Life would be considerably more boring without her.
Conservadorks? Really? “Suck it” is how we talk now?
Come on Marty, the clue’s in the name. She’s Snarki, Child of Loki. It’s like the scorpion in the tale of the scorpion and the frog, she can’t help it, it is her nature. Plus, we wouldn’t really want her to help it, would we? Life would be considerably more boring without her.
Yeah nv, and no lame duck president has nominated a Supreme in 80 years. Pick your precedent.
BS as stated. Either by lame duck we’re talking post-election, which means Obama has plenty of time before he’s a lame duck, or we’re talking 2nd-term, in which case Bush II nominated both of his SCOTUS picks as a lame duck. I know of no common usage of “lame duck” as “in their last year in office as dictated by term limits”.
You mean to say no nominee has been successfully appointed in an election year for eighty years. Which, yes, carefully dances around Kennedy being confirmed 28 years ago almost to the day.
But at the end of the day, what you’re saying, Marty, is that there is historical precedent for the occurance of what you’re suggesting as unreasonable, but there’s no historical precedent for the occurrence of what I’m suggesting as unreasonable? Got it.
Yeah nv, and no lame duck president has nominated a Supreme in 80 years. Pick your precedent.
BS as stated. Either by lame duck we’re talking post-election, which means Obama has plenty of time before he’s a lame duck, or we’re talking 2nd-term, in which case Bush II nominated both of his SCOTUS picks as a lame duck. I know of no common usage of “lame duck” as “in their last year in office as dictated by term limits”.
You mean to say no nominee has been successfully appointed in an election year for eighty years. Which, yes, carefully dances around Kennedy being confirmed 28 years ago almost to the day.
But at the end of the day, what you’re saying, Marty, is that there is historical precedent for the occurance of what you’re suggesting as unreasonable, but there’s no historical precedent for the occurrence of what I’m suggesting as unreasonable? Got it.
Yeah nv, and no lame duck president has nominated a Supreme in 80 years. Pick your precedent.
BS as stated. Either by lame duck we’re talking post-election, which means Obama has plenty of time before he’s a lame duck, or we’re talking 2nd-term, in which case Bush II nominated both of his SCOTUS picks as a lame duck. I know of no common usage of “lame duck” as “in their last year in office as dictated by term limits”.
You mean to say no nominee has been successfully appointed in an election year for eighty years. Which, yes, carefully dances around Kennedy being confirmed 28 years ago almost to the day.
But at the end of the day, what you’re saying, Marty, is that there is historical precedent for the occurance of what you’re suggesting as unreasonable, but there’s no historical precedent for the occurrence of what I’m suggesting as unreasonable? Got it.
I didn’t think Obama would be a lame duck until someone else was elected. That’s 9 months away.
I didn’t think Obama would be a lame duck until someone else was elected. That’s 9 months away.
I didn’t think Obama would be a lame duck until someone else was elected. That’s 9 months away.
As always and ever, I need to refresh after reading lots and lots of comments so as not to be redundant with my comments.
As always and ever, I need to refresh after reading lots and lots of comments so as not to be redundant with my comments.
As always and ever, I need to refresh after reading lots and lots of comments so as not to be redundant with my comments.
But if you do that, then the rest of us would be under an obligation to do so likewise. Shudder! 😉
But if you do that, then the rest of us would be under an obligation to do so likewise. Shudder! 😉
But if you do that, then the rest of us would be under an obligation to do so likewise. Shudder! 😉
Actually NV, I’m suggesting that appointing Supremes is so political at this point that, were the situation reversed, the Democrats would not confirm a new one at this point. Any “well this happened” just doesn’t take into account that was then, not now.
Actually NV, I’m suggesting that appointing Supremes is so political at this point that, were the situation reversed, the Democrats would not confirm a new one at this point. Any “well this happened” just doesn’t take into account that was then, not now.
Actually NV, I’m suggesting that appointing Supremes is so political at this point that, were the situation reversed, the Democrats would not confirm a new one at this point. Any “well this happened” just doesn’t take into account that was then, not now.
Thing is, Marty, the Republicans have poisoned the well at this point. You know as well as I do that they’d have been making essentially the same argument had this happened six months ago.
And even if you think the Democrats would have the spine to try that now (and don’t point back to Bork – you’re damned right, things have changed) it’s frankly not credible.
And even if it were, it doesn’t matter, because it’s not the right thing to do. As the Republicans used to like to point out, elections have consequences… right?
Thing is, Marty, the Republicans have poisoned the well at this point. You know as well as I do that they’d have been making essentially the same argument had this happened six months ago.
And even if you think the Democrats would have the spine to try that now (and don’t point back to Bork – you’re damned right, things have changed) it’s frankly not credible.
And even if it were, it doesn’t matter, because it’s not the right thing to do. As the Republicans used to like to point out, elections have consequences… right?
Thing is, Marty, the Republicans have poisoned the well at this point. You know as well as I do that they’d have been making essentially the same argument had this happened six months ago.
And even if you think the Democrats would have the spine to try that now (and don’t point back to Bork – you’re damned right, things have changed) it’s frankly not credible.
And even if it were, it doesn’t matter, because it’s not the right thing to do. As the Republicans used to like to point out, elections have consequences… right?
What’s the argument really? They’ll do whatever they can within the rules insofar as it’s not politically damaging. All the talk of whether it’s right or wrong is mostly subjective, perhaps to the point of meaninglessness. It’s just about who’s going to be pissed off.
What’s the argument really? They’ll do whatever they can within the rules insofar as it’s not politically damaging. All the talk of whether it’s right or wrong is mostly subjective, perhaps to the point of meaninglessness. It’s just about who’s going to be pissed off.
What’s the argument really? They’ll do whatever they can within the rules insofar as it’s not politically damaging. All the talk of whether it’s right or wrong is mostly subjective, perhaps to the point of meaninglessness. It’s just about who’s going to be pissed off.
NV, hsh’s point being correct, the concept that the GOP has poisoned the well is laughable. Start with his inauguration speech and read every word Obama has said, and everything he’s done, the message is crystal clear, his way or the highway and any disagreement makes you bad. So why would any Republican accept his moral authority or right to govern at this point? He fing lectured the supremes at the sotu. Why should he get to pick one.
NV, hsh’s point being correct, the concept that the GOP has poisoned the well is laughable. Start with his inauguration speech and read every word Obama has said, and everything he’s done, the message is crystal clear, his way or the highway and any disagreement makes you bad. So why would any Republican accept his moral authority or right to govern at this point? He fing lectured the supremes at the sotu. Why should he get to pick one.
NV, hsh’s point being correct, the concept that the GOP has poisoned the well is laughable. Start with his inauguration speech and read every word Obama has said, and everything he’s done, the message is crystal clear, his way or the highway and any disagreement makes you bad. So why would any Republican accept his moral authority or right to govern at this point? He fing lectured the supremes at the sotu. Why should he get to pick one.
The Founders, in their wisdom, could have stipulated that Justices be selected by seniority, or by competitive examination, or by lot. They chose to make it an explicitly political process.
So hairshirt is absolutely right, and even Marty (his dementia about “killing a Supreme” aside) has a point to some extent: They’ll do whatever they can within the rules insofar as it’s not politically damaging.
The job of the Democrats, alone and unaided by a mass media that insists on pretending the GOP is still sane, is to make the GOP stance as politically damaging as possible.
And if the nation doesn’t reject the GOP and all its works, then may He Who Gathered Scalia Unto Himself yesterday help us all.
–TP
The Founders, in their wisdom, could have stipulated that Justices be selected by seniority, or by competitive examination, or by lot. They chose to make it an explicitly political process.
So hairshirt is absolutely right, and even Marty (his dementia about “killing a Supreme” aside) has a point to some extent: They’ll do whatever they can within the rules insofar as it’s not politically damaging.
The job of the Democrats, alone and unaided by a mass media that insists on pretending the GOP is still sane, is to make the GOP stance as politically damaging as possible.
And if the nation doesn’t reject the GOP and all its works, then may He Who Gathered Scalia Unto Himself yesterday help us all.
–TP
The Founders, in their wisdom, could have stipulated that Justices be selected by seniority, or by competitive examination, or by lot. They chose to make it an explicitly political process.
So hairshirt is absolutely right, and even Marty (his dementia about “killing a Supreme” aside) has a point to some extent: They’ll do whatever they can within the rules insofar as it’s not politically damaging.
The job of the Democrats, alone and unaided by a mass media that insists on pretending the GOP is still sane, is to make the GOP stance as politically damaging as possible.
And if the nation doesn’t reject the GOP and all its works, then may He Who Gathered Scalia Unto Himself yesterday help us all.
–TP
Marty:
Because he’s President, and it’s his Constitutional role. Sorry you don’t like our system of government, and prefer ad hoc partisan policies to the Constitution.
Also, the idea that GOP-well-poisoning started strictly after Obama’s inauguration is perfectly laughable, as is the notion that Obama dictated terms instead of seeking compromise.
That being said, your comment is pretty much flatly at odds with hsh’s despite your calling it correct. You’re still trying to argue that this is about the Senate Republican argument being based in ethics and just cause. Hsh’s comment was about can, not ought.
We may be wandering into intractable territory where my deontological leanings run afoul something that looks an awful lot like virtue ethics on your side.
hsh:
Ofc. The argument is entirely rhetorical, in that the Republicans want to obstruct w/o looking like obstructionists; it’s just a matter of finding a fig leaf – of any size – so that they can avoid political damage. Marty is, alas, carrying water for them in this regard.
Marty:
Because he’s President, and it’s his Constitutional role. Sorry you don’t like our system of government, and prefer ad hoc partisan policies to the Constitution.
Also, the idea that GOP-well-poisoning started strictly after Obama’s inauguration is perfectly laughable, as is the notion that Obama dictated terms instead of seeking compromise.
That being said, your comment is pretty much flatly at odds with hsh’s despite your calling it correct. You’re still trying to argue that this is about the Senate Republican argument being based in ethics and just cause. Hsh’s comment was about can, not ought.
We may be wandering into intractable territory where my deontological leanings run afoul something that looks an awful lot like virtue ethics on your side.
hsh:
Ofc. The argument is entirely rhetorical, in that the Republicans want to obstruct w/o looking like obstructionists; it’s just a matter of finding a fig leaf – of any size – so that they can avoid political damage. Marty is, alas, carrying water for them in this regard.
Marty:
Because he’s President, and it’s his Constitutional role. Sorry you don’t like our system of government, and prefer ad hoc partisan policies to the Constitution.
Also, the idea that GOP-well-poisoning started strictly after Obama’s inauguration is perfectly laughable, as is the notion that Obama dictated terms instead of seeking compromise.
That being said, your comment is pretty much flatly at odds with hsh’s despite your calling it correct. You’re still trying to argue that this is about the Senate Republican argument being based in ethics and just cause. Hsh’s comment was about can, not ought.
We may be wandering into intractable territory where my deontological leanings run afoul something that looks an awful lot like virtue ethics on your side.
hsh:
Ofc. The argument is entirely rhetorical, in that the Republicans want to obstruct w/o looking like obstructionists; it’s just a matter of finding a fig leaf – of any size – so that they can avoid political damage. Marty is, alas, carrying water for them in this regard.
Why should he get to pick one? For the same reason every other President has nominated justices to the Supreme Court when necessary: it’s in his job description to fill vacancies when they happen, and it’s in the best interest of the Judicial branch and our own country to be operating with a full house so as to prevent a 4-4 deadlock over an important issue.
That it happens at a time deemed inconvenient to the opposition party is unfortunate for them, but it can be dealt with in two ways: maturely or childishly. McConnell et al have already declared their intentions on that ground preemptively. When that happens it’s time for the adults in the room to step in and explain how the rules work.
The mature thing to do would be to announce a desire to work with the president to determine the best nominee for the position. That’s how real men would behave. A pity so many of those claiming to work for we the people have forgotten that.
“Why should he get to pick one?” Grow up. You’re better than that.
Why should he get to pick one? For the same reason every other President has nominated justices to the Supreme Court when necessary: it’s in his job description to fill vacancies when they happen, and it’s in the best interest of the Judicial branch and our own country to be operating with a full house so as to prevent a 4-4 deadlock over an important issue.
That it happens at a time deemed inconvenient to the opposition party is unfortunate for them, but it can be dealt with in two ways: maturely or childishly. McConnell et al have already declared their intentions on that ground preemptively. When that happens it’s time for the adults in the room to step in and explain how the rules work.
The mature thing to do would be to announce a desire to work with the president to determine the best nominee for the position. That’s how real men would behave. A pity so many of those claiming to work for we the people have forgotten that.
“Why should he get to pick one?” Grow up. You’re better than that.
Why should he get to pick one? For the same reason every other President has nominated justices to the Supreme Court when necessary: it’s in his job description to fill vacancies when they happen, and it’s in the best interest of the Judicial branch and our own country to be operating with a full house so as to prevent a 4-4 deadlock over an important issue.
That it happens at a time deemed inconvenient to the opposition party is unfortunate for them, but it can be dealt with in two ways: maturely or childishly. McConnell et al have already declared their intentions on that ground preemptively. When that happens it’s time for the adults in the room to step in and explain how the rules work.
The mature thing to do would be to announce a desire to work with the president to determine the best nominee for the position. That’s how real men would behave. A pity so many of those claiming to work for we the people have forgotten that.
“Why should he get to pick one?” Grow up. You’re better than that.
The GOP majority has all the rights to reject an Obama nominee BY VOTING AGAINST HIM OR HER. That’s quite different from REFUSING TO EVEN CONSIDER A VOTE.
But voting someone down would put them on the record and likely show their hypocrisy (if they e.g. had confirmed that same person for another federal higher court position not too long ago with no or negligible objections).
The GOP majority has all the rights to reject an Obama nominee BY VOTING AGAINST HIM OR HER. That’s quite different from REFUSING TO EVEN CONSIDER A VOTE.
But voting someone down would put them on the record and likely show their hypocrisy (if they e.g. had confirmed that same person for another federal higher court position not too long ago with no or negligible objections).
The GOP majority has all the rights to reject an Obama nominee BY VOTING AGAINST HIM OR HER. That’s quite different from REFUSING TO EVEN CONSIDER A VOTE.
But voting someone down would put them on the record and likely show their hypocrisy (if they e.g. had confirmed that same person for another federal higher court position not too long ago with no or negligible objections).
I’m still not hearing any good reason why this would hurt Republicans electorally when the debt ceiling, government shutdown etc. didn’t really.
Democrats seem to be hopeless at squeezing political capital out of these antics.
I’m still not hearing any good reason why this would hurt Republicans electorally when the debt ceiling, government shutdown etc. didn’t really.
Democrats seem to be hopeless at squeezing political capital out of these antics.
I’m still not hearing any good reason why this would hurt Republicans electorally when the debt ceiling, government shutdown etc. didn’t really.
Democrats seem to be hopeless at squeezing political capital out of these antics.
I have always been a fan of using charts to clarify
http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/supreme-court-vacancies
I have always been a fan of using charts to clarify
http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/supreme-court-vacancies
I have always been a fan of using charts to clarify
http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/supreme-court-vacancies
The mature thing to do would be to announce a desire to work with the president to determine the best nominee for the position.
The problem with that approach is that the GOP has already taken the position that working together, let alone compromise, is a non-starter when it comes to Obama. I’m not sure they would be willing to do so at this point, even if Obama was to offer up a clone of Scalia. The electoral risk (for themselves, not for the Presidential election) would be just too great for them.
The mature thing to do would be to announce a desire to work with the president to determine the best nominee for the position.
The problem with that approach is that the GOP has already taken the position that working together, let alone compromise, is a non-starter when it comes to Obama. I’m not sure they would be willing to do so at this point, even if Obama was to offer up a clone of Scalia. The electoral risk (for themselves, not for the Presidential election) would be just too great for them.
The mature thing to do would be to announce a desire to work with the president to determine the best nominee for the position.
The problem with that approach is that the GOP has already taken the position that working together, let alone compromise, is a non-starter when it comes to Obama. I’m not sure they would be willing to do so at this point, even if Obama was to offer up a clone of Scalia. The electoral risk (for themselves, not for the Presidential election) would be just too great for them.
I’m still not hearing any good reason why this would hurt Republicans electorally when the debt ceiling, government shutdown etc. didn’t really.
Just for openers, neither of those occurred in the midst of a general election campaign. Consider, if the government got shut down in October of this year, and was still down on election day. (Especially if, to take an extreme case, things like Social Security checks were not sent out because the people who would do so were on furlough.) Not pretty.
I’m still not hearing any good reason why this would hurt Republicans electorally when the debt ceiling, government shutdown etc. didn’t really.
Just for openers, neither of those occurred in the midst of a general election campaign. Consider, if the government got shut down in October of this year, and was still down on election day. (Especially if, to take an extreme case, things like Social Security checks were not sent out because the people who would do so were on furlough.) Not pretty.
I’m still not hearing any good reason why this would hurt Republicans electorally when the debt ceiling, government shutdown etc. didn’t really.
Just for openers, neither of those occurred in the midst of a general election campaign. Consider, if the government got shut down in October of this year, and was still down on election day. (Especially if, to take an extreme case, things like Social Security checks were not sent out because the people who would do so were on furlough.) Not pretty.
All this stuff about “80 years since lame-duck SCOTUS appointment” etc. is purest Calvinball, unless you can point to a precedent where a President could have made a SCOTUS appointment but didn’t even try. No, SCOTUS nominations are a core part of a President’s duties, and can be the most influential thing a President gets to do.
Marty, I’m curious: have you ever read this account of the Republican meeting on Obama’s first Inauguration Day?
You said: Start with his inauguration speech and read every word Obama has said, and everything he’s done, the message is crystal clear, his way or the highway and any disagreement makes you bad. I honestly have no idea where you’re getting this, except the fever swamps where you’re picking up the idea that Obama caused Scalia’s death. I just re-read Obama’s first inaugural address, for instance and don’t see any of what you’re talking about.
Seriously, Marty, the murder accusation looks like mental illness of some sort. If you’re picking this up from some site (Brietbart?) where that sort of thing is being taken seriously, you need to cut back, because it’s hurting you. Consider your life, consider your choices.
And before you start to talk about how Both Sides Do It, bear in mind that at last night’s GOP debate the moderate literally said “I’m going to turn this car around!”. Too bad he didn’t follow up by sending them to their Time-Out Corners
All this stuff about “80 years since lame-duck SCOTUS appointment” etc. is purest Calvinball, unless you can point to a precedent where a President could have made a SCOTUS appointment but didn’t even try. No, SCOTUS nominations are a core part of a President’s duties, and can be the most influential thing a President gets to do.
Marty, I’m curious: have you ever read this account of the Republican meeting on Obama’s first Inauguration Day?
You said: Start with his inauguration speech and read every word Obama has said, and everything he’s done, the message is crystal clear, his way or the highway and any disagreement makes you bad. I honestly have no idea where you’re getting this, except the fever swamps where you’re picking up the idea that Obama caused Scalia’s death. I just re-read Obama’s first inaugural address, for instance and don’t see any of what you’re talking about.
Seriously, Marty, the murder accusation looks like mental illness of some sort. If you’re picking this up from some site (Brietbart?) where that sort of thing is being taken seriously, you need to cut back, because it’s hurting you. Consider your life, consider your choices.
And before you start to talk about how Both Sides Do It, bear in mind that at last night’s GOP debate the moderate literally said “I’m going to turn this car around!”. Too bad he didn’t follow up by sending them to their Time-Out Corners
All this stuff about “80 years since lame-duck SCOTUS appointment” etc. is purest Calvinball, unless you can point to a precedent where a President could have made a SCOTUS appointment but didn’t even try. No, SCOTUS nominations are a core part of a President’s duties, and can be the most influential thing a President gets to do.
Marty, I’m curious: have you ever read this account of the Republican meeting on Obama’s first Inauguration Day?
You said: Start with his inauguration speech and read every word Obama has said, and everything he’s done, the message is crystal clear, his way or the highway and any disagreement makes you bad. I honestly have no idea where you’re getting this, except the fever swamps where you’re picking up the idea that Obama caused Scalia’s death. I just re-read Obama’s first inaugural address, for instance and don’t see any of what you’re talking about.
Seriously, Marty, the murder accusation looks like mental illness of some sort. If you’re picking this up from some site (Brietbart?) where that sort of thing is being taken seriously, you need to cut back, because it’s hurting you. Consider your life, consider your choices.
And before you start to talk about how Both Sides Do It, bear in mind that at last night’s GOP debate the moderate literally said “I’m going to turn this car around!”. Too bad he didn’t follow up by sending them to their Time-Out Corners
True enough, wj.
On the other hand, the GOP could boost turnout by saying “All hands on deck to stop them replacing Scalia with unqualified Stalinist sodomite Sri Srinavasan.”
True enough, wj.
On the other hand, the GOP could boost turnout by saying “All hands on deck to stop them replacing Scalia with unqualified Stalinist sodomite Sri Srinavasan.”
True enough, wj.
On the other hand, the GOP could boost turnout by saying “All hands on deck to stop them replacing Scalia with unqualified Stalinist sodomite Sri Srinavasan.”
This is a completely different situation than the intractability of both sides to compromise over the last seven years. This election, and the supremes, set the tone for 30 or 40 more years.
Grow up? That isn’t the issue,( him growing up may be). There is no price to pay for protecting the originalist view, the 2nd amendment, limited states rights states rights on abortion, limited government in general. In fact, there may be advantage if the Democrats push too hard. The key for Republicans is to make sure all of those risks are clearly defined.
This is a completely different situation than the intractability of both sides to compromise over the last seven years. This election, and the supremes, set the tone for 30 or 40 more years.
Grow up? That isn’t the issue,( him growing up may be). There is no price to pay for protecting the originalist view, the 2nd amendment, limited states rights states rights on abortion, limited government in general. In fact, there may be advantage if the Democrats push too hard. The key for Republicans is to make sure all of those risks are clearly defined.
This is a completely different situation than the intractability of both sides to compromise over the last seven years. This election, and the supremes, set the tone for 30 or 40 more years.
Grow up? That isn’t the issue,( him growing up may be). There is no price to pay for protecting the originalist view, the 2nd amendment, limited states rights states rights on abortion, limited government in general. In fact, there may be advantage if the Democrats push too hard. The key for Republicans is to make sure all of those risks are clearly defined.
This election, and the supremes, set the tone for 30 or 40 more years.
I’m not sure what this means. Are this election and potential SCOTUS nomination somehow different from others in that regard? Does this change whatever authority Obama has in nominating a replacement justice (with almost a year left in office)?
This election, and the supremes, set the tone for 30 or 40 more years.
I’m not sure what this means. Are this election and potential SCOTUS nomination somehow different from others in that regard? Does this change whatever authority Obama has in nominating a replacement justice (with almost a year left in office)?
This election, and the supremes, set the tone for 30 or 40 more years.
I’m not sure what this means. Are this election and potential SCOTUS nomination somehow different from others in that regard? Does this change whatever authority Obama has in nominating a replacement justice (with almost a year left in office)?
“Mostly subjective…”
Indeed.
There is no obvious precedent for arguing that an election year appointment is in any way impermissible:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
Equally, there is nothing to stop the Senate Republicans being obstructionist d*ckheads.
It’s going to be an interesting election.
“Mostly subjective…”
Indeed.
There is no obvious precedent for arguing that an election year appointment is in any way impermissible:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
Equally, there is nothing to stop the Senate Republicans being obstructionist d*ckheads.
It’s going to be an interesting election.
“Mostly subjective…”
Indeed.
There is no obvious precedent for arguing that an election year appointment is in any way impermissible:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
Equally, there is nothing to stop the Senate Republicans being obstructionist d*ckheads.
It’s going to be an interesting election.
Somebody ping McKinneyTexas; he might have interesting comments on this.
Also, I wish we had Brett back again, to help carry some of the RWNJ water that poor Marty is carrying all alone.
–TP
Somebody ping McKinneyTexas; he might have interesting comments on this.
Also, I wish we had Brett back again, to help carry some of the RWNJ water that poor Marty is carrying all alone.
–TP
Somebody ping McKinneyTexas; he might have interesting comments on this.
Also, I wish we had Brett back again, to help carry some of the RWNJ water that poor Marty is carrying all alone.
–TP
hsh, I certainly expect Obama to nominate people. I just don’t think they will win the “obstructionist” battle as the clarity that the 4 to 4 court will bring sets in. The GOP will get to say that this candidate would vote x and its better to wait. No one changes sides in that argument.
hsh, I certainly expect Obama to nominate people. I just don’t think they will win the “obstructionist” battle as the clarity that the 4 to 4 court will bring sets in. The GOP will get to say that this candidate would vote x and its better to wait. No one changes sides in that argument.
hsh, I certainly expect Obama to nominate people. I just don’t think they will win the “obstructionist” battle as the clarity that the 4 to 4 court will bring sets in. The GOP will get to say that this candidate would vote x and its better to wait. No one changes sides in that argument.
A 4-4 court simply makes lower-court rulings final. I don’t know what sort of clarity that brings or why it would be generally better for one faction over another. Wouldn’t clarity be a matter of knowing who the nominee is? What if the choice is a perfectly reasonable one? Would that bear on whether or not obstruction will be politically wise during this election?
A 4-4 court simply makes lower-court rulings final. I don’t know what sort of clarity that brings or why it would be generally better for one faction over another. Wouldn’t clarity be a matter of knowing who the nominee is? What if the choice is a perfectly reasonable one? Would that bear on whether or not obstruction will be politically wise during this election?
A 4-4 court simply makes lower-court rulings final. I don’t know what sort of clarity that brings or why it would be generally better for one faction over another. Wouldn’t clarity be a matter of knowing who the nominee is? What if the choice is a perfectly reasonable one? Would that bear on whether or not obstruction will be politically wise during this election?
a President who would be king.
do yourself a favor and get out of that bubble.
a President who would be king.
do yourself a favor and get out of that bubble.
a President who would be king.
do yourself a favor and get out of that bubble.
I’m still not hearing any good reason why this would hurt Republicans electorally when the debt ceiling, government shutdown etc. didn’t really.
yeah, this.
if SCOTUS mattered so much to voters, they wouldn’t refuse to vote in midterm elections, when Senate seats are in play.
I’m still not hearing any good reason why this would hurt Republicans electorally when the debt ceiling, government shutdown etc. didn’t really.
yeah, this.
if SCOTUS mattered so much to voters, they wouldn’t refuse to vote in midterm elections, when Senate seats are in play.
I’m still not hearing any good reason why this would hurt Republicans electorally when the debt ceiling, government shutdown etc. didn’t really.
yeah, this.
if SCOTUS mattered so much to voters, they wouldn’t refuse to vote in midterm elections, when Senate seats are in play.
No, no, no Nigel. Just… no. Claiming that there haven’t been election-year vacancies proves nothing. Can’t you understand that it was deference to this long-standing tradition that for the past eighty years Justices have carefully avoided retiring or dying during election years?
No, no, no Nigel. Just… no. Claiming that there haven’t been election-year vacancies proves nothing. Can’t you understand that it was deference to this long-standing tradition that for the past eighty years Justices have carefully avoided retiring or dying during election years?
No, no, no Nigel. Just… no. Claiming that there haven’t been election-year vacancies proves nothing. Can’t you understand that it was deference to this long-standing tradition that for the past eighty years Justices have carefully avoided retiring or dying during election years?
if SCOTUS mattered so much to voters, they wouldn’t refuse to vote in midterm elections, when Senate seats are in play.
I’m thinking (hoping) that Scalia’s death will educate voters on the importance of Congressional elections. People seem to know that the President appoints the Supreme Court, and throughout much of the 20th century, the Congress pretty much went along with the President’s choices. (It’s interesting to see how many Supreme Court nominees were confirmed unanimously, including Scalia, when being “qualified” was the litmus test.) Not anymore.
if SCOTUS mattered so much to voters, they wouldn’t refuse to vote in midterm elections, when Senate seats are in play.
I’m thinking (hoping) that Scalia’s death will educate voters on the importance of Congressional elections. People seem to know that the President appoints the Supreme Court, and throughout much of the 20th century, the Congress pretty much went along with the President’s choices. (It’s interesting to see how many Supreme Court nominees were confirmed unanimously, including Scalia, when being “qualified” was the litmus test.) Not anymore.
if SCOTUS mattered so much to voters, they wouldn’t refuse to vote in midterm elections, when Senate seats are in play.
I’m thinking (hoping) that Scalia’s death will educate voters on the importance of Congressional elections. People seem to know that the President appoints the Supreme Court, and throughout much of the 20th century, the Congress pretty much went along with the President’s choices. (It’s interesting to see how many Supreme Court nominees were confirmed unanimously, including Scalia, when being “qualified” was the litmus test.) Not anymore.
People seem to know that the President appoints the Supreme Court, and throughout much of the 20th century, the Congress pretty much went along with the President’s choices.
i don’t see people caring about precedent. the GOP is going to argue that they aren’t required to allow a vote, and they don’t want to mix politics with something and important as a SCOTUS seat during an election year. and the people will be like “yeah, ok, that sounds reasonable”.
besides, it’s the Dems. you think they’re going to come up with a coherent and persuasive counterargument ? lol.
People seem to know that the President appoints the Supreme Court, and throughout much of the 20th century, the Congress pretty much went along with the President’s choices.
i don’t see people caring about precedent. the GOP is going to argue that they aren’t required to allow a vote, and they don’t want to mix politics with something and important as a SCOTUS seat during an election year. and the people will be like “yeah, ok, that sounds reasonable”.
besides, it’s the Dems. you think they’re going to come up with a coherent and persuasive counterargument ? lol.
People seem to know that the President appoints the Supreme Court, and throughout much of the 20th century, the Congress pretty much went along with the President’s choices.
i don’t see people caring about precedent. the GOP is going to argue that they aren’t required to allow a vote, and they don’t want to mix politics with something and important as a SCOTUS seat during an election year. and the people will be like “yeah, ok, that sounds reasonable”.
besides, it’s the Dems. you think they’re going to come up with a coherent and persuasive counterargument ? lol.
hsh, I suppose, but the chances of an acceptable candidate are zero. 4/4 court is easier to talk about. “The next vote means x”. It doesn’t favor anybody, which was what I meant by artificial hand wringing. The election just becomes more important because of the actuality of the vacancy. It’s not “if”. It’s really “if more”.
hsh, I suppose, but the chances of an acceptable candidate are zero. 4/4 court is easier to talk about. “The next vote means x”. It doesn’t favor anybody, which was what I meant by artificial hand wringing. The election just becomes more important because of the actuality of the vacancy. It’s not “if”. It’s really “if more”.
hsh, I suppose, but the chances of an acceptable candidate are zero. 4/4 court is easier to talk about. “The next vote means x”. It doesn’t favor anybody, which was what I meant by artificial hand wringing. The election just becomes more important because of the actuality of the vacancy. It’s not “if”. It’s really “if more”.
This:
On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956. With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957. The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.
But maybe the Senate doesn’t adjourn anymore.
This:
On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956. With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957. The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.
But maybe the Senate doesn’t adjourn anymore.
This:
On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956. With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957. The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.
But maybe the Senate doesn’t adjourn anymore.
it adjourns, but it has to be out at least three days for a recess appointment to be possible. and that’s something the GOP can easily avoid.
it adjourns, but it has to be out at least three days for a recess appointment to be possible. and that’s something the GOP can easily avoid.
it adjourns, but it has to be out at least three days for a recess appointment to be possible. and that’s something the GOP can easily avoid.
No, no, no Nigel. Just… no.
I’m abashed.
We Brits should know better than to opine on such matters, which are clearly beyond our comprehension.
🙂
No, no, no Nigel. Just… no.
I’m abashed.
We Brits should know better than to opine on such matters, which are clearly beyond our comprehension.
🙂
No, no, no Nigel. Just… no.
I’m abashed.
We Brits should know better than to opine on such matters, which are clearly beyond our comprehension.
🙂
This gives rise to an interesting thought…
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2688185
confirmation in the Senate is more likely and faster when the President compromises on the strength of the candidate by nominating an older individual….
Maybe Obama should really go for a cat amongst the pigeons moment and nominate Hillary …
or Joe Biden?
This gives rise to an interesting thought…
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2688185
confirmation in the Senate is more likely and faster when the President compromises on the strength of the candidate by nominating an older individual….
Maybe Obama should really go for a cat amongst the pigeons moment and nominate Hillary …
or Joe Biden?
This gives rise to an interesting thought…
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2688185
confirmation in the Senate is more likely and faster when the President compromises on the strength of the candidate by nominating an older individual….
Maybe Obama should really go for a cat amongst the pigeons moment and nominate Hillary …
or Joe Biden?
The GOP will get to say that this candidate would vote x and its better to wait. No one changes sides in that argument.
I’d agree that no Republicans, and no Democrats, would change sides as a result. But they aren’t the ones who matter in an election. The voters who are critical are the ones who don’t have to change sides; just pick on for this time around. And their opinions, their choice, might well be impacted.
The GOP will get to say that this candidate would vote x and its better to wait. No one changes sides in that argument.
I’d agree that no Republicans, and no Democrats, would change sides as a result. But they aren’t the ones who matter in an election. The voters who are critical are the ones who don’t have to change sides; just pick on for this time around. And their opinions, their choice, might well be impacted.
The GOP will get to say that this candidate would vote x and its better to wait. No one changes sides in that argument.
I’d agree that no Republicans, and no Democrats, would change sides as a result. But they aren’t the ones who matter in an election. The voters who are critical are the ones who don’t have to change sides; just pick on for this time around. And their opinions, their choice, might well be impacted.
When push came to shove and there was the ritual drawing of lines in the sand, the GOP took a political hit. And they caved.
The stakes here are not so much meat and potatoes, you know, checks going out, or the destruction of our credit rating. They are more aspirational (who will set the tone at the Court going forward).
This fact may help the GOP. But, and big but, as this election is shaping up to be an aspirational one.
When push came to shove and there was the ritual drawing of lines in the sand, the GOP took a political hit. And they caved.
The stakes here are not so much meat and potatoes, you know, checks going out, or the destruction of our credit rating. They are more aspirational (who will set the tone at the Court going forward).
This fact may help the GOP. But, and big but, as this election is shaping up to be an aspirational one.
When push came to shove and there was the ritual drawing of lines in the sand, the GOP took a political hit. And they caved.
The stakes here are not so much meat and potatoes, you know, checks going out, or the destruction of our credit rating. They are more aspirational (who will set the tone at the Court going forward).
This fact may help the GOP. But, and big but, as this election is shaping up to be an aspirational one.
Reagan nominated Kennedy in an election year (1987) and he was confirmed. So this “eighty years” stuff is a lie. There is no “tradition” of presidents abstaining from their Constitutional power to nominate justices in an election year.
Reagan nominated Kennedy in an election year (1987) and he was confirmed. So this “eighty years” stuff is a lie. There is no “tradition” of presidents abstaining from their Constitutional power to nominate justices in an election year.
Reagan nominated Kennedy in an election year (1987) and he was confirmed. So this “eighty years” stuff is a lie. There is no “tradition” of presidents abstaining from their Constitutional power to nominate justices in an election year.
Grumpy, you overlook the fact that Kennedy (and Brennan for that matter) were nominated by Republican Presidents. So they don’t count for precedents on what Democratic Presidents are traditionally allowed to do. Nor for history of when the last “lame duck” appointment was made.
Therefore, it’s not a lie. You just just have to understand the unspoken assumptions….
Grumpy, you overlook the fact that Kennedy (and Brennan for that matter) were nominated by Republican Presidents. So they don’t count for precedents on what Democratic Presidents are traditionally allowed to do. Nor for history of when the last “lame duck” appointment was made.
Therefore, it’s not a lie. You just just have to understand the unspoken assumptions….
Grumpy, you overlook the fact that Kennedy (and Brennan for that matter) were nominated by Republican Presidents. So they don’t count for precedents on what Democratic Presidents are traditionally allowed to do. Nor for history of when the last “lame duck” appointment was made.
Therefore, it’s not a lie. You just just have to understand the unspoken assumptions….
“Therefore, it’s not a lie. You just just have to understand the unspoken assumptions….”
AKA, “not intended as a factual statement”.
“Therefore, it’s not a lie. You just just have to understand the unspoken assumptions….”
AKA, “not intended as a factual statement”.
“Therefore, it’s not a lie. You just just have to understand the unspoken assumptions….”
AKA, “not intended as a factual statement”.
‘”Suck it” is how we talk now’
I believe the precedent here is ‘go fnck yourself’
you say man who wants to be king, I say fourth branch of government.
it is not only Obama’s privilege, but his duty under the constitution, to appoint Scalia’s replacement.
and it’s the senate’s to approve the appointment or not.
the Senate is going to stonewall anything Obama does, every chance they get. so we will probably not see 9 justices on the bench until after Jan 17, and maybe not even then if a Democrat wins the presidency.
Obama’s error, throughout his tenure as president, has been his insistence that we are a nation of red states and blue states, but the United states.
we are a state, but I’m not sure we are a nation anymore. or, maybe, ever.
‘”Suck it” is how we talk now’
I believe the precedent here is ‘go fnck yourself’
you say man who wants to be king, I say fourth branch of government.
it is not only Obama’s privilege, but his duty under the constitution, to appoint Scalia’s replacement.
and it’s the senate’s to approve the appointment or not.
the Senate is going to stonewall anything Obama does, every chance they get. so we will probably not see 9 justices on the bench until after Jan 17, and maybe not even then if a Democrat wins the presidency.
Obama’s error, throughout his tenure as president, has been his insistence that we are a nation of red states and blue states, but the United states.
we are a state, but I’m not sure we are a nation anymore. or, maybe, ever.
‘”Suck it” is how we talk now’
I believe the precedent here is ‘go fnck yourself’
you say man who wants to be king, I say fourth branch of government.
it is not only Obama’s privilege, but his duty under the constitution, to appoint Scalia’s replacement.
and it’s the senate’s to approve the appointment or not.
the Senate is going to stonewall anything Obama does, every chance they get. so we will probably not see 9 justices on the bench until after Jan 17, and maybe not even then if a Democrat wins the presidency.
Obama’s error, throughout his tenure as president, has been his insistence that we are a nation of red states and blue states, but the United states.
we are a state, but I’m not sure we are a nation anymore. or, maybe, ever.
https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/first-thoughts-on-the-probable-murder-of-justice-scalia/
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/alex-jones-obama-murdered-justice-scalia-and-donald-trump-next
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/129888/leading-conspiracy-theory-antonin-scalias-death-obama-it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz221lgosh0
http://www.inquisitr.com/2794988/antonin-scalia-murdered-by-obama-conspiracy-theories-ann-coulter-coward-gop-fight/
https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/first-thoughts-on-the-probable-murder-of-justice-scalia/
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/alex-jones-obama-murdered-justice-scalia-and-donald-trump-next
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/129888/leading-conspiracy-theory-antonin-scalias-death-obama-it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz221lgosh0
http://www.inquisitr.com/2794988/antonin-scalia-murdered-by-obama-conspiracy-theories-ann-coulter-coward-gop-fight/
https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/first-thoughts-on-the-probable-murder-of-justice-scalia/
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/alex-jones-obama-murdered-justice-scalia-and-donald-trump-next
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/129888/leading-conspiracy-theory-antonin-scalias-death-obama-it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz221lgosh0
http://www.inquisitr.com/2794988/antonin-scalia-murdered-by-obama-conspiracy-theories-ann-coulter-coward-gop-fight/
Scalia, particularly in his later years, was pretty good at the “suck it” and “go fnuk yourself” how-we-talk-now vernacular about wide swathes of the American people.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court
I wish he hadn’t died so I could keep telling him to go f*ck himself.
Conservatives are happy to f*ck tens of millions of Americans, they just can’t bring themselves to use the word.
I don’t recall Hitler and Stalin cursing either. Generally, they just called for final solutions.
One must maintain standards.
Scalia, particularly in his later years, was pretty good at the “suck it” and “go fnuk yourself” how-we-talk-now vernacular about wide swathes of the American people.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court
I wish he hadn’t died so I could keep telling him to go f*ck himself.
Conservatives are happy to f*ck tens of millions of Americans, they just can’t bring themselves to use the word.
I don’t recall Hitler and Stalin cursing either. Generally, they just called for final solutions.
One must maintain standards.
Scalia, particularly in his later years, was pretty good at the “suck it” and “go fnuk yourself” how-we-talk-now vernacular about wide swathes of the American people.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court
I wish he hadn’t died so I could keep telling him to go f*ck himself.
Conservatives are happy to f*ck tens of millions of Americans, they just can’t bring themselves to use the word.
I don’t recall Hitler and Stalin cursing either. Generally, they just called for final solutions.
One must maintain standards.
I suspect there are current and former Supreme Court Justices who have plenty to say about Scalia’s incivility.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust_2014/on_political_books/alone_on_his_own_ice_floe050664.php?page=all
I suspect there are current and former Supreme Court Justices who have plenty to say about Scalia’s incivility.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust_2014/on_political_books/alone_on_his_own_ice_floe050664.php?page=all
I suspect there are current and former Supreme Court Justices who have plenty to say about Scalia’s incivility.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust_2014/on_political_books/alone_on_his_own_ice_floe050664.php?page=all
“Suck it” is how we talk now'”
We’ve been lectured for decades by conservatives about political correctness and how it limits what they may express. about their inferiors.
I agree. So go f*ck yourselves, Republican Party.
I’m happy to take it to the next level too.
“Suck it” is how we talk now'”
We’ve been lectured for decades by conservatives about political correctness and how it limits what they may express. about their inferiors.
I agree. So go f*ck yourselves, Republican Party.
I’m happy to take it to the next level too.
“Suck it” is how we talk now'”
We’ve been lectured for decades by conservatives about political correctness and how it limits what they may express. about their inferiors.
I agree. So go f*ck yourselves, Republican Party.
I’m happy to take it to the next level too.
Even the liberal WaPo!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-tv-station-scalia-died-of-a-heart-attack/2016/02/14/938e2170-d332-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_ranch-216pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Even the liberal WaPo!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-tv-station-scalia-died-of-a-heart-attack/2016/02/14/938e2170-d332-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_ranch-216pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Even the liberal WaPo!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-tv-station-scalia-died-of-a-heart-attack/2016/02/14/938e2170-d332-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_ranch-216pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
The O’Donnell article in Washngton Monthly is persuasive.
The O’Donnell article in Washngton Monthly is persuasive.
The O’Donnell article in Washngton Monthly is persuasive.
go f *ck yourself…
It’s possible to be more civil, while conveying essentially the same sentiment:
https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/557279941101170
go f *ck yourself…
It’s possible to be more civil, while conveying essentially the same sentiment:
https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/557279941101170
go f *ck yourself…
It’s possible to be more civil, while conveying essentially the same sentiment:
https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/557279941101170
Speaking of whom, I quite like the concept of a new Warren court… though that might have to wait for a President Sanders.
Speaking of whom, I quite like the concept of a new Warren court… though that might have to wait for a President Sanders.
Speaking of whom, I quite like the concept of a new Warren court… though that might have to wait for a President Sanders.
A 4-4 court simply makes lower-court rulings final.
But binding only in the Circuit(s) from which the case came. In other Circuits the courts could reach a different conclusion. Except for cases from the DC Circuit on regulatory agencies, as such cases can’t be heard in other Circuit courts.
A 4-4 court simply makes lower-court rulings final.
But binding only in the Circuit(s) from which the case came. In other Circuits the courts could reach a different conclusion. Except for cases from the DC Circuit on regulatory agencies, as such cases can’t be heard in other Circuit courts.
A 4-4 court simply makes lower-court rulings final.
But binding only in the Circuit(s) from which the case came. In other Circuits the courts could reach a different conclusion. Except for cases from the DC Circuit on regulatory agencies, as such cases can’t be heard in other Circuit courts.
Lindsey Graham is open to a consensus nominee…
…Orrin Hatch.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/south-carolina-primary-2016-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/supreme-court-justice-appointment-lindsey-graham-219249
I’m fairly sure Bill Pryor would be OK, too…
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/13/donald_trump_just_proposed_diane_sykes_and_bill_pryor_for_the_supreme_court.html
Lindsey Graham is open to a consensus nominee…
…Orrin Hatch.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/south-carolina-primary-2016-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/supreme-court-justice-appointment-lindsey-graham-219249
I’m fairly sure Bill Pryor would be OK, too…
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/13/donald_trump_just_proposed_diane_sykes_and_bill_pryor_for_the_supreme_court.html
Lindsey Graham is open to a consensus nominee…
…Orrin Hatch.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/south-carolina-primary-2016-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/supreme-court-justice-appointment-lindsey-graham-219249
I’m fairly sure Bill Pryor would be OK, too…
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/13/donald_trump_just_proposed_diane_sykes_and_bill_pryor_for_the_supreme_court.html
Thanks for the link to that book review, Count. It agrees with something I’ve been thinking for years: that Scalia is a guy who got used to thinking of himself as the smartest person in the room. He reached the very peak of his profession — and it turned out to mean being on a committee, with a bunch of other prima donnas, for the rest of his career.
Thanks for the link to that book review, Count. It agrees with something I’ve been thinking for years: that Scalia is a guy who got used to thinking of himself as the smartest person in the room. He reached the very peak of his profession — and it turned out to mean being on a committee, with a bunch of other prima donnas, for the rest of his career.
Thanks for the link to that book review, Count. It agrees with something I’ve been thinking for years: that Scalia is a guy who got used to thinking of himself as the smartest person in the room. He reached the very peak of his profession — and it turned out to mean being on a committee, with a bunch of other prima donnas, for the rest of his career.
Drudge is on the case!
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/02/benghazi-marfa
Drudge is on the case!
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/02/benghazi-marfa
Drudge is on the case!
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/02/benghazi-marfa
I scooped Drudge on the “Reading The Past” thread.
In fact, I think Marty was riding on my coattails with his “Obama murdered a Supreme” meme, not trolling with Breitbartisms:
“True, briefly, the usual suspects will turn up with pelicans standing on their heads and accuse Obama of Supreme murder.
In Texas, no less.
With the gun that Hillary used to off Vince Foster because he surprised her in a lesbian tryst with her Muslim right-hand woman under the White House Christmas tree from which all the dildos and butt plugs were well-hung.
Start your committees, a&shole Freedom Caucus. Ryan will hold his palms up and say, hey, there’s nothing I can do. We must give all banshee voices a hearing.
The above is word for word the content of Donald Trump’s press release regarding Scalia’s timely passing.
Cruz and Death Panel will twit their paranoia shortly as well.
There will be calls for coup/junta-like behavior from the military against the White House.
Every sentence from one-star Obama-hating generals will begin with “Mandrake …..”
I scooped Drudge on the “Reading The Past” thread.
In fact, I think Marty was riding on my coattails with his “Obama murdered a Supreme” meme, not trolling with Breitbartisms:
“True, briefly, the usual suspects will turn up with pelicans standing on their heads and accuse Obama of Supreme murder.
In Texas, no less.
With the gun that Hillary used to off Vince Foster because he surprised her in a lesbian tryst with her Muslim right-hand woman under the White House Christmas tree from which all the dildos and butt plugs were well-hung.
Start your committees, a&shole Freedom Caucus. Ryan will hold his palms up and say, hey, there’s nothing I can do. We must give all banshee voices a hearing.
The above is word for word the content of Donald Trump’s press release regarding Scalia’s timely passing.
Cruz and Death Panel will twit their paranoia shortly as well.
There will be calls for coup/junta-like behavior from the military against the White House.
Every sentence from one-star Obama-hating generals will begin with “Mandrake …..”
I scooped Drudge on the “Reading The Past” thread.
In fact, I think Marty was riding on my coattails with his “Obama murdered a Supreme” meme, not trolling with Breitbartisms:
“True, briefly, the usual suspects will turn up with pelicans standing on their heads and accuse Obama of Supreme murder.
In Texas, no less.
With the gun that Hillary used to off Vince Foster because he surprised her in a lesbian tryst with her Muslim right-hand woman under the White House Christmas tree from which all the dildos and butt plugs were well-hung.
Start your committees, a&shole Freedom Caucus. Ryan will hold his palms up and say, hey, there’s nothing I can do. We must give all banshee voices a hearing.
The above is word for word the content of Donald Trump’s press release regarding Scalia’s timely passing.
Cruz and Death Panel will twit their paranoia shortly as well.
There will be calls for coup/junta-like behavior from the military against the White House.
Every sentence from one-star Obama-hating generals will begin with “Mandrake …..”
…
let us all take a moment to remember Mitch McConnell as he used to be, in 2005, before he decided to make himself King, answerable to nobody, determined to have his way or the highway, yadayadayada.
…
let us all take a moment to remember Mitch McConnell as he used to be, in 2005, before he decided to make himself King, answerable to nobody, determined to have his way or the highway, yadayadayada.
…
let us all take a moment to remember Mitch McConnell as he used to be, in 2005, before he decided to make himself King, answerable to nobody, determined to have his way or the highway, yadayadayada.
A 4-4 court simply makes lower-court rulings final.
But not binding outside of the Circuit whose decision was affirmed, which is a problem if other Circuit courts reach different conclusions in similar cases. Cases involving regulatory agencies and the like, which can only be heard in the DC Circuit court, wouldn’t have this problem, of course.
A 4-4 court simply makes lower-court rulings final.
But not binding outside of the Circuit whose decision was affirmed, which is a problem if other Circuit courts reach different conclusions in similar cases. Cases involving regulatory agencies and the like, which can only be heard in the DC Circuit court, wouldn’t have this problem, of course.
A 4-4 court simply makes lower-court rulings final.
But not binding outside of the Circuit whose decision was affirmed, which is a problem if other Circuit courts reach different conclusions in similar cases. Cases involving regulatory agencies and the like, which can only be heard in the DC Circuit court, wouldn’t have this problem, of course.
Now that Drudge is on board with high crimes and misdemeanors, is it going to be at all difficult for tens of millions of crazy-assed malignancies in the rabid canine Republican electorate, trained to lunge grring at every piece of bloody raw meat carrion thrown just outside the reach of their leads, to believe that the mainstream press is lying and covering up Scalia’s murder and that both Hillary and Obama were in that hunting lodge room deep in the murderous Texas night … Hillary standing over the slumbering, snoring Scalia, removing his sleep apnea rig, and pressing the pillow over his overfed face, and Obama stepping out from the shadows to hold Scalia’s wildly kicking feet until stilled.
It’s election year. Another Presidency is going to be stolen by the Republican Party.
I have to admit Drudge’s scenario roughly matches what I think would happen to tens of thousands of high Republican officialdom and media figures in a just world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVLyj364wAM
Now that Drudge is on board with high crimes and misdemeanors, is it going to be at all difficult for tens of millions of crazy-assed malignancies in the rabid canine Republican electorate, trained to lunge grring at every piece of bloody raw meat carrion thrown just outside the reach of their leads, to believe that the mainstream press is lying and covering up Scalia’s murder and that both Hillary and Obama were in that hunting lodge room deep in the murderous Texas night … Hillary standing over the slumbering, snoring Scalia, removing his sleep apnea rig, and pressing the pillow over his overfed face, and Obama stepping out from the shadows to hold Scalia’s wildly kicking feet until stilled.
It’s election year. Another Presidency is going to be stolen by the Republican Party.
I have to admit Drudge’s scenario roughly matches what I think would happen to tens of thousands of high Republican officialdom and media figures in a just world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVLyj364wAM
Now that Drudge is on board with high crimes and misdemeanors, is it going to be at all difficult for tens of millions of crazy-assed malignancies in the rabid canine Republican electorate, trained to lunge grring at every piece of bloody raw meat carrion thrown just outside the reach of their leads, to believe that the mainstream press is lying and covering up Scalia’s murder and that both Hillary and Obama were in that hunting lodge room deep in the murderous Texas night … Hillary standing over the slumbering, snoring Scalia, removing his sleep apnea rig, and pressing the pillow over his overfed face, and Obama stepping out from the shadows to hold Scalia’s wildly kicking feet until stilled.
It’s election year. Another Presidency is going to be stolen by the Republican Party.
I have to admit Drudge’s scenario roughly matches what I think would happen to tens of thousands of high Republican officialdom and media figures in a just world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVLyj364wAM
Will the House GOP step up and impeach Obamma for murdering Scalia? Or will they tuck their tail between their legs, whimper and hope no one notices their cowardice?
They’ve got the VOTES (all it takes is a majority). And while they’ve got plenty of NUTS, they don’t have the BALLS.
Will the House GOP step up and impeach Obamma for murdering Scalia? Or will they tuck their tail between their legs, whimper and hope no one notices their cowardice?
They’ve got the VOTES (all it takes is a majority). And while they’ve got plenty of NUTS, they don’t have the BALLS.
Will the House GOP step up and impeach Obamma for murdering Scalia? Or will they tuck their tail between their legs, whimper and hope no one notices their cowardice?
They’ve got the VOTES (all it takes is a majority). And while they’ve got plenty of NUTS, they don’t have the BALLS.
But not binding outside of the Circuit whose decision was affirmed, which is a problem.
Yes. I read yesterday about some high-profile cases that would likely end up 4-4. I guess Marty would have to weigh in on what sort of clarity this legal patchwork would provide.
But not binding outside of the Circuit whose decision was affirmed, which is a problem.
Yes. I read yesterday about some high-profile cases that would likely end up 4-4. I guess Marty would have to weigh in on what sort of clarity this legal patchwork would provide.
But not binding outside of the Circuit whose decision was affirmed, which is a problem.
Yes. I read yesterday about some high-profile cases that would likely end up 4-4. I guess Marty would have to weigh in on what sort of clarity this legal patchwork would provide.
But can’t you see for yourself? It’s one step closer to ending the scourge of Federalism!
But can’t you see for yourself? It’s one step closer to ending the scourge of Federalism!
But can’t you see for yourself? It’s one step closer to ending the scourge of Federalism!
Just a brief, drive-by comment. Someone else did the heavy lifting for me, here it is:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should just give this speech:
“We should not confirm any Obama nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not . . .
This is just a prologue considering the constitutional harm and dramatic departures that are in store if those few are joined by one more ideological ally. We have to, in my judgment, stick by the precepts that I’ve elaborated. I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining Sotomayor and Kagan on the court.”
That, of course, is a speech from Chuck Schumer from June 2007, with “Bush” replaced with “Obama” and “Roberts and Alito” changed to “Sotomayor and Kagan.” Watch the video; the audience at the American Constitutional Society gave it roaring applause at the end. No one booed. No one shouted this was an assault on the Constitution and rule of law. No one tore their hair out claiming that this was an obstinate ideological litmus test, and that it represented an assault on an independent judiciary.
So we’ve already established that in the minds of the American legal community, it is perfectly legitimate and fair for an opposition party to refuse to confirm a president’s nominees to the Supreme Court unless the nominee meets that opposition party’s definition of “mainstream.”
Goose, meet gander.
What’s more, Obama is particularly hypocritical here; he’s the first president who voted to filibuster one of his predecessor’s nominations, Samuel Alito. Obama voted against John Roberts as well — you know, the chief justice who saved Obamacare twice.
For whatever this may be worth in terms of balance. Ya’ll have a nice day. Back to work.
Just a brief, drive-by comment. Someone else did the heavy lifting for me, here it is:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should just give this speech:
“We should not confirm any Obama nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not . . .
This is just a prologue considering the constitutional harm and dramatic departures that are in store if those few are joined by one more ideological ally. We have to, in my judgment, stick by the precepts that I’ve elaborated. I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining Sotomayor and Kagan on the court.”
That, of course, is a speech from Chuck Schumer from June 2007, with “Bush” replaced with “Obama” and “Roberts and Alito” changed to “Sotomayor and Kagan.” Watch the video; the audience at the American Constitutional Society gave it roaring applause at the end. No one booed. No one shouted this was an assault on the Constitution and rule of law. No one tore their hair out claiming that this was an obstinate ideological litmus test, and that it represented an assault on an independent judiciary.
So we’ve already established that in the minds of the American legal community, it is perfectly legitimate and fair for an opposition party to refuse to confirm a president’s nominees to the Supreme Court unless the nominee meets that opposition party’s definition of “mainstream.”
Goose, meet gander.
What’s more, Obama is particularly hypocritical here; he’s the first president who voted to filibuster one of his predecessor’s nominations, Samuel Alito. Obama voted against John Roberts as well — you know, the chief justice who saved Obamacare twice.
For whatever this may be worth in terms of balance. Ya’ll have a nice day. Back to work.
Just a brief, drive-by comment. Someone else did the heavy lifting for me, here it is:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should just give this speech:
“We should not confirm any Obama nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not . . .
This is just a prologue considering the constitutional harm and dramatic departures that are in store if those few are joined by one more ideological ally. We have to, in my judgment, stick by the precepts that I’ve elaborated. I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining Sotomayor and Kagan on the court.”
That, of course, is a speech from Chuck Schumer from June 2007, with “Bush” replaced with “Obama” and “Roberts and Alito” changed to “Sotomayor and Kagan.” Watch the video; the audience at the American Constitutional Society gave it roaring applause at the end. No one booed. No one shouted this was an assault on the Constitution and rule of law. No one tore their hair out claiming that this was an obstinate ideological litmus test, and that it represented an assault on an independent judiciary.
So we’ve already established that in the minds of the American legal community, it is perfectly legitimate and fair for an opposition party to refuse to confirm a president’s nominees to the Supreme Court unless the nominee meets that opposition party’s definition of “mainstream.”
Goose, meet gander.
What’s more, Obama is particularly hypocritical here; he’s the first president who voted to filibuster one of his predecessor’s nominations, Samuel Alito. Obama voted against John Roberts as well — you know, the chief justice who saved Obamacare twice.
For whatever this may be worth in terms of balance. Ya’ll have a nice day. Back to work.
But can’t you see for yourself? It’s one step closer to ending the scourge of Federalism!
Sadly, this thought did cross my mind. It’s all about devolution.
But can’t you see for yourself? It’s one step closer to ending the scourge of Federalism!
Sadly, this thought did cross my mind. It’s all about devolution.
But can’t you see for yourself? It’s one step closer to ending the scourge of Federalism!
Sadly, this thought did cross my mind. It’s all about devolution.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer never existed, but okay.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer never existed, but okay.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer never existed, but okay.
As soon as there is a vote on Obama’s nominee(s), all of us will be even-steven and we can return to the balanced hypocrite status-quo ante.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mcconnell-no-vote-on-scalia-replacement-under-obama/article/2583231
As soon as there is a vote on Obama’s nominee(s), all of us will be even-steven and we can return to the balanced hypocrite status-quo ante.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mcconnell-no-vote-on-scalia-replacement-under-obama/article/2583231
As soon as there is a vote on Obama’s nominee(s), all of us will be even-steven and we can return to the balanced hypocrite status-quo ante.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mcconnell-no-vote-on-scalia-replacement-under-obama/article/2583231
It’s possible to be more civil, while conveying essentially the same sentiment
Consider a non-verbal example of how to be (more) civil while conveying essentially the same meaning. Gesturing at someone with only your middle finger raised is un-civil. Rude even.
But suppose you gesture with only your little finger raised. Will much of anyone be offended? Probably not. Confused, but not offended.
Of course, if they understood the meaning, they might be VERY offended: “When you just don’t care enough to send the very best.” 😉
It’s possible to be more civil, while conveying essentially the same sentiment
Consider a non-verbal example of how to be (more) civil while conveying essentially the same meaning. Gesturing at someone with only your middle finger raised is un-civil. Rude even.
But suppose you gesture with only your little finger raised. Will much of anyone be offended? Probably not. Confused, but not offended.
Of course, if they understood the meaning, they might be VERY offended: “When you just don’t care enough to send the very best.” 😉
It’s possible to be more civil, while conveying essentially the same sentiment
Consider a non-verbal example of how to be (more) civil while conveying essentially the same meaning. Gesturing at someone with only your middle finger raised is un-civil. Rude even.
But suppose you gesture with only your little finger raised. Will much of anyone be offended? Probably not. Confused, but not offended.
Of course, if they understood the meaning, they might be VERY offended: “When you just don’t care enough to send the very best.” 😉
Of course, in Schumer’s case, we never got to see what would happen because there was no vacancy to test his words (and as HSH noted he was not majority leader in any event).
Here we have McConnell flat out refusing (at least verbally) to even consider anyone Obama may nominate, potentially for almost a year or longer and leaving the Court with 8 justices for the rest of this SCOTUS term and likely all of next. That is, not even willing to give his fellow Senators the option to vote against or filibuster whoever Obama nominates.
Also, too, McConnell’s own words saying exactly the opposite 10 years ago, “regardless of party” and all that. But hey Schumer was saying stuff in 2007.
And hey look, Alito is on the court, somehow surviving Obama’s filibuster with only 58 votes.
But whatever. The Senate GOP will do it unless the political consequences are too great. We will see what happens.
Of course, in Schumer’s case, we never got to see what would happen because there was no vacancy to test his words (and as HSH noted he was not majority leader in any event).
Here we have McConnell flat out refusing (at least verbally) to even consider anyone Obama may nominate, potentially for almost a year or longer and leaving the Court with 8 justices for the rest of this SCOTUS term and likely all of next. That is, not even willing to give his fellow Senators the option to vote against or filibuster whoever Obama nominates.
Also, too, McConnell’s own words saying exactly the opposite 10 years ago, “regardless of party” and all that. But hey Schumer was saying stuff in 2007.
And hey look, Alito is on the court, somehow surviving Obama’s filibuster with only 58 votes.
But whatever. The Senate GOP will do it unless the political consequences are too great. We will see what happens.
Of course, in Schumer’s case, we never got to see what would happen because there was no vacancy to test his words (and as HSH noted he was not majority leader in any event).
Here we have McConnell flat out refusing (at least verbally) to even consider anyone Obama may nominate, potentially for almost a year or longer and leaving the Court with 8 justices for the rest of this SCOTUS term and likely all of next. That is, not even willing to give his fellow Senators the option to vote against or filibuster whoever Obama nominates.
Also, too, McConnell’s own words saying exactly the opposite 10 years ago, “regardless of party” and all that. But hey Schumer was saying stuff in 2007.
And hey look, Alito is on the court, somehow surviving Obama’s filibuster with only 58 votes.
But whatever. The Senate GOP will do it unless the political consequences are too great. We will see what happens.
…tu quoque…
…but if we look at Mitch McConnel’s statements during that same time period, what we actually established that it’s NOT “…perfectly legitimate and fair for an opposition party to refuse to confirm a president’s nominees to the Supreme Court unless the nominee meets that opposition party’s definition of “mainstream.””
I’m so confused! Will the real tu quoque please stand up?
…tu quoque…
…but if we look at Mitch McConnel’s statements during that same time period, what we actually established that it’s NOT “…perfectly legitimate and fair for an opposition party to refuse to confirm a president’s nominees to the Supreme Court unless the nominee meets that opposition party’s definition of “mainstream.””
I’m so confused! Will the real tu quoque please stand up?
…tu quoque…
…but if we look at Mitch McConnel’s statements during that same time period, what we actually established that it’s NOT “…perfectly legitimate and fair for an opposition party to refuse to confirm a president’s nominees to the Supreme Court unless the nominee meets that opposition party’s definition of “mainstream.””
I’m so confused! Will the real tu quoque please stand up?
(This comment is just to affirm my commitment to uphold the long-standing ObWi precedent of not refreshing before posting a comment.)
(This comment is just to affirm my commitment to uphold the long-standing ObWi precedent of not refreshing before posting a comment.)
(This comment is just to affirm my commitment to uphold the long-standing ObWi precedent of not refreshing before posting a comment.)
Drudge and company believe Scalia was “technically” murdered.
CNN reports Obama is only “technically” President for the next 11 months, Presidential terms having been reduced to three years somewhere along the line.
These are the assumptions we go forward with, daggers drawn.
https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/698675119623905281
I don’t know that Obama can trust that hypocrite Schumer after this swan dive into the Republican camp:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/schumer-obama-budget-cuts
Well, he’s in a New York State of mind and ya know what Ted Cruz thinks that means.
Drudge and company believe Scalia was “technically” murdered.
CNN reports Obama is only “technically” President for the next 11 months, Presidential terms having been reduced to three years somewhere along the line.
These are the assumptions we go forward with, daggers drawn.
https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/698675119623905281
I don’t know that Obama can trust that hypocrite Schumer after this swan dive into the Republican camp:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/schumer-obama-budget-cuts
Well, he’s in a New York State of mind and ya know what Ted Cruz thinks that means.
Drudge and company believe Scalia was “technically” murdered.
CNN reports Obama is only “technically” President for the next 11 months, Presidential terms having been reduced to three years somewhere along the line.
These are the assumptions we go forward with, daggers drawn.
https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/698675119623905281
I don’t know that Obama can trust that hypocrite Schumer after this swan dive into the Republican camp:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/schumer-obama-budget-cuts
Well, he’s in a New York State of mind and ya know what Ted Cruz thinks that means.
From a more practical perspective, what *should* happen here (IMHO) is that Obama nominates someone more toward the GOP’s liking than he would if the Democrats were in control of the Senate. You know, compromise.
But right out of the chute the GOP’s position is: nothing.
From a more practical perspective, what *should* happen here (IMHO) is that Obama nominates someone more toward the GOP’s liking than he would if the Democrats were in control of the Senate. You know, compromise.
But right out of the chute the GOP’s position is: nothing.
From a more practical perspective, what *should* happen here (IMHO) is that Obama nominates someone more toward the GOP’s liking than he would if the Democrats were in control of the Senate. You know, compromise.
But right out of the chute the GOP’s position is: nothing.
I wish Roberts had clued Obama in ahead of that vote regarding the former’s plans to vote down anti-Obamacare cases years later.
Maybe he did, Obama being the crafty one who knows exactly what he is doing when he doesn’t know what he is doing, whichever came first.
There are some fifty Republican Senators who would like to have that nomination vote back too after Roberts betrayed them … twice.
It’s so much easier parsing out political hypocrisy, but I repeat myself, and balance while seated in a time machine,.
I wish Roberts had clued Obama in ahead of that vote regarding the former’s plans to vote down anti-Obamacare cases years later.
Maybe he did, Obama being the crafty one who knows exactly what he is doing when he doesn’t know what he is doing, whichever came first.
There are some fifty Republican Senators who would like to have that nomination vote back too after Roberts betrayed them … twice.
It’s so much easier parsing out political hypocrisy, but I repeat myself, and balance while seated in a time machine,.
I wish Roberts had clued Obama in ahead of that vote regarding the former’s plans to vote down anti-Obamacare cases years later.
Maybe he did, Obama being the crafty one who knows exactly what he is doing when he doesn’t know what he is doing, whichever came first.
There are some fifty Republican Senators who would like to have that nomination vote back too after Roberts betrayed them … twice.
It’s so much easier parsing out political hypocrisy, but I repeat myself, and balance while seated in a time machine,.
what should happen is: the Pres nominates, the Senate votes. repeat until seat is filled.
what should happen is: the Pres nominates, the Senate votes. repeat until seat is filled.
what should happen is: the Pres nominates, the Senate votes. repeat until seat is filled.
I demand a public autopsy on live TV and Youtube, just to see Drudge et al drop their Junior Mints on to the corpse from the gallery:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scalia-autopsy-natural-causes
I demand a public autopsy on live TV and Youtube, just to see Drudge et al drop their Junior Mints on to the corpse from the gallery:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scalia-autopsy-natural-causes
I demand a public autopsy on live TV and Youtube, just to see Drudge et al drop their Junior Mints on to the corpse from the gallery:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scalia-autopsy-natural-causes
For whatever this may be worth in terms of balance.
Thanks McK. Good to hear from you! Hope all is well in your world.
what should happen is: the Pres nominates, the Senate votes. repeat until seat is filled.
Yes.
It’s absolutely unsurprising that McConnell will oppose a SCOTUS nomination that he thinks will tilt the court to the left.
What is, as far as I can tell, unprecedented is the idea that the POTUS should simply decline to nominate anybody, in the interest of letting ‘the people speak’. It doesn’t work that way, and Cruz can pound sand.
Obama was elected by a healthy majority. The people spoke.
The (R)’s have a majority in the Senate. The people spoke there, as well.
So, let the process proceed. If we can’t get a ninth justice, we’ll have to live with 8 until we have a (R) POTUS or a (D) Senate majority.
The basic issue here is that the country is profoundly divided. No SCOTUS nomination is going to fix that.
For whatever this may be worth in terms of balance.
Thanks McK. Good to hear from you! Hope all is well in your world.
what should happen is: the Pres nominates, the Senate votes. repeat until seat is filled.
Yes.
It’s absolutely unsurprising that McConnell will oppose a SCOTUS nomination that he thinks will tilt the court to the left.
What is, as far as I can tell, unprecedented is the idea that the POTUS should simply decline to nominate anybody, in the interest of letting ‘the people speak’. It doesn’t work that way, and Cruz can pound sand.
Obama was elected by a healthy majority. The people spoke.
The (R)’s have a majority in the Senate. The people spoke there, as well.
So, let the process proceed. If we can’t get a ninth justice, we’ll have to live with 8 until we have a (R) POTUS or a (D) Senate majority.
The basic issue here is that the country is profoundly divided. No SCOTUS nomination is going to fix that.
For whatever this may be worth in terms of balance.
Thanks McK. Good to hear from you! Hope all is well in your world.
what should happen is: the Pres nominates, the Senate votes. repeat until seat is filled.
Yes.
It’s absolutely unsurprising that McConnell will oppose a SCOTUS nomination that he thinks will tilt the court to the left.
What is, as far as I can tell, unprecedented is the idea that the POTUS should simply decline to nominate anybody, in the interest of letting ‘the people speak’. It doesn’t work that way, and Cruz can pound sand.
Obama was elected by a healthy majority. The people spoke.
The (R)’s have a majority in the Senate. The people spoke there, as well.
So, let the process proceed. If we can’t get a ninth justice, we’ll have to live with 8 until we have a (R) POTUS or a (D) Senate majority.
The basic issue here is that the country is profoundly divided. No SCOTUS nomination is going to fix that.
Might as well make a spectacle out of the no-vote spectacle planned by McCobbel:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/15/the-gop-s-worst-nightmare-scotus-nominee.html
Or, Charles Pierce would like to see Obama nominate Marco Rubio, just in case there might be hearings and a vote, and see if Marco shows up for either.
Pierce also seconds one of my nominees: Anita Hill.
It would be fun to watch Justice Thomas called to testify that Hill is not up to the job because she expects her soft drinks to come sans curly hair, and THEN watch R Senators fake apoplexy at her good taste.
However, if confirmed, both Thomas and Hill would have to recuse themselves from any cases before the Court regarding soft drink labeling.
Might as well make a spectacle out of the no-vote spectacle planned by McCobbel:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/15/the-gop-s-worst-nightmare-scotus-nominee.html
Or, Charles Pierce would like to see Obama nominate Marco Rubio, just in case there might be hearings and a vote, and see if Marco shows up for either.
Pierce also seconds one of my nominees: Anita Hill.
It would be fun to watch Justice Thomas called to testify that Hill is not up to the job because she expects her soft drinks to come sans curly hair, and THEN watch R Senators fake apoplexy at her good taste.
However, if confirmed, both Thomas and Hill would have to recuse themselves from any cases before the Court regarding soft drink labeling.
Might as well make a spectacle out of the no-vote spectacle planned by McCobbel:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/15/the-gop-s-worst-nightmare-scotus-nominee.html
Or, Charles Pierce would like to see Obama nominate Marco Rubio, just in case there might be hearings and a vote, and see if Marco shows up for either.
Pierce also seconds one of my nominees: Anita Hill.
It would be fun to watch Justice Thomas called to testify that Hill is not up to the job because she expects her soft drinks to come sans curly hair, and THEN watch R Senators fake apoplexy at her good taste.
However, if confirmed, both Thomas and Hill would have to recuse themselves from any cases before the Court regarding soft drink labeling.
I know McKinney is a busy man. Too busy to identify for us the “someone else” who “did the heavy lifting” for him.
I am a busy man too, but I could not resist spending a few minutes to look up the source material.
The above link is to a Senator Schumer press release from 31 July 2007, which includes the full text of his speech to the American Constitution Society. Text is easier and faster to search through than video. But since “someone” mentioned it, here’s the video. The part McKinney’s “someone” quotes starts at about 24:00/27:01 if anybody cares.
The reason I took the trouble is not just because I distrust RWNJ web sites in general, but because whatever particular one it was that McKinney got his “heavy lifting” from is sloppy enough with the facts to refer to the “American Constitutional Society. Sloppy in small things is likely sloppy in big things.
I do not believe, myself, that Schumer was saying exactly what McKinney’s “someone” claims he was saying. But I leave it to you, gentle reader.
–TP
I know McKinney is a busy man. Too busy to identify for us the “someone else” who “did the heavy lifting” for him.
I am a busy man too, but I could not resist spending a few minutes to look up the source material.
The above link is to a Senator Schumer press release from 31 July 2007, which includes the full text of his speech to the American Constitution Society. Text is easier and faster to search through than video. But since “someone” mentioned it, here’s the video. The part McKinney’s “someone” quotes starts at about 24:00/27:01 if anybody cares.
The reason I took the trouble is not just because I distrust RWNJ web sites in general, but because whatever particular one it was that McKinney got his “heavy lifting” from is sloppy enough with the facts to refer to the “American Constitutional Society. Sloppy in small things is likely sloppy in big things.
I do not believe, myself, that Schumer was saying exactly what McKinney’s “someone” claims he was saying. But I leave it to you, gentle reader.
–TP
I know McKinney is a busy man. Too busy to identify for us the “someone else” who “did the heavy lifting” for him.
I am a busy man too, but I could not resist spending a few minutes to look up the source material.
The above link is to a Senator Schumer press release from 31 July 2007, which includes the full text of his speech to the American Constitution Society. Text is easier and faster to search through than video. But since “someone” mentioned it, here’s the video. The part McKinney’s “someone” quotes starts at about 24:00/27:01 if anybody cares.
The reason I took the trouble is not just because I distrust RWNJ web sites in general, but because whatever particular one it was that McKinney got his “heavy lifting” from is sloppy enough with the facts to refer to the “American Constitutional Society. Sloppy in small things is likely sloppy in big things.
I do not believe, myself, that Schumer was saying exactly what McKinney’s “someone” claims he was saying. But I leave it to you, gentle reader.
–TP
I found the responses to this Byron York tweet illuminating. York said:
Reactions to the first tweet reveal that the real problem is that the GOP base would have gone ballistic(er) at the phrase “working with the president.” It’s not just that they hate Obama like poison, it’s that they do not trust GOP politicians, at all. McConnell et al. can’t use diplomacy or any kind of subtlety, because the GOP base is too angry & distrustful to tolerate nuance.
I found the responses to this Byron York tweet illuminating. York said:
Reactions to the first tweet reveal that the real problem is that the GOP base would have gone ballistic(er) at the phrase “working with the president.” It’s not just that they hate Obama like poison, it’s that they do not trust GOP politicians, at all. McConnell et al. can’t use diplomacy or any kind of subtlety, because the GOP base is too angry & distrustful to tolerate nuance.
I found the responses to this Byron York tweet illuminating. York said:
Reactions to the first tweet reveal that the real problem is that the GOP base would have gone ballistic(er) at the phrase “working with the president.” It’s not just that they hate Obama like poison, it’s that they do not trust GOP politicians, at all. McConnell et al. can’t use diplomacy or any kind of subtlety, because the GOP base is too angry & distrustful to tolerate nuance.
Maybe one should go the papal way: a conclave in the old fashion.
The senators get locked into the senate chamber with food for 3 days and will not be allowed to leave before they have filled the vacancy either with one from the president’s list with simple majority or one of their own choice with 75% majority. The vote would be anonymous, so no single senator could be proven to have voted for or against a particular candidate.
Maybe one should go the papal way: a conclave in the old fashion.
The senators get locked into the senate chamber with food for 3 days and will not be allowed to leave before they have filled the vacancy either with one from the president’s list with simple majority or one of their own choice with 75% majority. The vote would be anonymous, so no single senator could be proven to have voted for or against a particular candidate.
Maybe one should go the papal way: a conclave in the old fashion.
The senators get locked into the senate chamber with food for 3 days and will not be allowed to leave before they have filled the vacancy either with one from the president’s list with simple majority or one of their own choice with 75% majority. The vote would be anonymous, so no single senator could be proven to have voted for or against a particular candidate.
“…the GOP base is too angry & distrustful to tolerate nuance.”
“nuance”? Sounds suspiciously French. Can’t trust ’em. They’re anti-capitalist and all that stuff. Why, they don’t even have a word for ‘entrepreneur’!
“…the GOP base is too angry & distrustful to tolerate nuance.”
“nuance”? Sounds suspiciously French. Can’t trust ’em. They’re anti-capitalist and all that stuff. Why, they don’t even have a word for ‘entrepreneur’!
“…the GOP base is too angry & distrustful to tolerate nuance.”
“nuance”? Sounds suspiciously French. Can’t trust ’em. They’re anti-capitalist and all that stuff. Why, they don’t even have a word for ‘entrepreneur’!
The basic issue here is that the country is profoundly divided.
The country is divided, sure. But the Republican majority in Congress reflects voter apathy in midterm elections. What’s sad is that many of the people who care about vital issues in Presidential election years can’t be bothered to care in midterm years. I’m hoping that perhaps the public will get a bit of an education on why it’s important to notice the roles of all three branches of government.
The basic issue here is that the country is profoundly divided.
The country is divided, sure. But the Republican majority in Congress reflects voter apathy in midterm elections. What’s sad is that many of the people who care about vital issues in Presidential election years can’t be bothered to care in midterm years. I’m hoping that perhaps the public will get a bit of an education on why it’s important to notice the roles of all three branches of government.
The basic issue here is that the country is profoundly divided.
The country is divided, sure. But the Republican majority in Congress reflects voter apathy in midterm elections. What’s sad is that many of the people who care about vital issues in Presidential election years can’t be bothered to care in midterm years. I’m hoping that perhaps the public will get a bit of an education on why it’s important to notice the roles of all three branches of government.
The President absolutely should nominate anyone he pleases.
And, more to the point: can nominate anyone he pleases. No one is stopping anyone from doing what they are authorized to do.
Now, if we want behave as if we are civilized, we could consider perhaps not overly celebrating the death of a Supreme Court justice. Not accusing anyone in particular, but I have seen this from a former front-pager, here. It’s not pretty.
The President absolutely should nominate anyone he pleases.
And, more to the point: can nominate anyone he pleases. No one is stopping anyone from doing what they are authorized to do.
Now, if we want behave as if we are civilized, we could consider perhaps not overly celebrating the death of a Supreme Court justice. Not accusing anyone in particular, but I have seen this from a former front-pager, here. It’s not pretty.
The President absolutely should nominate anyone he pleases.
And, more to the point: can nominate anyone he pleases. No one is stopping anyone from doing what they are authorized to do.
Now, if we want behave as if we are civilized, we could consider perhaps not overly celebrating the death of a Supreme Court justice. Not accusing anyone in particular, but I have seen this from a former front-pager, here. It’s not pretty.
Not to apologize for Mitch McConnell. The man is a d1ck; no mistake about that. But Obama’s nomination, when he makes on (and he will, I imagine) will be subject to Senate approval. And they may decline.
Which is their right.
That’s the thing about rules: anything permissible will, eventually, occur.
Not to apologize for Mitch McConnell. The man is a d1ck; no mistake about that. But Obama’s nomination, when he makes on (and he will, I imagine) will be subject to Senate approval. And they may decline.
Which is their right.
That’s the thing about rules: anything permissible will, eventually, occur.
Not to apologize for Mitch McConnell. The man is a d1ck; no mistake about that. But Obama’s nomination, when he makes on (and he will, I imagine) will be subject to Senate approval. And they may decline.
Which is their right.
That’s the thing about rules: anything permissible will, eventually, occur.
But the Republican majority in Congress reflects voter apathy in midterm elections.
sapient, does low voter turnout in the mid-terms (or anytime) disproportionately favor (R)’s?
Not disagreeing with your point, just trying to understand it more clearly.
Now, if we want behave as if we are civilized, we could consider perhaps not overly celebrating the death of a Supreme Court justice.
Scalia’s not a guy I would expect to like had I known him in person, but the notorious RBG apparently had a very good friendship with him.
So, most likely there was more than one side to the man.
But the Republican majority in Congress reflects voter apathy in midterm elections.
sapient, does low voter turnout in the mid-terms (or anytime) disproportionately favor (R)’s?
Not disagreeing with your point, just trying to understand it more clearly.
Now, if we want behave as if we are civilized, we could consider perhaps not overly celebrating the death of a Supreme Court justice.
Scalia’s not a guy I would expect to like had I known him in person, but the notorious RBG apparently had a very good friendship with him.
So, most likely there was more than one side to the man.
But the Republican majority in Congress reflects voter apathy in midterm elections.
sapient, does low voter turnout in the mid-terms (or anytime) disproportionately favor (R)’s?
Not disagreeing with your point, just trying to understand it more clearly.
Now, if we want behave as if we are civilized, we could consider perhaps not overly celebrating the death of a Supreme Court justice.
Scalia’s not a guy I would expect to like had I known him in person, but the notorious RBG apparently had a very good friendship with him.
So, most likely there was more than one side to the man.
sapient, does low voter turnout in the mid-terms (or anytime) disproportionately favor (R)’s?
That’s the conventional wisdom. That old, white voters who vote R tend to dominate the mid-terms. I don’t have time to look it up for a link, but I think the facts bear it out.
sapient, does low voter turnout in the mid-terms (or anytime) disproportionately favor (R)’s?
That’s the conventional wisdom. That old, white voters who vote R tend to dominate the mid-terms. I don’t have time to look it up for a link, but I think the facts bear it out.
sapient, does low voter turnout in the mid-terms (or anytime) disproportionately favor (R)’s?
That’s the conventional wisdom. That old, white voters who vote R tend to dominate the mid-terms. I don’t have time to look it up for a link, but I think the facts bear it out.
quick link – not sure whether it’s the best of links.
quick link – not sure whether it’s the best of links.
quick link – not sure whether it’s the best of links.
speaking of rank stupidity:
democracy is a fine idea, but one that’s ill-suited to a species this stupid.
speaking of rank stupidity:
democracy is a fine idea, but one that’s ill-suited to a species this stupid.
speaking of rank stupidity:
democracy is a fine idea, but one that’s ill-suited to a species this stupid.
What ugh said. The obvious solution in a divided country is for Obama to pick a centrist– I suppose this guy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan
apparently qualifies as the Republicans voted for him before. The crap McKT quoted is irrelevant– if Obama picked someone on the extreme left I would expect a Republican opposition but to rule out anyone at all is just childish.
But if they insist on being childish
What ugh said. The obvious solution in a divided country is for Obama to pick a centrist– I suppose this guy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan
apparently qualifies as the Republicans voted for him before. The crap McKT quoted is irrelevant– if Obama picked someone on the extreme left I would expect a Republican opposition but to rule out anyone at all is just childish.
But if they insist on being childish
What ugh said. The obvious solution in a divided country is for Obama to pick a centrist– I suppose this guy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan
apparently qualifies as the Republicans voted for him before. The crap McKT quoted is irrelevant– if Obama picked someone on the extreme left I would expect a Republican opposition but to rule out anyone at all is just childish.
But if they insist on being childish
They should hope and pray Obama nominates Srinivasan. Because if he nominates Tino Cuellar (see the Count at 1:12 above) they are in far worse trouble. Refusing to confirm Srinivasan merely makes them look stupid and obstructionist. After all, they confirmed him (for the DC Appeals Court) 97-0 just a couple of years ago.
But if they refuse to confirm Cuellar, they are looking at losing the Mexican-American voters even worse than Romney did. Could lose them the Senate as well.
They should hope and pray Obama nominates Srinivasan. Because if he nominates Tino Cuellar (see the Count at 1:12 above) they are in far worse trouble. Refusing to confirm Srinivasan merely makes them look stupid and obstructionist. After all, they confirmed him (for the DC Appeals Court) 97-0 just a couple of years ago.
But if they refuse to confirm Cuellar, they are looking at losing the Mexican-American voters even worse than Romney did. Could lose them the Senate as well.
They should hope and pray Obama nominates Srinivasan. Because if he nominates Tino Cuellar (see the Count at 1:12 above) they are in far worse trouble. Refusing to confirm Srinivasan merely makes them look stupid and obstructionist. After all, they confirmed him (for the DC Appeals Court) 97-0 just a couple of years ago.
But if they refuse to confirm Cuellar, they are looking at losing the Mexican-American voters even worse than Romney did. Could lose them the Senate as well.
My comment got chopped off, but no matter– I can’t remember what I meant to finish with anyway.
My comment got chopped off, but no matter– I can’t remember what I meant to finish with anyway.
My comment got chopped off, but no matter– I can’t remember what I meant to finish with anyway.
That’s OK – brevity is the
That’s OK – brevity is the
That’s OK – brevity is the
LO
LO
LO
Obama should definitely submit a nominee.
But none of the GOP senators who are up for election this year should get a vote on it.
Obama should definitely submit a nominee.
But none of the GOP senators who are up for election this year should get a vote on it.
Obama should definitely submit a nominee.
But none of the GOP senators who are up for election this year should get a vote on it.
Snarki – that’s a good point. In fact, why should such Senators even be allowed to vote for any bills – let the people have their say, it’s an election year after all! In fact, no legislatin’ at all this year since it turns out – get this – that the ENTIRE House of Representatives is up for reelection this year along with the President. Who knew?
Snarki – that’s a good point. In fact, why should such Senators even be allowed to vote for any bills – let the people have their say, it’s an election year after all! In fact, no legislatin’ at all this year since it turns out – get this – that the ENTIRE House of Representatives is up for reelection this year along with the President. Who knew?
Snarki – that’s a good point. In fact, why should such Senators even be allowed to vote for any bills – let the people have their say, it’s an election year after all! In fact, no legislatin’ at all this year since it turns out – get this – that the ENTIRE House of Representatives is up for reelection this year along with the President. Who knew?
I find this unlikely but interesting.
I find this unlikely but interesting.
I find this unlikely but interesting.
Trump goes there too (not to my great surprise):
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/16/trump-joins-radio-ally-to-fuel-scalia-murder-co/208604
Trump goes there too (not to my great surprise):
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/16/trump-joins-radio-ally-to-fuel-scalia-murder-co/208604
Trump goes there too (not to my great surprise):
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/16/trump-joins-radio-ally-to-fuel-scalia-murder-co/208604
Trump goes there too
i’m sure this is the left’s fault, somehow.
Trump goes there too
i’m sure this is the left’s fault, somehow.
Trump goes there too
i’m sure this is the left’s fault, somehow.
i’m sure this is the left’s fault, somehow.
WSJ editorial this morning: It’s the left’s fault for politicizing the court and thus not confirming an Obama nominee this year is necessary to avoid additional politicization of the Court lest…well something bad (or they think is bad) I’m sure, I quit reading.
i’m sure this is the left’s fault, somehow.
WSJ editorial this morning: It’s the left’s fault for politicizing the court and thus not confirming an Obama nominee this year is necessary to avoid additional politicization of the Court lest…well something bad (or they think is bad) I’m sure, I quit reading.
i’m sure this is the left’s fault, somehow.
WSJ editorial this morning: It’s the left’s fault for politicizing the court and thus not confirming an Obama nominee this year is necessary to avoid additional politicization of the Court lest…well something bad (or they think is bad) I’m sure, I quit reading.
Someone should ask McConnell if he would take the same position if there was a Republican president, just to see what he says.
Someone should ask McConnell if he would take the same position if there was a Republican president, just to see what he says.
Someone should ask McConnell if he would take the same position if there was a Republican president, just to see what he says.
ask him where the Constitution says that black Presidents only get 3/4ths of a term, when it comes to nominations.
ask him where the Constitution says that black Presidents only get 3/4ths of a term, when it comes to nominations.
ask him where the Constitution says that black Presidents only get 3/4ths of a term, when it comes to nominations.
Pretty sure it’s actually 3/5ths, cleek – that’s the traditional precedent which prevented Obama from nominating any SCOTUS justices after Kagan in his first term. And as he’s well within his last 600 days of his second term, he can’t make another nomination. I’m sorry, fair is fair, but rules are rules.
Pretty sure it’s actually 3/5ths, cleek – that’s the traditional precedent which prevented Obama from nominating any SCOTUS justices after Kagan in his first term. And as he’s well within his last 600 days of his second term, he can’t make another nomination. I’m sorry, fair is fair, but rules are rules.
Pretty sure it’s actually 3/5ths, cleek – that’s the traditional precedent which prevented Obama from nominating any SCOTUS justices after Kagan in his first term. And as he’s well within his last 600 days of his second term, he can’t make another nomination. I’m sorry, fair is fair, but rules are rules.
This is interesting; how Cruz is running on Heller:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/antonin_scalia_s_opinion_in_heller_will_be_the_one_conservatives_care_about.html
Also, to a non-American, deeply weird.
This is interesting; how Cruz is running on Heller:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/antonin_scalia_s_opinion_in_heller_will_be_the_one_conservatives_care_about.html
Also, to a non-American, deeply weird.
This is interesting; how Cruz is running on Heller:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/antonin_scalia_s_opinion_in_heller_will_be_the_one_conservatives_care_about.html
Also, to a non-American, deeply weird.
Also, to a non-American, deeply weird.
Not just to non-Americans. We’re just kind of used to it at this point.
Also, to a non-American, deeply weird.
Not just to non-Americans. We’re just kind of used to it at this point.
Also, to a non-American, deeply weird.
Not just to non-Americans. We’re just kind of used to it at this point.
McT,
“We should not confirm any Obama nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances….”
This is not equivalent to McConnell’s position. Nor was Schumer Majority Leader.
Slarti,
Obama’s nomination, when he makes on (and he will, I imagine) will be subject to Senate approval. And they may decline.
Which is their right.
You are both overlooking what I consider the main point. No one, I think, has seriously argued that the Senate has no right to reject a nominee, or that this would be an outrageous act. What is disturbing is McConnell’s blanket rejection of any possible nominee, to the extent of not even bringing the nomination up. Solomon himself apparently would be unsuited for the court if nominated by Obama.
This is outrageous. In effect it is part of the ongoing effort to deny that Obama is legitimately the President.
It is interesting to me that, in following the discussions on various sites, conservatives routinely refuse to deal with this issue, preferring to talk about almost any other aspect of the nomination fight.
McT,
“We should not confirm any Obama nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances….”
This is not equivalent to McConnell’s position. Nor was Schumer Majority Leader.
Slarti,
Obama’s nomination, when he makes on (and he will, I imagine) will be subject to Senate approval. And they may decline.
Which is their right.
You are both overlooking what I consider the main point. No one, I think, has seriously argued that the Senate has no right to reject a nominee, or that this would be an outrageous act. What is disturbing is McConnell’s blanket rejection of any possible nominee, to the extent of not even bringing the nomination up. Solomon himself apparently would be unsuited for the court if nominated by Obama.
This is outrageous. In effect it is part of the ongoing effort to deny that Obama is legitimately the President.
It is interesting to me that, in following the discussions on various sites, conservatives routinely refuse to deal with this issue, preferring to talk about almost any other aspect of the nomination fight.
McT,
“We should not confirm any Obama nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances….”
This is not equivalent to McConnell’s position. Nor was Schumer Majority Leader.
Slarti,
Obama’s nomination, when he makes on (and he will, I imagine) will be subject to Senate approval. And they may decline.
Which is their right.
You are both overlooking what I consider the main point. No one, I think, has seriously argued that the Senate has no right to reject a nominee, or that this would be an outrageous act. What is disturbing is McConnell’s blanket rejection of any possible nominee, to the extent of not even bringing the nomination up. Solomon himself apparently would be unsuited for the court if nominated by Obama.
This is outrageous. In effect it is part of the ongoing effort to deny that Obama is legitimately the President.
It is interesting to me that, in following the discussions on various sites, conservatives routinely refuse to deal with this issue, preferring to talk about almost any other aspect of the nomination fight.
Here is Josh Marshall on the Schumer BS:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/lol-has-anyone-looked-at-what-schumer-actually-said
Here is Josh Marshall on the Schumer BS:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/lol-has-anyone-looked-at-what-schumer-actually-said
Here is Josh Marshall on the Schumer BS:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/lol-has-anyone-looked-at-what-schumer-actually-said
McConnell’s statement on 2/13:
Not ‘we will only entertain nominees whose points of view are the same as Scalias’, but the vacancy should not be filled until there is a new President, full stop.
Because any nomination Obama might make will not represent the will of the people.
I’m an American person. I voted for Obama, supported his campaign both times he ran, and my interests and intentions will be well served by Obama nominating a replacement for Scalia.
Members of the Senate were likewise elected by the people of the various American states, and they’ll get to represent the will of their constituents if and when such a nomination is made.
McConnell’s position, since the day Obama was elected, has been to thwart and obstruct any and every policy and initiative Obama has made.
I’m fine with checks and balances, but he seems to have lost the plot on the ‘balance’ part.
The fundamental problem is that the nation itself is profoundly divided, and the government specified by the Constitution and elaborated over the last 240 years is not well set up to accommodate or address that.
We are reaching a point where the federal government will be unable to act effectively.
Some folks see that as a desirable outcome. I do not.
McConnell’s statement on 2/13:
Not ‘we will only entertain nominees whose points of view are the same as Scalias’, but the vacancy should not be filled until there is a new President, full stop.
Because any nomination Obama might make will not represent the will of the people.
I’m an American person. I voted for Obama, supported his campaign both times he ran, and my interests and intentions will be well served by Obama nominating a replacement for Scalia.
Members of the Senate were likewise elected by the people of the various American states, and they’ll get to represent the will of their constituents if and when such a nomination is made.
McConnell’s position, since the day Obama was elected, has been to thwart and obstruct any and every policy and initiative Obama has made.
I’m fine with checks and balances, but he seems to have lost the plot on the ‘balance’ part.
The fundamental problem is that the nation itself is profoundly divided, and the government specified by the Constitution and elaborated over the last 240 years is not well set up to accommodate or address that.
We are reaching a point where the federal government will be unable to act effectively.
Some folks see that as a desirable outcome. I do not.
McConnell’s statement on 2/13:
Not ‘we will only entertain nominees whose points of view are the same as Scalias’, but the vacancy should not be filled until there is a new President, full stop.
Because any nomination Obama might make will not represent the will of the people.
I’m an American person. I voted for Obama, supported his campaign both times he ran, and my interests and intentions will be well served by Obama nominating a replacement for Scalia.
Members of the Senate were likewise elected by the people of the various American states, and they’ll get to represent the will of their constituents if and when such a nomination is made.
McConnell’s position, since the day Obama was elected, has been to thwart and obstruct any and every policy and initiative Obama has made.
I’m fine with checks and balances, but he seems to have lost the plot on the ‘balance’ part.
The fundamental problem is that the nation itself is profoundly divided, and the government specified by the Constitution and elaborated over the last 240 years is not well set up to accommodate or address that.
We are reaching a point where the federal government will be unable to act effectively.
Some folks see that as a desirable outcome. I do not.
McConnell’s statement on 2/13:
Not ‘we will only entertain nominees whose points of view are the same as Scalias’, but the vacancy should not be filled until there is a new President, full stop.
Because any nomination Obama might make will not represent the will of the people.
I’m an American person. I voted for Obama, supported his campaign both times he ran, and my interests and intentions will be well served by Obama nominating a replacement for Scalia.
Members of the Senate were likewise elected by the people of the various American states, and they’ll get to represent the will of their constituents if and when such a nomination is made.
McConnell’s position, since the day Obama was elected, has been to thwart and obstruct any and every policy and initiative Obama has made.
I’m fine with checks and balances, but he seems to have lost the plot on the ‘balance’ part.
The fundamental problem is that the nation itself is profoundly divided, and the government specified by the Constitution and elaborated over the last 240 years is not well set up to accommodate or address that.
We are reaching a point where the federal government will be unable to act effectively.
Some folks see that as a desirable outcome. I do not.
McConnell’s statement on 2/13:
Not ‘we will only entertain nominees whose points of view are the same as Scalias’, but the vacancy should not be filled until there is a new President, full stop.
Because any nomination Obama might make will not represent the will of the people.
I’m an American person. I voted for Obama, supported his campaign both times he ran, and my interests and intentions will be well served by Obama nominating a replacement for Scalia.
Members of the Senate were likewise elected by the people of the various American states, and they’ll get to represent the will of their constituents if and when such a nomination is made.
McConnell’s position, since the day Obama was elected, has been to thwart and obstruct any and every policy and initiative Obama has made.
I’m fine with checks and balances, but he seems to have lost the plot on the ‘balance’ part.
The fundamental problem is that the nation itself is profoundly divided, and the government specified by the Constitution and elaborated over the last 240 years is not well set up to accommodate or address that.
We are reaching a point where the federal government will be unable to act effectively.
Some folks see that as a desirable outcome. I do not.
McConnell’s statement on 2/13:
Not ‘we will only entertain nominees whose points of view are the same as Scalias’, but the vacancy should not be filled until there is a new President, full stop.
Because any nomination Obama might make will not represent the will of the people.
I’m an American person. I voted for Obama, supported his campaign both times he ran, and my interests and intentions will be well served by Obama nominating a replacement for Scalia.
Members of the Senate were likewise elected by the people of the various American states, and they’ll get to represent the will of their constituents if and when such a nomination is made.
McConnell’s position, since the day Obama was elected, has been to thwart and obstruct any and every policy and initiative Obama has made.
I’m fine with checks and balances, but he seems to have lost the plot on the ‘balance’ part.
The fundamental problem is that the nation itself is profoundly divided, and the government specified by the Constitution and elaborated over the last 240 years is not well set up to accommodate or address that.
We are reaching a point where the federal government will be unable to act effectively.
Some folks see that as a desirable outcome. I do not.
“This is outrageous. In effect it is part of the ongoing effort to deny that Obama is legitimately the President.”
Nothing more need be said or written about the times we are living in during this Presidency and actions of this President’s mortal enemies.
“This is outrageous. In effect it is part of the ongoing effort to deny that Obama is legitimately the President.”
Nothing more need be said or written about the times we are living in during this Presidency and actions of this President’s mortal enemies.
“This is outrageous. In effect it is part of the ongoing effort to deny that Obama is legitimately the President.”
Nothing more need be said or written about the times we are living in during this Presidency and actions of this President’s mortal enemies.
“We are reaching the point where the federal government will be unable to act effectively.”
We require a second Lincoln, which unfortunately Obama is not, and everything he set into motion after his and this country’s enemies provoked his and the federal government’s effective actions.
“We are reaching the point where the federal government will be unable to act effectively.”
We require a second Lincoln, which unfortunately Obama is not, and everything he set into motion after his and this country’s enemies provoked his and the federal government’s effective actions.
“We are reaching the point where the federal government will be unable to act effectively.”
We require a second Lincoln, which unfortunately Obama is not, and everything he set into motion after his and this country’s enemies provoked his and the federal government’s effective actions.
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.
they get that ‘say’ every four years. and this most recent time, they clearly said “Obama”.
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.
they get that ‘say’ every four years. and this most recent time, they clearly said “Obama”.
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.
they get that ‘say’ every four years. and this most recent time, they clearly said “Obama”.
You don’t understnad the dialectics properly. By voting for Obama in the majority The People secretly rejected him.
As Scalia so masterfully showed, the very fact that the Voting Rights Acts was repeatedly renewed unanimously was proof that it had to be overturned by SCOTUS because it could only mean that Congress was intimidated into voting for it, the unanimity being the cry for help. Same with The People and Obama. As an n-word any majority could only be the result of self-imposed reverse racism on part of The People. Their representatives heard the cry for help loud an clear. Plus the GOP kept and achieved resp. majority in both chambers, showing the will of The People that they should call the shots (or was that fire or be fired?). So, as clear as is the summer’s sun, Obama lacks any authority to nominate anybody at any time while Congress is obliged to prevent any such unlawful assumption of authority on part of the one so clearly disqualified by winning.
You don’t understnad the dialectics properly. By voting for Obama in the majority The People secretly rejected him.
As Scalia so masterfully showed, the very fact that the Voting Rights Acts was repeatedly renewed unanimously was proof that it had to be overturned by SCOTUS because it could only mean that Congress was intimidated into voting for it, the unanimity being the cry for help. Same with The People and Obama. As an n-word any majority could only be the result of self-imposed reverse racism on part of The People. Their representatives heard the cry for help loud an clear. Plus the GOP kept and achieved resp. majority in both chambers, showing the will of The People that they should call the shots (or was that fire or be fired?). So, as clear as is the summer’s sun, Obama lacks any authority to nominate anybody at any time while Congress is obliged to prevent any such unlawful assumption of authority on part of the one so clearly disqualified by winning.
You don’t understnad the dialectics properly. By voting for Obama in the majority The People secretly rejected him.
As Scalia so masterfully showed, the very fact that the Voting Rights Acts was repeatedly renewed unanimously was proof that it had to be overturned by SCOTUS because it could only mean that Congress was intimidated into voting for it, the unanimity being the cry for help. Same with The People and Obama. As an n-word any majority could only be the result of self-imposed reverse racism on part of The People. Their representatives heard the cry for help loud an clear. Plus the GOP kept and achieved resp. majority in both chambers, showing the will of The People that they should call the shots (or was that fire or be fired?). So, as clear as is the summer’s sun, Obama lacks any authority to nominate anybody at any time while Congress is obliged to prevent any such unlawful assumption of authority on part of the one so clearly disqualified by winning.
I think McT is a plant. My evidence?
Ya’ll have a nice day.
who the hell write Ya’ll??
I think McT is a plant. My evidence?
Ya’ll have a nice day.
who the hell write Ya’ll??
I think McT is a plant. My evidence?
Ya’ll have a nice day.
who the hell write Ya’ll??
An understandable misunderstanding. You’ve misread this as a pleasantry (“You [explicit plural] have a nice day”) when it was in fact meant as a prediction, or possibly command (“You [implicit plural] will have a nice day”).
An understandable misunderstanding. You’ve misread this as a pleasantry (“You [explicit plural] have a nice day”) when it was in fact meant as a prediction, or possibly command (“You [implicit plural] will have a nice day”).
An understandable misunderstanding. You’ve misread this as a pleasantry (“You [explicit plural] have a nice day”) when it was in fact meant as a prediction, or possibly command (“You [implicit plural] will have a nice day”).
Do y’all have a problem with his language? Or just with his mis-spelling the word (contraction, actually)?
Do y’all have a problem with his language? Or just with his mis-spelling the word (contraction, actually)?
Do y’all have a problem with his language? Or just with his mis-spelling the word (contraction, actually)?
I think he meant it in the context that someone wondered upthread if he might drop in and proffer an opinion, and so he did, like Marshall Mcluhan tugged out from behind a potted plant by Woody Allen to give some authoritative what for to the opiniated one standing in the movie line.
Or like a gunfighter sauntering into a rowdy saloon, shooting the chandeliers off the ceiling, tipping his hat to the nearest lovely lady (a little goose for the gander, ma’am) and then riding off into the horizon as suddenly as he appeared.
Y’all have a nice day, now.
Kind of a conversation stopper.
I’ll ask him in a few weeks over dinner.
I’ve always wanted to ask too why he dresses like exactly like Yosemite Sam. 😉
The United States is a really big country, with lots of different kinds of people in it.
We’re committed, at least on paper, to a kind of representative democracy, and at the same time preserving the rights of, and accounting for the interests of, demographic minorities.
There’s a kind of built-in dynamic tension to that formula, but it’s what we’re obliged to do.
Procedurally, to keep any one political actor or one set of interests from dominating things, the various branches and institutions of government are empowered with ways to ‘check and balance’ the others.
For ‘check and balance’, you can also see ‘opportunity to bugger up’.
It’s a tough juggling act to pull off. The only way it works is if everyone is willing to not get their way about everything all the time.
You win some, you lose some. You do your best to further your particular set of interests, but you also accept that some days the bear is gonna eat you.
And, we all move on.
The process for appointing a SCOTUS justice is:
1. The POTUS nominates someone
2. The Senate approves, or not
What we have now is the majority leader of the Senate putting the President on notice that nobody he nominates is getting the gig. Don’t even bother. Not only don’t even bother, but you shouldn’t nominate anyone in the first place, because any nomination of yours will not reflect ‘the peoples will’.
This stance and tactic is familiar to me from my schoolyard days as the ‘pre-emptive FU’.
We have neither the polity nor the political institutions to function by the logic of pre-emptive FU’s. Nor do I think we want to have such a polity or set of political institutions.
Pre-emptive FU and ‘win some, lose some’ are kind of mutually incompatible approaches to resolving differences.
So, basically, we’re rogered.
I think he meant it in the context that someone wondered upthread if he might drop in and proffer an opinion, and so he did, like Marshall Mcluhan tugged out from behind a potted plant by Woody Allen to give some authoritative what for to the opiniated one standing in the movie line.
Or like a gunfighter sauntering into a rowdy saloon, shooting the chandeliers off the ceiling, tipping his hat to the nearest lovely lady (a little goose for the gander, ma’am) and then riding off into the horizon as suddenly as he appeared.
Y’all have a nice day, now.
Kind of a conversation stopper.
I’ll ask him in a few weeks over dinner.
I’ve always wanted to ask too why he dresses like exactly like Yosemite Sam. 😉
The United States is a really big country, with lots of different kinds of people in it.
We’re committed, at least on paper, to a kind of representative democracy, and at the same time preserving the rights of, and accounting for the interests of, demographic minorities.
There’s a kind of built-in dynamic tension to that formula, but it’s what we’re obliged to do.
Procedurally, to keep any one political actor or one set of interests from dominating things, the various branches and institutions of government are empowered with ways to ‘check and balance’ the others.
For ‘check and balance’, you can also see ‘opportunity to bugger up’.
It’s a tough juggling act to pull off. The only way it works is if everyone is willing to not get their way about everything all the time.
You win some, you lose some. You do your best to further your particular set of interests, but you also accept that some days the bear is gonna eat you.
And, we all move on.
The process for appointing a SCOTUS justice is:
1. The POTUS nominates someone
2. The Senate approves, or not
What we have now is the majority leader of the Senate putting the President on notice that nobody he nominates is getting the gig. Don’t even bother. Not only don’t even bother, but you shouldn’t nominate anyone in the first place, because any nomination of yours will not reflect ‘the peoples will’.
This stance and tactic is familiar to me from my schoolyard days as the ‘pre-emptive FU’.
We have neither the polity nor the political institutions to function by the logic of pre-emptive FU’s. Nor do I think we want to have such a polity or set of political institutions.
Pre-emptive FU and ‘win some, lose some’ are kind of mutually incompatible approaches to resolving differences.
So, basically, we’re rogered.
I think he meant it in the context that someone wondered upthread if he might drop in and proffer an opinion, and so he did, like Marshall Mcluhan tugged out from behind a potted plant by Woody Allen to give some authoritative what for to the opiniated one standing in the movie line.
Or like a gunfighter sauntering into a rowdy saloon, shooting the chandeliers off the ceiling, tipping his hat to the nearest lovely lady (a little goose for the gander, ma’am) and then riding off into the horizon as suddenly as he appeared.
Y’all have a nice day, now.
Kind of a conversation stopper.
I’ll ask him in a few weeks over dinner.
I’ve always wanted to ask too why he dresses like exactly like Yosemite Sam. 😉
The United States is a really big country, with lots of different kinds of people in it.
We’re committed, at least on paper, to a kind of representative democracy, and at the same time preserving the rights of, and accounting for the interests of, demographic minorities.
There’s a kind of built-in dynamic tension to that formula, but it’s what we’re obliged to do.
Procedurally, to keep any one political actor or one set of interests from dominating things, the various branches and institutions of government are empowered with ways to ‘check and balance’ the others.
For ‘check and balance’, you can also see ‘opportunity to bugger up’.
It’s a tough juggling act to pull off. The only way it works is if everyone is willing to not get their way about everything all the time.
You win some, you lose some. You do your best to further your particular set of interests, but you also accept that some days the bear is gonna eat you.
And, we all move on.
The process for appointing a SCOTUS justice is:
1. The POTUS nominates someone
2. The Senate approves, or not
What we have now is the majority leader of the Senate putting the President on notice that nobody he nominates is getting the gig. Don’t even bother. Not only don’t even bother, but you shouldn’t nominate anyone in the first place, because any nomination of yours will not reflect ‘the peoples will’.
This stance and tactic is familiar to me from my schoolyard days as the ‘pre-emptive FU’.
We have neither the polity nor the political institutions to function by the logic of pre-emptive FU’s. Nor do I think we want to have such a polity or set of political institutions.
Pre-emptive FU and ‘win some, lose some’ are kind of mutually incompatible approaches to resolving differences.
So, basically, we’re rogered.
but remember, Obama’s the tyrant king my-way-or-the-highway actor in all of this.
the GOP is just, aw shucks, tryin to figure out how all this governin stuff works. can’t blame em that they can’t seem ta stop puttin the whole dern thing ass-over-teakettle into every ditch that comes along!
but remember, Obama’s the tyrant king my-way-or-the-highway actor in all of this.
the GOP is just, aw shucks, tryin to figure out how all this governin stuff works. can’t blame em that they can’t seem ta stop puttin the whole dern thing ass-over-teakettle into every ditch that comes along!
but remember, Obama’s the tyrant king my-way-or-the-highway actor in all of this.
the GOP is just, aw shucks, tryin to figure out how all this governin stuff works. can’t blame em that they can’t seem ta stop puttin the whole dern thing ass-over-teakettle into every ditch that comes along!
We, the majority of the American people, had four years, minimum, of a Democratic Presidency, Al Gore’s, stolen from us.
Now, by a sort of nullification of the usual conduct in a republic once made up of reasonable people, we’re having a Presidency, elected twice by a majority, thwarted.
There be no vote permitted? Seriously? In this heavily armed polity? Seems a little… misguided. I don’t think the Founding Fathers would put up with that f*cking sh*t, IMHO.
John Roberts was confirmed 78-22 after Rehnquist died.
Anthony Kennedy confirmed 97-zip in Reagan’s last year, but after Bork was sent packing .. nevertheless in a vote.
Thomas confirmed 52-48.
Now, there will no vote held?
Hell, even pigf*cker Justice Souter was voted on and confirmed by Erick Erickson’s majority representative government, not that the latter liked that either, because if there is anything a vermin Republican like Erickson hates more than being told “No”, it’s being told “Yes”.
If Obama’s nominations to replace Scalia are not put to a vote, at least by the Judiciary Committee, than we no longer have representative government.
I know precisely what the Founders’ prescriptions were for correcting that little oversight.
We, the majority of the American people, had four years, minimum, of a Democratic Presidency, Al Gore’s, stolen from us.
Now, by a sort of nullification of the usual conduct in a republic once made up of reasonable people, we’re having a Presidency, elected twice by a majority, thwarted.
There be no vote permitted? Seriously? In this heavily armed polity? Seems a little… misguided. I don’t think the Founding Fathers would put up with that f*cking sh*t, IMHO.
John Roberts was confirmed 78-22 after Rehnquist died.
Anthony Kennedy confirmed 97-zip in Reagan’s last year, but after Bork was sent packing .. nevertheless in a vote.
Thomas confirmed 52-48.
Now, there will no vote held?
Hell, even pigf*cker Justice Souter was voted on and confirmed by Erick Erickson’s majority representative government, not that the latter liked that either, because if there is anything a vermin Republican like Erickson hates more than being told “No”, it’s being told “Yes”.
If Obama’s nominations to replace Scalia are not put to a vote, at least by the Judiciary Committee, than we no longer have representative government.
I know precisely what the Founders’ prescriptions were for correcting that little oversight.
We, the majority of the American people, had four years, minimum, of a Democratic Presidency, Al Gore’s, stolen from us.
Now, by a sort of nullification of the usual conduct in a republic once made up of reasonable people, we’re having a Presidency, elected twice by a majority, thwarted.
There be no vote permitted? Seriously? In this heavily armed polity? Seems a little… misguided. I don’t think the Founding Fathers would put up with that f*cking sh*t, IMHO.
John Roberts was confirmed 78-22 after Rehnquist died.
Anthony Kennedy confirmed 97-zip in Reagan’s last year, but after Bork was sent packing .. nevertheless in a vote.
Thomas confirmed 52-48.
Now, there will no vote held?
Hell, even pigf*cker Justice Souter was voted on and confirmed by Erick Erickson’s majority representative government, not that the latter liked that either, because if there is anything a vermin Republican like Erickson hates more than being told “No”, it’s being told “Yes”.
If Obama’s nominations to replace Scalia are not put to a vote, at least by the Judiciary Committee, than we no longer have representative government.
I know precisely what the Founders’ prescriptions were for correcting that little oversight.
“the”, not “than” and don’t anyone forget it.
“the”, not “than” and don’t anyone forget it.
“the”, not “than” and don’t anyone forget it.
“then” galdurnit.
Obama does his thing and goes all joshing django on the entire Republican Presidential field. Just like Trump, the lot of them. No kidding.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-trump-cruz-republicans
He should have added every sitting Republican Senator and Representative is exactly like Ted Cruz.
Hit that hornet’s nest with a stick, baby.
Trump and Cruz become the Republican Party.
It’s hard to tell the pigs from the lipstick.
“then” galdurnit.
Obama does his thing and goes all joshing django on the entire Republican Presidential field. Just like Trump, the lot of them. No kidding.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-trump-cruz-republicans
He should have added every sitting Republican Senator and Representative is exactly like Ted Cruz.
Hit that hornet’s nest with a stick, baby.
Trump and Cruz become the Republican Party.
It’s hard to tell the pigs from the lipstick.
“then” galdurnit.
Obama does his thing and goes all joshing django on the entire Republican Presidential field. Just like Trump, the lot of them. No kidding.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-trump-cruz-republicans
He should have added every sitting Republican Senator and Representative is exactly like Ted Cruz.
Hit that hornet’s nest with a stick, baby.
Trump and Cruz become the Republican Party.
It’s hard to tell the pigs from the lipstick.
Count, that’s really unfair. The rest of the sitting Republican Senators, and most of the Republican Congressmen, are nothing like Cruz.
Which is why it took his arrival to bring things to the mess they are in. Not that they don’t seem to be afraid that, if they don’t at least fake being like Cruz, they will get booted out of office in the next primary. But they are really pretty poor immitations of the real thing.
P.S. I assume that, when you say “Trump and Cruz become the Republican Party.” you mean “become” in the sense of adorn. Because otherwise what we are is the reverse: the Republican Party (or at least its politicians) becoming Trump and Cruz.
Count, that’s really unfair. The rest of the sitting Republican Senators, and most of the Republican Congressmen, are nothing like Cruz.
Which is why it took his arrival to bring things to the mess they are in. Not that they don’t seem to be afraid that, if they don’t at least fake being like Cruz, they will get booted out of office in the next primary. But they are really pretty poor immitations of the real thing.
P.S. I assume that, when you say “Trump and Cruz become the Republican Party.” you mean “become” in the sense of adorn. Because otherwise what we are is the reverse: the Republican Party (or at least its politicians) becoming Trump and Cruz.
Count, that’s really unfair. The rest of the sitting Republican Senators, and most of the Republican Congressmen, are nothing like Cruz.
Which is why it took his arrival to bring things to the mess they are in. Not that they don’t seem to be afraid that, if they don’t at least fake being like Cruz, they will get booted out of office in the next primary. But they are really pretty poor immitations of the real thing.
P.S. I assume that, when you say “Trump and Cruz become the Republican Party.” you mean “become” in the sense of adorn. Because otherwise what we are is the reverse: the Republican Party (or at least its politicians) becoming Trump and Cruz.
Marty claimed :
Start with his inauguration speech and read every word Obama has said, and everything he’s done, the message is crystal clear, his way or the highway and any disagreement makes you bad.
This is so completely at odds with the President’s actual words and actions that I can’t even …
From my viewpoint, President Obama spent nearly his entire first term attempting to treat Republicans as serious, honorable persons who might consider co-operating in areas of agreement and compromising in areas of disagreement. Almost all of these efforts to reach across the aisle were peremptorily rejected; most of them were rejected out-of-hand by the Rs, without even a pretense of considering the issues on their merits.
I conclude that Marty and I have such different sources of information that even the text of the President’s speeches is different in our respective worlds.
Marty claimed :
Start with his inauguration speech and read every word Obama has said, and everything he’s done, the message is crystal clear, his way or the highway and any disagreement makes you bad.
This is so completely at odds with the President’s actual words and actions that I can’t even …
From my viewpoint, President Obama spent nearly his entire first term attempting to treat Republicans as serious, honorable persons who might consider co-operating in areas of agreement and compromising in areas of disagreement. Almost all of these efforts to reach across the aisle were peremptorily rejected; most of them were rejected out-of-hand by the Rs, without even a pretense of considering the issues on their merits.
I conclude that Marty and I have such different sources of information that even the text of the President’s speeches is different in our respective worlds.
Marty claimed :
Start with his inauguration speech and read every word Obama has said, and everything he’s done, the message is crystal clear, his way or the highway and any disagreement makes you bad.
This is so completely at odds with the President’s actual words and actions that I can’t even …
From my viewpoint, President Obama spent nearly his entire first term attempting to treat Republicans as serious, honorable persons who might consider co-operating in areas of agreement and compromising in areas of disagreement. Almost all of these efforts to reach across the aisle were peremptorily rejected; most of them were rejected out-of-hand by the Rs, without even a pretense of considering the issues on their merits.
I conclude that Marty and I have such different sources of information that even the text of the President’s speeches is different in our respective worlds.
Becoming, as in, say, you have a hollow-chested, slump-shouldered guy with a severe underbite, ears like sails, a single grown together eyebrow, pigeon-toed with mismatched socks, a protruding bony adams apple that moves up and down alarmingly.
Then you notice his fly is wide open and a shirttail hangs through the aperture.
You point at it and say “That becomes you, and not in the Heideggerian sense of investigating the ontological ground of the unity in experience of the dichotomies which characterize our having objective knowledge.”
Becoming, as in, say, you have a hollow-chested, slump-shouldered guy with a severe underbite, ears like sails, a single grown together eyebrow, pigeon-toed with mismatched socks, a protruding bony adams apple that moves up and down alarmingly.
Then you notice his fly is wide open and a shirttail hangs through the aperture.
You point at it and say “That becomes you, and not in the Heideggerian sense of investigating the ontological ground of the unity in experience of the dichotomies which characterize our having objective knowledge.”
Becoming, as in, say, you have a hollow-chested, slump-shouldered guy with a severe underbite, ears like sails, a single grown together eyebrow, pigeon-toed with mismatched socks, a protruding bony adams apple that moves up and down alarmingly.
Then you notice his fly is wide open and a shirttail hangs through the aperture.
You point at it and say “That becomes you, and not in the Heideggerian sense of investigating the ontological ground of the unity in experience of the dichotomies which characterize our having objective knowledge.”
What Joel Hanes said.
Obama went overboard, IMO, trying to deal sensibly with the GOP. That proved impossible, because for some reason – who knows what it could be – they wouldn’t cooperate.
I personally think Obama should have caught on more quickly, but he did catch on.
What Joel Hanes said.
Obama went overboard, IMO, trying to deal sensibly with the GOP. That proved impossible, because for some reason – who knows what it could be – they wouldn’t cooperate.
I personally think Obama should have caught on more quickly, but he did catch on.
What Joel Hanes said.
Obama went overboard, IMO, trying to deal sensibly with the GOP. That proved impossible, because for some reason – who knows what it could be – they wouldn’t cooperate.
I personally think Obama should have caught on more quickly, but he did catch on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html
http://politic365.com/2012/01/27/the-10-worst-moments-of-disrespect-towards-president-obama/
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-seem-to-think-Republicans-are-out-to-make-Obamas-presidency-difficult
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/13/senate-unlikely-confirm-obama-supreme-court-nominee/80351274/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92AmGY8P2po
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsmN_bcaGCQ
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html
http://politic365.com/2012/01/27/the-10-worst-moments-of-disrespect-towards-president-obama/
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-seem-to-think-Republicans-are-out-to-make-Obamas-presidency-difficult
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/13/senate-unlikely-confirm-obama-supreme-court-nominee/80351274/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92AmGY8P2po
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsmN_bcaGCQ
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html
http://politic365.com/2012/01/27/the-10-worst-moments-of-disrespect-towards-president-obama/
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-seem-to-think-Republicans-are-out-to-make-Obamas-presidency-difficult
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/13/senate-unlikely-confirm-obama-supreme-court-nominee/80351274/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92AmGY8P2po
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsmN_bcaGCQ
I conclude that Marty and I have such different sources of information that even the text of the President’s speeches is different in our respective worlds.
what you’re lacking is the awesome power of the Conservative Narrative. if you had that, you’d be able to decode all of his statements and speeches and actions and see him for the maleficent tyrant he really is.
I conclude that Marty and I have such different sources of information that even the text of the President’s speeches is different in our respective worlds.
what you’re lacking is the awesome power of the Conservative Narrative. if you had that, you’d be able to decode all of his statements and speeches and actions and see him for the maleficent tyrant he really is.
I conclude that Marty and I have such different sources of information that even the text of the President’s speeches is different in our respective worlds.
what you’re lacking is the awesome power of the Conservative Narrative. if you had that, you’d be able to decode all of his statements and speeches and actions and see him for the maleficent tyrant he really is.
Is the problem realy that Obama is a tyrrant? Or is it just that he is uppity, and doesn’t know his place?
Is the problem realy that Obama is a tyrrant? Or is it just that he is uppity, and doesn’t know his place?
Is the problem realy that Obama is a tyrrant? Or is it just that he is uppity, and doesn’t know his place?
Interesting.
I made a comment; I thought it was civil.
byomtov replied.
Now I can’t see that comment.
Did it get moderated out of existence?
If so, would the moderator be so kind as to send em an out-of-band email explaining how it offended. I’m ready to learn from my mistake.
Interesting.
I made a comment; I thought it was civil.
byomtov replied.
Now I can’t see that comment.
Did it get moderated out of existence?
If so, would the moderator be so kind as to send em an out-of-band email explaining how it offended. I’m ready to learn from my mistake.
Interesting.
I made a comment; I thought it was civil.
byomtov replied.
Now I can’t see that comment.
Did it get moderated out of existence?
If so, would the moderator be so kind as to send em an out-of-band email explaining how it offended. I’m ready to learn from my mistake.
Never mind.
The comments are paged, and I am an idiot.
Never mind.
The comments are paged, and I am an idiot.
Never mind.
The comments are paged, and I am an idiot.
Did it get moderated out of existence?
If you only knew how rigorously we front-pagers police the comments here, you would be amazed.
You can read that in any of a variety of directions, most of them are probably accurate.
Your comment was not only civil, it was downright apposite!
Did it get moderated out of existence?
If you only knew how rigorously we front-pagers police the comments here, you would be amazed.
You can read that in any of a variety of directions, most of them are probably accurate.
Your comment was not only civil, it was downright apposite!
Did it get moderated out of existence?
If you only knew how rigorously we front-pagers police the comments here, you would be amazed.
You can read that in any of a variety of directions, most of them are probably accurate.
Your comment was not only civil, it was downright apposite!
I would say that I first listened to him, from day one, talk about what everyone else is doing wrong, then reach out a hand with this offer: “I want to work across the aisle to get you to enact exactly what I want. No? Well you are bring uncooperative and obstructionist.
Rinse and repeat for 6 years until he decided to just ignore the law and the separation of powers to enact his agenda unilaterally.
The problem isn’t some Conservative Narrative, the problem is the inability of so many to admit, to themselves, that he is simply the most power hungry and untrustworthy President, perhaps we have ever had. His intention is to get his way at any cost.
I would say that I first listened to him, from day one, talk about what everyone else is doing wrong, then reach out a hand with this offer: “I want to work across the aisle to get you to enact exactly what I want. No? Well you are bring uncooperative and obstructionist.
Rinse and repeat for 6 years until he decided to just ignore the law and the separation of powers to enact his agenda unilaterally.
The problem isn’t some Conservative Narrative, the problem is the inability of so many to admit, to themselves, that he is simply the most power hungry and untrustworthy President, perhaps we have ever had. His intention is to get his way at any cost.
I would say that I first listened to him, from day one, talk about what everyone else is doing wrong, then reach out a hand with this offer: “I want to work across the aisle to get you to enact exactly what I want. No? Well you are bring uncooperative and obstructionist.
Rinse and repeat for 6 years until he decided to just ignore the law and the separation of powers to enact his agenda unilaterally.
The problem isn’t some Conservative Narrative, the problem is the inability of so many to admit, to themselves, that he is simply the most power hungry and untrustworthy President, perhaps we have ever had. His intention is to get his way at any cost.
Seriously, Marty, I have no idea where you’re getting this. Can you point to specifics in e.g. Obama’s 1st Inaugural Address?
Seriously, Marty, I have no idea where you’re getting this. Can you point to specifics in e.g. Obama’s 1st Inaugural Address?
Seriously, Marty, I have no idea where you’re getting this. Can you point to specifics in e.g. Obama’s 1st Inaugural Address?
i have watched obama bend to the point of subservience during the course of the first six years of his presidency and only in the past year or so has he finally written off the republicans who came out of the gate in january of 09 saying they would obstruct to the last instance anything and everything he and the democratic party would like to get done, to the detriment of the recovery by focusing on wasteful tax cuts instead of more spending, to the detriment of our healthcare system by making it impossible to have a public option which could have served more people at lower costs and at the state level by refusing the medicaid enlargement which would have covered vastly more people and saved lives, and by refusing qualified people to head agencies and to fill vacancies on circuit court. to hell with chalking it up to the conservative narrative, the drivel marty has polluted this thread with represents delusion to the point of needing an intervention for fear that he poses a danger to himself and others.
i say obama should nominate lani guinier. it’s time for a real progressive to sit on the bench.
i have watched obama bend to the point of subservience during the course of the first six years of his presidency and only in the past year or so has he finally written off the republicans who came out of the gate in january of 09 saying they would obstruct to the last instance anything and everything he and the democratic party would like to get done, to the detriment of the recovery by focusing on wasteful tax cuts instead of more spending, to the detriment of our healthcare system by making it impossible to have a public option which could have served more people at lower costs and at the state level by refusing the medicaid enlargement which would have covered vastly more people and saved lives, and by refusing qualified people to head agencies and to fill vacancies on circuit court. to hell with chalking it up to the conservative narrative, the drivel marty has polluted this thread with represents delusion to the point of needing an intervention for fear that he poses a danger to himself and others.
i say obama should nominate lani guinier. it’s time for a real progressive to sit on the bench.
i have watched obama bend to the point of subservience during the course of the first six years of his presidency and only in the past year or so has he finally written off the republicans who came out of the gate in january of 09 saying they would obstruct to the last instance anything and everything he and the democratic party would like to get done, to the detriment of the recovery by focusing on wasteful tax cuts instead of more spending, to the detriment of our healthcare system by making it impossible to have a public option which could have served more people at lower costs and at the state level by refusing the medicaid enlargement which would have covered vastly more people and saved lives, and by refusing qualified people to head agencies and to fill vacancies on circuit court. to hell with chalking it up to the conservative narrative, the drivel marty has polluted this thread with represents delusion to the point of needing an intervention for fear that he poses a danger to himself and others.
i say obama should nominate lani guinier. it’s time for a real progressive to sit on the bench.
navarro:
You’re getting too close to that ad hominem line. Dial it back.
navarro:
You’re getting too close to that ad hominem line. Dial it back.
navarro:
You’re getting too close to that ad hominem line. Dial it back.
Doc, This is as far back as I remember my thoughts. Feb 2 2009
We are really off on a good foot on this bipartisan thing, huh? President Obama is really reaching out to everyone, Republicans in the Cabinet, attending the Republican Caucases, even a bipartisan Super Bowl party. I have heard that the amount of interaction he has had with the Republican minority over his first few weeks in office is unprecedented. And, yet, not a single vote for the “stimulus” bill in the House. Uh-oh, are there really not any Republicans willing to work in a “bipartisan” fashion with the majority? Have we uncovered a right wing conspiracy to ensure the country doesn’t recover quickly?
Or, is there a “different view”?
Giving someone multiple chances to agree with you is not the same as having a bipartisan discussion.
President Obama has been the most vocal President in my memory, which is pretty long, at reminding everyone who won the election, but it does seem as if he has forgotten why. The American people elected him to restore a sense of civil discourse to the workings of Washington that not only respects, but listens to, the views of others. He is not able to pretend that is what is happening in the current debates. The American people, in particular the middle class and the center right, did not vote for President Obama to ensure the immediate adoption of every Democratic program ever thought of under the guise of emergency legislation.
We know that this bipartisan thing is new, and, in fact, don’t know if it is even good. But so far we have replaced an ideologically pedantic administration who tried very hard to achieve bipartisan support for it’s views with, well, an ideologically pedantic administration who is trying very hard to force bipartisan support for it’s views. The disappointing part is they are doing this by saying anyone who disagrees with their view is “hurting” America. Is that the change we were looking for…….?
Doc, This is as far back as I remember my thoughts. Feb 2 2009
We are really off on a good foot on this bipartisan thing, huh? President Obama is really reaching out to everyone, Republicans in the Cabinet, attending the Republican Caucases, even a bipartisan Super Bowl party. I have heard that the amount of interaction he has had with the Republican minority over his first few weeks in office is unprecedented. And, yet, not a single vote for the “stimulus” bill in the House. Uh-oh, are there really not any Republicans willing to work in a “bipartisan” fashion with the majority? Have we uncovered a right wing conspiracy to ensure the country doesn’t recover quickly?
Or, is there a “different view”?
Giving someone multiple chances to agree with you is not the same as having a bipartisan discussion.
President Obama has been the most vocal President in my memory, which is pretty long, at reminding everyone who won the election, but it does seem as if he has forgotten why. The American people elected him to restore a sense of civil discourse to the workings of Washington that not only respects, but listens to, the views of others. He is not able to pretend that is what is happening in the current debates. The American people, in particular the middle class and the center right, did not vote for President Obama to ensure the immediate adoption of every Democratic program ever thought of under the guise of emergency legislation.
We know that this bipartisan thing is new, and, in fact, don’t know if it is even good. But so far we have replaced an ideologically pedantic administration who tried very hard to achieve bipartisan support for it’s views with, well, an ideologically pedantic administration who is trying very hard to force bipartisan support for it’s views. The disappointing part is they are doing this by saying anyone who disagrees with their view is “hurting” America. Is that the change we were looking for…….?
Doc, This is as far back as I remember my thoughts. Feb 2 2009
We are really off on a good foot on this bipartisan thing, huh? President Obama is really reaching out to everyone, Republicans in the Cabinet, attending the Republican Caucases, even a bipartisan Super Bowl party. I have heard that the amount of interaction he has had with the Republican minority over his first few weeks in office is unprecedented. And, yet, not a single vote for the “stimulus” bill in the House. Uh-oh, are there really not any Republicans willing to work in a “bipartisan” fashion with the majority? Have we uncovered a right wing conspiracy to ensure the country doesn’t recover quickly?
Or, is there a “different view”?
Giving someone multiple chances to agree with you is not the same as having a bipartisan discussion.
President Obama has been the most vocal President in my memory, which is pretty long, at reminding everyone who won the election, but it does seem as if he has forgotten why. The American people elected him to restore a sense of civil discourse to the workings of Washington that not only respects, but listens to, the views of others. He is not able to pretend that is what is happening in the current debates. The American people, in particular the middle class and the center right, did not vote for President Obama to ensure the immediate adoption of every Democratic program ever thought of under the guise of emergency legislation.
We know that this bipartisan thing is new, and, in fact, don’t know if it is even good. But so far we have replaced an ideologically pedantic administration who tried very hard to achieve bipartisan support for it’s views with, well, an ideologically pedantic administration who is trying very hard to force bipartisan support for it’s views. The disappointing part is they are doing this by saying anyone who disagrees with their view is “hurting” America. Is that the change we were looking for…….?
My version of navarro’s comment–
Obama is a center- left Democrat who came to DC thinking he could cut deals with center- right Republicans. Some of those deals, like a grand bargain on Social Security, would have left many liberals feeling unhappy. As should have been obvious, there are no center- right Republicans ( or none with spines) in DC, and eventually Obama realized this. That’s my interpretation. Another theory popular with some Obama supporters is that he was playing a masterful game of 11 dimensional chess, but I think it’s simpler to assume he tried centrism because he is inclined that way and believed the Villager rhetoric that centrists get things done. They may have, before the modern Republican Party came along. Turns out you get things done now by having enough Democrats to outvote the distinctly non- centrist Republicans ( which is all of them).
My version of navarro’s comment–
Obama is a center- left Democrat who came to DC thinking he could cut deals with center- right Republicans. Some of those deals, like a grand bargain on Social Security, would have left many liberals feeling unhappy. As should have been obvious, there are no center- right Republicans ( or none with spines) in DC, and eventually Obama realized this. That’s my interpretation. Another theory popular with some Obama supporters is that he was playing a masterful game of 11 dimensional chess, but I think it’s simpler to assume he tried centrism because he is inclined that way and believed the Villager rhetoric that centrists get things done. They may have, before the modern Republican Party came along. Turns out you get things done now by having enough Democrats to outvote the distinctly non- centrist Republicans ( which is all of them).
My version of navarro’s comment–
Obama is a center- left Democrat who came to DC thinking he could cut deals with center- right Republicans. Some of those deals, like a grand bargain on Social Security, would have left many liberals feeling unhappy. As should have been obvious, there are no center- right Republicans ( or none with spines) in DC, and eventually Obama realized this. That’s my interpretation. Another theory popular with some Obama supporters is that he was playing a masterful game of 11 dimensional chess, but I think it’s simpler to assume he tried centrism because he is inclined that way and believed the Villager rhetoric that centrists get things done. They may have, before the modern Republican Party came along. Turns out you get things done now by having enough Democrats to outvote the distinctly non- centrist Republicans ( which is all of them).
It’s hard to tell how much of Marty’s 11:13 is Marty quoting himself from 8 years and 2 weeks ago, but one thing is pretty clear: in Marty’s universe, Obama was already a tyrant before he’d been in office a fortnight.
Let me say this politely: Marty’s universe is orthogonal to the one in which water runs downhill.
–TP
It’s hard to tell how much of Marty’s 11:13 is Marty quoting himself from 8 years and 2 weeks ago, but one thing is pretty clear: in Marty’s universe, Obama was already a tyrant before he’d been in office a fortnight.
Let me say this politely: Marty’s universe is orthogonal to the one in which water runs downhill.
–TP
It’s hard to tell how much of Marty’s 11:13 is Marty quoting himself from 8 years and 2 weeks ago, but one thing is pretty clear: in Marty’s universe, Obama was already a tyrant before he’d been in office a fortnight.
Let me say this politely: Marty’s universe is orthogonal to the one in which water runs downhill.
–TP
Giving someone multiple chances to agree with you is not the same as having a bipartisan discussion.
[…]
we have replaced an ideologically pedantic administration who tried very hard to achieve bipartisan support for it’s views
Marty, that you say both of these in the same comment suggests that your ideology is preventing you from making objective comparisons between the last two administrations. You may have forgotten the Congressional Republican midterm strategy post-2008, but it’s been linked upthread, and discussed upthread, and at the time it wasn’t controversial: obstruct, ensure no governance can occur, and lay it at the feet of the Democrats and their president to take back Congress. That’s not the kind of “cooperation” from the minority that Bush had to deal with, but his idea of compromise was none-the-less dictating terms and cramming a very-non-moderate agenda down the electorate’s throat despite having probably the least clear mandate in Presidential history (and yet, he still smirked about his mandate). Obama preemptively moderated proposals – something Bush NEVER did – and the Republicans, as per their stated plans, demanded more concessions while offering none in return – even when they were still the minority party in Congress. Again, you never saw this with Bush. You saw zero-compromise Republican party discipline, and the fig leaf of bipartisanship only arose if and when blue dogs and unprincipled wretches like Lieberman defected. Giving a group multiple chances to agree with you doesn’t magically become a bipartisan discussion simply because the other side doesn’t have as good party discipline as your party does.
Also, what DJ said. Obama’s agenda may seem like a Democratic wishlist to you, but it was not by any stretch, and typically opened with a proposal to the right of what most Democrats would want as their end position. Obama ran as a moderate and tried to govern as a moderate, which is why he’s been catching flack from leftists here and elsewhere since before day one.
Giving someone multiple chances to agree with you is not the same as having a bipartisan discussion.
[…]
we have replaced an ideologically pedantic administration who tried very hard to achieve bipartisan support for it’s views
Marty, that you say both of these in the same comment suggests that your ideology is preventing you from making objective comparisons between the last two administrations. You may have forgotten the Congressional Republican midterm strategy post-2008, but it’s been linked upthread, and discussed upthread, and at the time it wasn’t controversial: obstruct, ensure no governance can occur, and lay it at the feet of the Democrats and their president to take back Congress. That’s not the kind of “cooperation” from the minority that Bush had to deal with, but his idea of compromise was none-the-less dictating terms and cramming a very-non-moderate agenda down the electorate’s throat despite having probably the least clear mandate in Presidential history (and yet, he still smirked about his mandate). Obama preemptively moderated proposals – something Bush NEVER did – and the Republicans, as per their stated plans, demanded more concessions while offering none in return – even when they were still the minority party in Congress. Again, you never saw this with Bush. You saw zero-compromise Republican party discipline, and the fig leaf of bipartisanship only arose if and when blue dogs and unprincipled wretches like Lieberman defected. Giving a group multiple chances to agree with you doesn’t magically become a bipartisan discussion simply because the other side doesn’t have as good party discipline as your party does.
Also, what DJ said. Obama’s agenda may seem like a Democratic wishlist to you, but it was not by any stretch, and typically opened with a proposal to the right of what most Democrats would want as their end position. Obama ran as a moderate and tried to govern as a moderate, which is why he’s been catching flack from leftists here and elsewhere since before day one.
Giving someone multiple chances to agree with you is not the same as having a bipartisan discussion.
[…]
we have replaced an ideologically pedantic administration who tried very hard to achieve bipartisan support for it’s views
Marty, that you say both of these in the same comment suggests that your ideology is preventing you from making objective comparisons between the last two administrations. You may have forgotten the Congressional Republican midterm strategy post-2008, but it’s been linked upthread, and discussed upthread, and at the time it wasn’t controversial: obstruct, ensure no governance can occur, and lay it at the feet of the Democrats and their president to take back Congress. That’s not the kind of “cooperation” from the minority that Bush had to deal with, but his idea of compromise was none-the-less dictating terms and cramming a very-non-moderate agenda down the electorate’s throat despite having probably the least clear mandate in Presidential history (and yet, he still smirked about his mandate). Obama preemptively moderated proposals – something Bush NEVER did – and the Republicans, as per their stated plans, demanded more concessions while offering none in return – even when they were still the minority party in Congress. Again, you never saw this with Bush. You saw zero-compromise Republican party discipline, and the fig leaf of bipartisanship only arose if and when blue dogs and unprincipled wretches like Lieberman defected. Giving a group multiple chances to agree with you doesn’t magically become a bipartisan discussion simply because the other side doesn’t have as good party discipline as your party does.
Also, what DJ said. Obama’s agenda may seem like a Democratic wishlist to you, but it was not by any stretch, and typically opened with a proposal to the right of what most Democrats would want as their end position. Obama ran as a moderate and tried to govern as a moderate, which is why he’s been catching flack from leftists here and elsewhere since before day one.
Liberty is just another word for getting my way.
Liberty is just another word for getting my way.
Liberty is just another word for getting my way.
TP, sorry, it should have all been in quotes as I wrote it in Feb 2009.
NV, A proposal that was somehow right of what the progressives would have liked doesn’t represent compromise. It has always been true, from the first negotiations on the financial crisis through the faux negotiations on the budget compromise, including every budget he ever proposed, that all of his proposals were for public positioning. He knew they couldn’t be accepted, they were strictly theater. He believed, in a few cases rightly, that he could force the Republicans to his position by feigning a willingness to compromise.
You should not confuse the fact that his position was right of the extreme progressive position with compromise. Many of his positions were never as far left as some would have liked. So what to them looked like a compromise just wasn’t.
TP, sorry, it should have all been in quotes as I wrote it in Feb 2009.
NV, A proposal that was somehow right of what the progressives would have liked doesn’t represent compromise. It has always been true, from the first negotiations on the financial crisis through the faux negotiations on the budget compromise, including every budget he ever proposed, that all of his proposals were for public positioning. He knew they couldn’t be accepted, they were strictly theater. He believed, in a few cases rightly, that he could force the Republicans to his position by feigning a willingness to compromise.
You should not confuse the fact that his position was right of the extreme progressive position with compromise. Many of his positions were never as far left as some would have liked. So what to them looked like a compromise just wasn’t.
TP, sorry, it should have all been in quotes as I wrote it in Feb 2009.
NV, A proposal that was somehow right of what the progressives would have liked doesn’t represent compromise. It has always been true, from the first negotiations on the financial crisis through the faux negotiations on the budget compromise, including every budget he ever proposed, that all of his proposals were for public positioning. He knew they couldn’t be accepted, they were strictly theater. He believed, in a few cases rightly, that he could force the Republicans to his position by feigning a willingness to compromise.
You should not confuse the fact that his position was right of the extreme progressive position with compromise. Many of his positions were never as far left as some would have liked. So what to them looked like a compromise just wasn’t.
He knew they couldn’t be accepted, they were strictly theater. He believed, in a few cases rightly, that he could force the Republicans to his position by feigning a willingness to compromise.
Hey dude, don’t Bogart the mind-reading cap!
He knew they couldn’t be accepted, they were strictly theater. He believed, in a few cases rightly, that he could force the Republicans to his position by feigning a willingness to compromise.
Hey dude, don’t Bogart the mind-reading cap!
He knew they couldn’t be accepted, they were strictly theater. He believed, in a few cases rightly, that he could force the Republicans to his position by feigning a willingness to compromise.
Hey dude, don’t Bogart the mind-reading cap!
President Obama has been the most vocal President in my memory, which is pretty long, at reminding everyone who won the election, but it does seem as if he has forgotten why.
you only have to gaze back three friggin days to see how this plays out, every time.
Scalia dies. the top people in the GOP immediately, like >immediately, start saying things like “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.” Obama reminds them that they do have a voice in this and that the most recent result of them using their voices was that he was elected. in return GOP cries “Tyrant! Power-hungry!”
maybe if you clowns would stop pretending he wasn’t elected, or that his election meant nothing, he wouldn’t have to keep reminding you.
President Obama has been the most vocal President in my memory, which is pretty long, at reminding everyone who won the election, but it does seem as if he has forgotten why.
you only have to gaze back three friggin days to see how this plays out, every time.
Scalia dies. the top people in the GOP immediately, like >immediately, start saying things like “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.” Obama reminds them that they do have a voice in this and that the most recent result of them using their voices was that he was elected. in return GOP cries “Tyrant! Power-hungry!”
maybe if you clowns would stop pretending he wasn’t elected, or that his election meant nothing, he wouldn’t have to keep reminding you.
President Obama has been the most vocal President in my memory, which is pretty long, at reminding everyone who won the election, but it does seem as if he has forgotten why.
you only have to gaze back three friggin days to see how this plays out, every time.
Scalia dies. the top people in the GOP immediately, like >immediately, start saying things like “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.” Obama reminds them that they do have a voice in this and that the most recent result of them using their voices was that he was elected. in return GOP cries “Tyrant! Power-hungry!”
maybe if you clowns would stop pretending he wasn’t elected, or that his election meant nothing, he wouldn’t have to keep reminding you.
but I think it’s simpler to assume he tried centrism because he is inclined that way and believed the Villager rhetoric that centrists get things done.
i just assume that he tried doing what he had had success with in smaller venues: working with the other people in government to get things done. he wasn’t thinking that people in charge of running the country would behave like obstinate three-year olds (and that the press would fail to document it).
but I think it’s simpler to assume he tried centrism because he is inclined that way and believed the Villager rhetoric that centrists get things done.
i just assume that he tried doing what he had had success with in smaller venues: working with the other people in government to get things done. he wasn’t thinking that people in charge of running the country would behave like obstinate three-year olds (and that the press would fail to document it).
but I think it’s simpler to assume he tried centrism because he is inclined that way and believed the Villager rhetoric that centrists get things done.
i just assume that he tried doing what he had had success with in smaller venues: working with the other people in government to get things done. he wasn’t thinking that people in charge of running the country would behave like obstinate three-year olds (and that the press would fail to document it).
“maybe if you clowns would stop pretending he wasn’t elected, or that his election meant nothing, he wouldn’t have to keep reminding you.”
Everyone in the loop was elected. Maybe if he had quit pretending their constituents didn’t matter it might have looked different.
“maybe if you clowns would stop pretending he wasn’t elected, or that his election meant nothing, he wouldn’t have to keep reminding you.”
Everyone in the loop was elected. Maybe if he had quit pretending their constituents didn’t matter it might have looked different.
“maybe if you clowns would stop pretending he wasn’t elected, or that his election meant nothing, he wouldn’t have to keep reminding you.”
Everyone in the loop was elected. Maybe if he had quit pretending their constituents didn’t matter it might have looked different.
A proposal that was somehow right of what the progressives would have liked doesn’t represent compromise.
It sounds like compromise to me.
We want X, you want Y, how about somewhere in the middle? WTF is that if it’s not compromise?
If ‘to the right of what the progressives would have liked’ isn’t the definition of a concession, what the hell does the word mean?
I’m not sure you have any idea what a freaking crap sandwich the last 30 or 40 years of governance in this country have been, for people of even modestly left-leaning persuasion. The ‘progressive’ Presidents have been Clinton and Obama, who in any previous period of the last 100 or so years would have been totally comfortable running as (R)’s.
Maybe bobbyp was right at 12:01.
Discussing anything touching on the public sphere nowadays is like trying to have a conversation about events happening on two different planets.
A proposal that was somehow right of what the progressives would have liked doesn’t represent compromise.
It sounds like compromise to me.
We want X, you want Y, how about somewhere in the middle? WTF is that if it’s not compromise?
If ‘to the right of what the progressives would have liked’ isn’t the definition of a concession, what the hell does the word mean?
I’m not sure you have any idea what a freaking crap sandwich the last 30 or 40 years of governance in this country have been, for people of even modestly left-leaning persuasion. The ‘progressive’ Presidents have been Clinton and Obama, who in any previous period of the last 100 or so years would have been totally comfortable running as (R)’s.
Maybe bobbyp was right at 12:01.
Discussing anything touching on the public sphere nowadays is like trying to have a conversation about events happening on two different planets.
A proposal that was somehow right of what the progressives would have liked doesn’t represent compromise.
It sounds like compromise to me.
We want X, you want Y, how about somewhere in the middle? WTF is that if it’s not compromise?
If ‘to the right of what the progressives would have liked’ isn’t the definition of a concession, what the hell does the word mean?
I’m not sure you have any idea what a freaking crap sandwich the last 30 or 40 years of governance in this country have been, for people of even modestly left-leaning persuasion. The ‘progressive’ Presidents have been Clinton and Obama, who in any previous period of the last 100 or so years would have been totally comfortable running as (R)’s.
Maybe bobbyp was right at 12:01.
Discussing anything touching on the public sphere nowadays is like trying to have a conversation about events happening on two different planets.
“It has always been true, from the first negotiations on the financial crisis through the faux negotiations on the budget compromise, including every budget he ever proposed, that all of his proposals were for public positioning. He knew they couldn’t be accepted, they were strictly theater.”
Oh, baby, he is so talented. And they are so dumb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I&list=PLPFYxgwTCKtyuOWquriYDH-iS911LNNVX
He’s the Wiz iz what he iz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COJY-X-J0Ys
“It has always been true, from the first negotiations on the financial crisis through the faux negotiations on the budget compromise, including every budget he ever proposed, that all of his proposals were for public positioning. He knew they couldn’t be accepted, they were strictly theater.”
Oh, baby, he is so talented. And they are so dumb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I&list=PLPFYxgwTCKtyuOWquriYDH-iS911LNNVX
He’s the Wiz iz what he iz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COJY-X-J0Ys
“It has always been true, from the first negotiations on the financial crisis through the faux negotiations on the budget compromise, including every budget he ever proposed, that all of his proposals were for public positioning. He knew they couldn’t be accepted, they were strictly theater.”
Oh, baby, he is so talented. And they are so dumb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I&list=PLPFYxgwTCKtyuOWquriYDH-iS911LNNVX
He’s the Wiz iz what he iz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COJY-X-J0Ys
Maybe if he had quit pretending their constituents didn’t matter
free yourself: step out of the bubble.
Maybe if he had quit pretending their constituents didn’t matter
free yourself: step out of the bubble.
Maybe if he had quit pretending their constituents didn’t matter
free yourself: step out of the bubble.
This article neatly demonstrates that the argument being made by ‘originalists’ for Obama not nominating a justice isn’t even internally consistent.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/ted_cruz_is_an_originalist_hypocrite_over_antonin_scalia.html
Not that they care.
This article neatly demonstrates that the argument being made by ‘originalists’ for Obama not nominating a justice isn’t even internally consistent.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/ted_cruz_is_an_originalist_hypocrite_over_antonin_scalia.html
Not that they care.
This article neatly demonstrates that the argument being made by ‘originalists’ for Obama not nominating a justice isn’t even internally consistent.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/ted_cruz_is_an_originalist_hypocrite_over_antonin_scalia.html
Not that they care.
russell, I am sure it feels like compromise to you, my point is it was not a compromise to him. His opening positions were what he wanted, he never compromised an inch off of those. Ever. In fact, often his position moved left during so called negotiations. Theater.
russell, I am sure it feels like compromise to you, my point is it was not a compromise to him. His opening positions were what he wanted, he never compromised an inch off of those. Ever. In fact, often his position moved left during so called negotiations. Theater.
russell, I am sure it feels like compromise to you, my point is it was not a compromise to him. His opening positions were what he wanted, he never compromised an inch off of those. Ever. In fact, often his position moved left during so called negotiations. Theater.
His opening positions were what he wanted,
mind reading.
His opening positions were what he wanted,
mind reading.
His opening positions were what he wanted,
mind reading.
There is no feigning is the Republican negotiating position, which is “No Compromise”. Their openings are take it leave it. They are sincere and like I always say, its the sincere ones you got to watch.
I stole this series of videos and the point of their juxtaposition from digby at Hullabaloo, so hat tip.
The first is Ted Cruz, but I would expand it to much of the republican officeholding edifice these a days and the republican media.
They are not without theater, which is to say, they don’t let ya know know who will end up dead as a result of their uncompromisable policies, which are presented as righteous:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4se5hr9O84
Digby compares the cadences of Mitchum to this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iGGjGSdqf8
Notice McCarthey’s use of “the Democrat Party”, that old chestnut.
This is what the Feighner-In-Chief is negotiating with today as well.
There is no feigning is the Republican negotiating position, which is “No Compromise”. Their openings are take it leave it. They are sincere and like I always say, its the sincere ones you got to watch.
I stole this series of videos and the point of their juxtaposition from digby at Hullabaloo, so hat tip.
The first is Ted Cruz, but I would expand it to much of the republican officeholding edifice these a days and the republican media.
They are not without theater, which is to say, they don’t let ya know know who will end up dead as a result of their uncompromisable policies, which are presented as righteous:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4se5hr9O84
Digby compares the cadences of Mitchum to this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iGGjGSdqf8
Notice McCarthey’s use of “the Democrat Party”, that old chestnut.
This is what the Feighner-In-Chief is negotiating with today as well.
There is no feigning is the Republican negotiating position, which is “No Compromise”. Their openings are take it leave it. They are sincere and like I always say, its the sincere ones you got to watch.
I stole this series of videos and the point of their juxtaposition from digby at Hullabaloo, so hat tip.
The first is Ted Cruz, but I would expand it to much of the republican officeholding edifice these a days and the republican media.
They are not without theater, which is to say, they don’t let ya know know who will end up dead as a result of their uncompromisable policies, which are presented as righteous:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4se5hr9O84
Digby compares the cadences of Mitchum to this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iGGjGSdqf8
Notice McCarthey’s use of “the Democrat Party”, that old chestnut.
This is what the Feighner-In-Chief is negotiating with today as well.
Yes, EXACTLY! Thank you! Everyone in the loop was elected. So “[t]he American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice” is utter and absolute disingenuous bollocks. 100%-per-fncking-cent. Not only did the people elect a President whose Constitutional responsibility is to nominate SCOTUS justices, they elected a Senate whose Constitutional responsibility is to provide advise and consent in re: those nominations. If he actually believes the weaselly rhetoric oozing from his lips about how the American people’s voice must be heard more frequently than every four years, why in God’s name isn’t he setting an example for the 2/3s of the Senators denying the American People their voice and voluntarily stepping down so there can be a plebiscite among the Americans whose voice will be stifled by his term of office not being done until 2020?
…and you should not confuse positions to the right of center and well to the right of Democratic orthodoxy with those who are merely “right of the extreme progressive position”. This is exactly what I was talking about: if you can’t understand that Obama’s starting position in his early naive years was typically right of center rather than just to the right of what the progressive wing hope and dreamed of, russell is right. We might as well be discussing legislative policy in another world. I mean, yes, russell is unquestionably right in the non-speculative portion of his 8:17, WRS, etc. But still.
Or if I wanna stick by my shtick:
You should not confuse the fact that his position was left of the extreme conservative position with a refusal to compromise. Many of his positions were never as far right as some would have liked. So what to them looked like a bald refusal to compromise just wasn’t.
Yes, EXACTLY! Thank you! Everyone in the loop was elected. So “[t]he American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice” is utter and absolute disingenuous bollocks. 100%-per-fncking-cent. Not only did the people elect a President whose Constitutional responsibility is to nominate SCOTUS justices, they elected a Senate whose Constitutional responsibility is to provide advise and consent in re: those nominations. If he actually believes the weaselly rhetoric oozing from his lips about how the American people’s voice must be heard more frequently than every four years, why in God’s name isn’t he setting an example for the 2/3s of the Senators denying the American People their voice and voluntarily stepping down so there can be a plebiscite among the Americans whose voice will be stifled by his term of office not being done until 2020?
…and you should not confuse positions to the right of center and well to the right of Democratic orthodoxy with those who are merely “right of the extreme progressive position”. This is exactly what I was talking about: if you can’t understand that Obama’s starting position in his early naive years was typically right of center rather than just to the right of what the progressive wing hope and dreamed of, russell is right. We might as well be discussing legislative policy in another world. I mean, yes, russell is unquestionably right in the non-speculative portion of his 8:17, WRS, etc. But still.
Or if I wanna stick by my shtick:
You should not confuse the fact that his position was left of the extreme conservative position with a refusal to compromise. Many of his positions were never as far right as some would have liked. So what to them looked like a bald refusal to compromise just wasn’t.
Yes, EXACTLY! Thank you! Everyone in the loop was elected. So “[t]he American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice” is utter and absolute disingenuous bollocks. 100%-per-fncking-cent. Not only did the people elect a President whose Constitutional responsibility is to nominate SCOTUS justices, they elected a Senate whose Constitutional responsibility is to provide advise and consent in re: those nominations. If he actually believes the weaselly rhetoric oozing from his lips about how the American people’s voice must be heard more frequently than every four years, why in God’s name isn’t he setting an example for the 2/3s of the Senators denying the American People their voice and voluntarily stepping down so there can be a plebiscite among the Americans whose voice will be stifled by his term of office not being done until 2020?
…and you should not confuse positions to the right of center and well to the right of Democratic orthodoxy with those who are merely “right of the extreme progressive position”. This is exactly what I was talking about: if you can’t understand that Obama’s starting position in his early naive years was typically right of center rather than just to the right of what the progressive wing hope and dreamed of, russell is right. We might as well be discussing legislative policy in another world. I mean, yes, russell is unquestionably right in the non-speculative portion of his 8:17, WRS, etc. But still.
Or if I wanna stick by my shtick:
You should not confuse the fact that his position was left of the extreme conservative position with a refusal to compromise. Many of his positions were never as far right as some would have liked. So what to them looked like a bald refusal to compromise just wasn’t.
I believe that I have noted in previous discussions on this topic that McConnell is a dick. Do I really have to continue noting it? Maybe I should put in a sig or something.
Your opinion, as is your right. Me, I believe that Obama had Scalia assassinated in attempt to obtain control of the Trilateral Commission.
He said, with all possible jocularity.
I believe that I have noted in previous discussions on this topic that McConnell is a dick. Do I really have to continue noting it? Maybe I should put in a sig or something.
Your opinion, as is your right. Me, I believe that Obama had Scalia assassinated in attempt to obtain control of the Trilateral Commission.
He said, with all possible jocularity.
I believe that I have noted in previous discussions on this topic that McConnell is a dick. Do I really have to continue noting it? Maybe I should put in a sig or something.
Your opinion, as is your right. Me, I believe that Obama had Scalia assassinated in attempt to obtain control of the Trilateral Commission.
He said, with all possible jocularity.
More to the point: in the very comment after the one you responded to.
But that’s not important.
More to the point: in the very comment after the one you responded to.
But that’s not important.
More to the point: in the very comment after the one you responded to.
But that’s not important.
“Not only did the people elect a President whose Constitutional responsibility is to nominate SCOTUS justices, they elected a Senate whose Constitutional responsibility is to provide advise and consent in re: those nomination”
I believe I said upthread that I expect Obama to nominate at least one person. I also expect my Senators to decline to approve, no matter who it is. It would waste less of everyone’s time if Obama didn’t go through the motions but it is in his job description.
“Not only did the people elect a President whose Constitutional responsibility is to nominate SCOTUS justices, they elected a Senate whose Constitutional responsibility is to provide advise and consent in re: those nomination”
I believe I said upthread that I expect Obama to nominate at least one person. I also expect my Senators to decline to approve, no matter who it is. It would waste less of everyone’s time if Obama didn’t go through the motions but it is in his job description.
“Not only did the people elect a President whose Constitutional responsibility is to nominate SCOTUS justices, they elected a Senate whose Constitutional responsibility is to provide advise and consent in re: those nomination”
I believe I said upthread that I expect Obama to nominate at least one person. I also expect my Senators to decline to approve, no matter who it is. It would waste less of everyone’s time if Obama didn’t go through the motions but it is in his job description.
russell, I am sure it feels like compromise to you, my point is it was not a compromise to him. His opening positions were what he wanted, he never compromised an inch off of those. Ever. In fact, often his position moved left during so called negotiations.
Marty, step back from the computer, go have a nice cup of coffee or tea, come back, take a deep breath, and read that paragraph to yourself. If Obama move his position to the left when the Republicans refused to accept his offer or even make a counter-offer other than graciously volunteering to accept his utter capitulation… the first offer was not his desired position. His first offer was a compromise. That’s the very definition of offering a compromise. And if I want X + 1, you want X -3, I offer X -1, and you refuse, I now have nothing to gain by granting concessions and no reason not to go back to what I actually want at X + 1. What you present as uncompromising tyranny by your own words presents a situation where someone offers a compromise, is rebuffed, and responds by pushing for what they actually preferred instead of the compromise since they’d have to fight for either.
russell, I am sure it feels like compromise to you, my point is it was not a compromise to him. His opening positions were what he wanted, he never compromised an inch off of those. Ever. In fact, often his position moved left during so called negotiations.
Marty, step back from the computer, go have a nice cup of coffee or tea, come back, take a deep breath, and read that paragraph to yourself. If Obama move his position to the left when the Republicans refused to accept his offer or even make a counter-offer other than graciously volunteering to accept his utter capitulation… the first offer was not his desired position. His first offer was a compromise. That’s the very definition of offering a compromise. And if I want X + 1, you want X -3, I offer X -1, and you refuse, I now have nothing to gain by granting concessions and no reason not to go back to what I actually want at X + 1. What you present as uncompromising tyranny by your own words presents a situation where someone offers a compromise, is rebuffed, and responds by pushing for what they actually preferred instead of the compromise since they’d have to fight for either.
russell, I am sure it feels like compromise to you, my point is it was not a compromise to him. His opening positions were what he wanted, he never compromised an inch off of those. Ever. In fact, often his position moved left during so called negotiations.
Marty, step back from the computer, go have a nice cup of coffee or tea, come back, take a deep breath, and read that paragraph to yourself. If Obama move his position to the left when the Republicans refused to accept his offer or even make a counter-offer other than graciously volunteering to accept his utter capitulation… the first offer was not his desired position. His first offer was a compromise. That’s the very definition of offering a compromise. And if I want X + 1, you want X -3, I offer X -1, and you refuse, I now have nothing to gain by granting concessions and no reason not to go back to what I actually want at X + 1. What you present as uncompromising tyranny by your own words presents a situation where someone offers a compromise, is rebuffed, and responds by pushing for what they actually preferred instead of the compromise since they’d have to fight for either.
Me, I believe that Obama had Scalia assassinated in attempt to obtain control of the Trilateral Commission.
Scalia was the compromise. He was really gunning for Alito. It’s all part of Agenda 21 and the geoengineering plot.
The tyranny continues. But the one true give away to the depths of Obama’s evil pattern of faux compromise was The Sequestration.
Pray tell, how did the GOP fall for it? Are they so stupid that they deserve Trump?
Time will tell.
Me, I believe that Obama had Scalia assassinated in attempt to obtain control of the Trilateral Commission.
Scalia was the compromise. He was really gunning for Alito. It’s all part of Agenda 21 and the geoengineering plot.
The tyranny continues. But the one true give away to the depths of Obama’s evil pattern of faux compromise was The Sequestration.
Pray tell, how did the GOP fall for it? Are they so stupid that they deserve Trump?
Time will tell.
Me, I believe that Obama had Scalia assassinated in attempt to obtain control of the Trilateral Commission.
Scalia was the compromise. He was really gunning for Alito. It’s all part of Agenda 21 and the geoengineering plot.
The tyranny continues. But the one true give away to the depths of Obama’s evil pattern of faux compromise was The Sequestration.
Pray tell, how did the GOP fall for it? Are they so stupid that they deserve Trump?
Time will tell.
Yes, the right thing for Obama to do would be to lie down like a good dog and accept whatever Mitch McConnell put in front of him, because whatever Mitch McConnell wants to do must also be right.
It’s clear that no one conversing with Marty is open to persuasion because no one has accepted Marty’s opinions of Obama – opinions Marty will not budge an inch on.
Yes, the right thing for Obama to do would be to lie down like a good dog and accept whatever Mitch McConnell put in front of him, because whatever Mitch McConnell wants to do must also be right.
It’s clear that no one conversing with Marty is open to persuasion because no one has accepted Marty’s opinions of Obama – opinions Marty will not budge an inch on.
Yes, the right thing for Obama to do would be to lie down like a good dog and accept whatever Mitch McConnell put in front of him, because whatever Mitch McConnell wants to do must also be right.
It’s clear that no one conversing with Marty is open to persuasion because no one has accepted Marty’s opinions of Obama – opinions Marty will not budge an inch on.
russell, I am sure it feels like compromise to you, my point is it was not a compromise to him.
As cleek notes, we don’t really have access to Obama’s mind.
Even if we stipulate that the policies we arrived at were close to what Obama, personally, would have preferred, all that we have demonstrated is that Obama, personally, is not particularly left-leaning.
Not hard left, not center-left, not left-leaning. Not left. ‘Liberal’, perhaps in the technocratic sense of seeing a broader role for federal involvement than, for example, Barry Goldwater. But on the substance of things, a centrist.
In a politically divided polity – which is what we are – that makes him an entirely appropriate person to be POTUS.
If it was the 50’s, Obama would be Eisenhower. Only tan.
Trust me when I say I’m not complaining. Not because I agree with all of the outcomes, but because things could have been much, much, much, much worse.
russell, I am sure it feels like compromise to you, my point is it was not a compromise to him.
As cleek notes, we don’t really have access to Obama’s mind.
Even if we stipulate that the policies we arrived at were close to what Obama, personally, would have preferred, all that we have demonstrated is that Obama, personally, is not particularly left-leaning.
Not hard left, not center-left, not left-leaning. Not left. ‘Liberal’, perhaps in the technocratic sense of seeing a broader role for federal involvement than, for example, Barry Goldwater. But on the substance of things, a centrist.
In a politically divided polity – which is what we are – that makes him an entirely appropriate person to be POTUS.
If it was the 50’s, Obama would be Eisenhower. Only tan.
Trust me when I say I’m not complaining. Not because I agree with all of the outcomes, but because things could have been much, much, much, much worse.
russell, I am sure it feels like compromise to you, my point is it was not a compromise to him.
As cleek notes, we don’t really have access to Obama’s mind.
Even if we stipulate that the policies we arrived at were close to what Obama, personally, would have preferred, all that we have demonstrated is that Obama, personally, is not particularly left-leaning.
Not hard left, not center-left, not left-leaning. Not left. ‘Liberal’, perhaps in the technocratic sense of seeing a broader role for federal involvement than, for example, Barry Goldwater. But on the substance of things, a centrist.
In a politically divided polity – which is what we are – that makes him an entirely appropriate person to be POTUS.
If it was the 50’s, Obama would be Eisenhower. Only tan.
Trust me when I say I’m not complaining. Not because I agree with all of the outcomes, but because things could have been much, much, much, much worse.
Your opinion, as is your right. Me, I believe that Obama had Scalia assassinated in attempt to obtain control of the Trilateral Commission.
So, so close.
Note that the link is to a parody site. Shields down.
Your opinion, as is your right. Me, I believe that Obama had Scalia assassinated in attempt to obtain control of the Trilateral Commission.
So, so close.
Note that the link is to a parody site. Shields down.
Your opinion, as is your right. Me, I believe that Obama had Scalia assassinated in attempt to obtain control of the Trilateral Commission.
So, so close.
Note that the link is to a parody site. Shields down.
No NV, he moved left to placate his base once he had established that it was the Republicans that were intransigent. The best example was in the budget negotiations with Boehner where everything wad on the table until Boehner started having trouble Support, then suddenly entitlements weren’t on the table.
And stop being such an fing smartass. It’s not necessary.
No NV, he moved left to placate his base once he had established that it was the Republicans that were intransigent. The best example was in the budget negotiations with Boehner where everything wad on the table until Boehner started having trouble Support, then suddenly entitlements weren’t on the table.
And stop being such an fing smartass. It’s not necessary.
No NV, he moved left to placate his base once he had established that it was the Republicans that were intransigent. The best example was in the budget negotiations with Boehner where everything wad on the table until Boehner started having trouble Support, then suddenly entitlements weren’t on the table.
And stop being such an fing smartass. It’s not necessary.
Well, democracy is a waste of time since absolute rule by a single person is far less time consuming and not in need of any compromise or debating. So, why bother?
Well, democracy is a waste of time since absolute rule by a single person is far less time consuming and not in need of any compromise or debating. So, why bother?
Well, democracy is a waste of time since absolute rule by a single person is far less time consuming and not in need of any compromise or debating. So, why bother?
I believe I said upthread that I expect Obama to nominate at least one person. I also expect my Senators to decline to approve, no matter who it is.
Why? If you’re going to declare an intention to deny them on principle (?!?) rather than on merit, why be so disingenuous as to go through the motions?
And again, 2/3s of the Senate won’t be up for re-election in the fall. That’s enough to confirm or deny any nominee. So the American people aren’t actually getting a say at the ballot box. Which isn’t actually the point, since that’s rhetoric and not what McConnell actually wants (I’m going to redeem some of your Carnac penalty to mindread right back at’cha).
Finally, the people will have have had no more say next January than they do now, as there is absolutely no way to untease a pile of motivations behind a pile of electoral votes for a Presidential candidate into a blueprint of the sort of jurist the electorate wants on SCOTUS. This isn’t about representation, it’s about power.
I believe I said upthread that I expect Obama to nominate at least one person. I also expect my Senators to decline to approve, no matter who it is.
Why? If you’re going to declare an intention to deny them on principle (?!?) rather than on merit, why be so disingenuous as to go through the motions?
And again, 2/3s of the Senate won’t be up for re-election in the fall. That’s enough to confirm or deny any nominee. So the American people aren’t actually getting a say at the ballot box. Which isn’t actually the point, since that’s rhetoric and not what McConnell actually wants (I’m going to redeem some of your Carnac penalty to mindread right back at’cha).
Finally, the people will have have had no more say next January than they do now, as there is absolutely no way to untease a pile of motivations behind a pile of electoral votes for a Presidential candidate into a blueprint of the sort of jurist the electorate wants on SCOTUS. This isn’t about representation, it’s about power.
I believe I said upthread that I expect Obama to nominate at least one person. I also expect my Senators to decline to approve, no matter who it is.
Why? If you’re going to declare an intention to deny them on principle (?!?) rather than on merit, why be so disingenuous as to go through the motions?
And again, 2/3s of the Senate won’t be up for re-election in the fall. That’s enough to confirm or deny any nominee. So the American people aren’t actually getting a say at the ballot box. Which isn’t actually the point, since that’s rhetoric and not what McConnell actually wants (I’m going to redeem some of your Carnac penalty to mindread right back at’cha).
Finally, the people will have have had no more say next January than they do now, as there is absolutely no way to untease a pile of motivations behind a pile of electoral votes for a Presidential candidate into a blueprint of the sort of jurist the electorate wants on SCOTUS. This isn’t about representation, it’s about power.
No NV, he moved left to placate his base once he had established that it was the Republicans that were intransigent. The best example was in the budget negotiations with Boehner where everything wad on the table until Boehner started having trouble Support, then suddenly entitlements weren’t on the table.
Marty, you’re describing pragmatic negotiations. If you offer concessions, and can’t get them, you withdraw them. I’m really having trouble understanding how you think negotiation and compromise works. Which yes, makes it harder for me to believe that your position is offered in good faith, and harder to refrain from treating it as such.
No NV, he moved left to placate his base once he had established that it was the Republicans that were intransigent. The best example was in the budget negotiations with Boehner where everything wad on the table until Boehner started having trouble Support, then suddenly entitlements weren’t on the table.
Marty, you’re describing pragmatic negotiations. If you offer concessions, and can’t get them, you withdraw them. I’m really having trouble understanding how you think negotiation and compromise works. Which yes, makes it harder for me to believe that your position is offered in good faith, and harder to refrain from treating it as such.
No NV, he moved left to placate his base once he had established that it was the Republicans that were intransigent. The best example was in the budget negotiations with Boehner where everything wad on the table until Boehner started having trouble Support, then suddenly entitlements weren’t on the table.
Marty, you’re describing pragmatic negotiations. If you offer concessions, and can’t get them, you withdraw them. I’m really having trouble understanding how you think negotiation and compromise works. Which yes, makes it harder for me to believe that your position is offered in good faith, and harder to refrain from treating it as such.
NV, the answer to why is simple. Anyone Obama would present can be improved on in February given a Republican win in November. Btw, only fear of a loss in November makes it better for Obama to press the issue. Personally I hope he submits a pretty good compromise candidate so the Senate can approve them if the general looks like its going badly.
NV, the answer to why is simple. Anyone Obama would present can be improved on in February given a Republican win in November. Btw, only fear of a loss in November makes it better for Obama to press the issue. Personally I hope he submits a pretty good compromise candidate so the Senate can approve them if the general looks like its going badly.
NV, the answer to why is simple. Anyone Obama would present can be improved on in February given a Republican win in November. Btw, only fear of a loss in November makes it better for Obama to press the issue. Personally I hope he submits a pretty good compromise candidate so the Senate can approve them if the general looks like its going badly.
And again, 2/3s of the Senate won’t be up for re-election in the fall.
and, by GOP logic, the 1/3 of them who are shouldn’t get a vote on any nominees.
likewise, all House members should just go home and STFU since they’re all up for re-election in Nov.
And again, 2/3s of the Senate won’t be up for re-election in the fall.
and, by GOP logic, the 1/3 of them who are shouldn’t get a vote on any nominees.
likewise, all House members should just go home and STFU since they’re all up for re-election in Nov.
And again, 2/3s of the Senate won’t be up for re-election in the fall.
and, by GOP logic, the 1/3 of them who are shouldn’t get a vote on any nominees.
likewise, all House members should just go home and STFU since they’re all up for re-election in Nov.
“Do I really have to continue noting it?”
No.
I, for one, am fully aware that you are not to be confused with the tens of millions of conservatives who believe McConnell has not been a big-enough dick, that Mitch has been overwhelmingly insufficient in his essential dickishness. Not to mention the tens of millions more who believe he has been a perfectly capable dick.
This is the base of the Republican Party that has left you. You are not them, and maybe you should take this confusion up with them instead, he smiled, not really wanting you to, but feigning so.
“In effect it is part of the ongoing effort to deny that Obama is legitimately the President.”
The two leaders in the polls and the voting thus far for the Republican nomination for President of the United States have repeatedly questioned point blank the legitimacy of Obama’s birth and his Presidency and the rest have gone along with and not protested the schtick (to the extent that a few of the base are feigning sincerity in the matter; the rest are true believers) when it was convenient for their feints to the far right.
Statehouses are filled with Republicans who question his legitimacy.
Conservatives on other sites are not you.
So again, when conservatives on other sites are pointed out here, why do you confuse yourself with those people?
“Do I really have to continue noting it?”
No.
I, for one, am fully aware that you are not to be confused with the tens of millions of conservatives who believe McConnell has not been a big-enough dick, that Mitch has been overwhelmingly insufficient in his essential dickishness. Not to mention the tens of millions more who believe he has been a perfectly capable dick.
This is the base of the Republican Party that has left you. You are not them, and maybe you should take this confusion up with them instead, he smiled, not really wanting you to, but feigning so.
“In effect it is part of the ongoing effort to deny that Obama is legitimately the President.”
The two leaders in the polls and the voting thus far for the Republican nomination for President of the United States have repeatedly questioned point blank the legitimacy of Obama’s birth and his Presidency and the rest have gone along with and not protested the schtick (to the extent that a few of the base are feigning sincerity in the matter; the rest are true believers) when it was convenient for their feints to the far right.
Statehouses are filled with Republicans who question his legitimacy.
Conservatives on other sites are not you.
So again, when conservatives on other sites are pointed out here, why do you confuse yourself with those people?
“Do I really have to continue noting it?”
No.
I, for one, am fully aware that you are not to be confused with the tens of millions of conservatives who believe McConnell has not been a big-enough dick, that Mitch has been overwhelmingly insufficient in his essential dickishness. Not to mention the tens of millions more who believe he has been a perfectly capable dick.
This is the base of the Republican Party that has left you. You are not them, and maybe you should take this confusion up with them instead, he smiled, not really wanting you to, but feigning so.
“In effect it is part of the ongoing effort to deny that Obama is legitimately the President.”
The two leaders in the polls and the voting thus far for the Republican nomination for President of the United States have repeatedly questioned point blank the legitimacy of Obama’s birth and his Presidency and the rest have gone along with and not protested the schtick (to the extent that a few of the base are feigning sincerity in the matter; the rest are true believers) when it was convenient for their feints to the far right.
Statehouses are filled with Republicans who question his legitimacy.
Conservatives on other sites are not you.
So again, when conservatives on other sites are pointed out here, why do you confuse yourself with those people?
No NV, pragmatically you don’t remove an essential part of the agreement unless you have no intention of getting to s deal. You don’t male your negotiating partners job harder by taking things away as he is trying to sell the deal on his side. That is not pragmatic negotiations.
No NV, pragmatically you don’t remove an essential part of the agreement unless you have no intention of getting to s deal. You don’t male your negotiating partners job harder by taking things away as he is trying to sell the deal on his side. That is not pragmatic negotiations.
No NV, pragmatically you don’t remove an essential part of the agreement unless you have no intention of getting to s deal. You don’t male your negotiating partners job harder by taking things away as he is trying to sell the deal on his side. That is not pragmatic negotiations.
Besides Trump, who?
I take no responsibility for Trump. Not my circus; definitely not my monkey. I have never, in any context inclusive of this one, thought that Trump was a guy who should be running anything that I am in any way involved in.
I fervently wish the Republican Party was not composed of so many people who are gullible enough to believe Trump’s schtick, and stupid enough to think that what he wants is something worth obtaining.
And I think I’m tapped, now. Can I buy a disavowal?
Besides Trump, who?
I take no responsibility for Trump. Not my circus; definitely not my monkey. I have never, in any context inclusive of this one, thought that Trump was a guy who should be running anything that I am in any way involved in.
I fervently wish the Republican Party was not composed of so many people who are gullible enough to believe Trump’s schtick, and stupid enough to think that what he wants is something worth obtaining.
And I think I’m tapped, now. Can I buy a disavowal?
Besides Trump, who?
I take no responsibility for Trump. Not my circus; definitely not my monkey. I have never, in any context inclusive of this one, thought that Trump was a guy who should be running anything that I am in any way involved in.
I fervently wish the Republican Party was not composed of so many people who are gullible enough to believe Trump’s schtick, and stupid enough to think that what he wants is something worth obtaining.
And I think I’m tapped, now. Can I buy a disavowal?
There’s a sexist joke about a husband and wife with a pie they both want. The husband suggests that they each take half of the pie. The wife then suggests a compromise whereby she gets three-quarters of it.
There’s a sexist joke about a husband and wife with a pie they both want. The husband suggests that they each take half of the pie. The wife then suggests a compromise whereby she gets three-quarters of it.
There’s a sexist joke about a husband and wife with a pie they both want. The husband suggests that they each take half of the pie. The wife then suggests a compromise whereby she gets three-quarters of it.
“I believe I said upthread that I expect Obama to nominate at least one person. I also expect my Senators to decline to approve, no matter who it is. It would waste less of everyone’s time if Obama didn’t go through the motions but it is in his job description.”
So, Obama is going feign that bullet point in his job description, but your Senators are going to be sincere in their utter lack of compromise, no matter who is nominated.
IF there is a vote, which the above mentioned dick, unanimously labeled so by just about everyone at OBWI, has said thus far should not be considered.
“I believe I said upthread that I expect Obama to nominate at least one person. I also expect my Senators to decline to approve, no matter who it is. It would waste less of everyone’s time if Obama didn’t go through the motions but it is in his job description.”
So, Obama is going feign that bullet point in his job description, but your Senators are going to be sincere in their utter lack of compromise, no matter who is nominated.
IF there is a vote, which the above mentioned dick, unanimously labeled so by just about everyone at OBWI, has said thus far should not be considered.
“I believe I said upthread that I expect Obama to nominate at least one person. I also expect my Senators to decline to approve, no matter who it is. It would waste less of everyone’s time if Obama didn’t go through the motions but it is in his job description.”
So, Obama is going feign that bullet point in his job description, but your Senators are going to be sincere in their utter lack of compromise, no matter who is nominated.
IF there is a vote, which the above mentioned dick, unanimously labeled so by just about everyone at OBWI, has said thus far should not be considered.
…who?
Cruz, but he was smart enough not to implicate himself directly in the charges. Why would he need to with his Dad and Steve King as designated hitters. Better to surround himself with those who do (and now here’s where I guess I have to compliment Trump on his forthrightness in allowing his own big mouth to serve as his mouthpiece — I’ll pass).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-gets-burned-by-the-birther-fires-he-stoked/2016/01/08/c6cf7e02-b60a-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html
“I take no responsibility for Trump. Not my circus; definitely not my monkey. I have never, in any context inclusive of this one, thought that Trump was a guy who should be running anything that I am in any way involved in.
I fervently wish the Republican Party was not composed of so many people who are gullible enough to believe Trump’s schtick, and stupid enough to think that what he wants is something worth obtaining.
Can I buy a disavowal?”
None needed, which is what I said.
But as a I wrote when McKinneyTexas wrote some long while ago that he wouldn’t trust Ted Cruz as far as he could throw him, or some such words:
“Yet here we are.”
Marty, who is a moderate on many issues, including gun control, if he hasn’t been feigning all along, nevertheless blames Obama for Trump’s (and Sanders; which is problematical for Marty’s argument, but so what) popularity.
See, it was so much easier to argue with Bellmore, who took total ownership of the madness and ruthlessness of his preferred ticket — Walker/Paul.
By the uncompromising standards of the Republican Party as it defines itself today, there are no true conservatives at OBWI, or rather there may be some true reasonable conservatives, but try explaining any of that at a Republican fete.
“Yeah, but ….” won’t fly. It’ll get you primaried and probably replaced by a cuckoo bird who is proud of its reptilian heritage.
You can’t feign agreeing with just one or two planks in their ideology. You take the whole enchilada, or you are not a conservative as the legitimate base of the Party now define it.
…who?
Cruz, but he was smart enough not to implicate himself directly in the charges. Why would he need to with his Dad and Steve King as designated hitters. Better to surround himself with those who do (and now here’s where I guess I have to compliment Trump on his forthrightness in allowing his own big mouth to serve as his mouthpiece — I’ll pass).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-gets-burned-by-the-birther-fires-he-stoked/2016/01/08/c6cf7e02-b60a-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html
“I take no responsibility for Trump. Not my circus; definitely not my monkey. I have never, in any context inclusive of this one, thought that Trump was a guy who should be running anything that I am in any way involved in.
I fervently wish the Republican Party was not composed of so many people who are gullible enough to believe Trump’s schtick, and stupid enough to think that what he wants is something worth obtaining.
Can I buy a disavowal?”
None needed, which is what I said.
But as a I wrote when McKinneyTexas wrote some long while ago that he wouldn’t trust Ted Cruz as far as he could throw him, or some such words:
“Yet here we are.”
Marty, who is a moderate on many issues, including gun control, if he hasn’t been feigning all along, nevertheless blames Obama for Trump’s (and Sanders; which is problematical for Marty’s argument, but so what) popularity.
See, it was so much easier to argue with Bellmore, who took total ownership of the madness and ruthlessness of his preferred ticket — Walker/Paul.
By the uncompromising standards of the Republican Party as it defines itself today, there are no true conservatives at OBWI, or rather there may be some true reasonable conservatives, but try explaining any of that at a Republican fete.
“Yeah, but ….” won’t fly. It’ll get you primaried and probably replaced by a cuckoo bird who is proud of its reptilian heritage.
You can’t feign agreeing with just one or two planks in their ideology. You take the whole enchilada, or you are not a conservative as the legitimate base of the Party now define it.
…who?
Cruz, but he was smart enough not to implicate himself directly in the charges. Why would he need to with his Dad and Steve King as designated hitters. Better to surround himself with those who do (and now here’s where I guess I have to compliment Trump on his forthrightness in allowing his own big mouth to serve as his mouthpiece — I’ll pass).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-gets-burned-by-the-birther-fires-he-stoked/2016/01/08/c6cf7e02-b60a-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html
“I take no responsibility for Trump. Not my circus; definitely not my monkey. I have never, in any context inclusive of this one, thought that Trump was a guy who should be running anything that I am in any way involved in.
I fervently wish the Republican Party was not composed of so many people who are gullible enough to believe Trump’s schtick, and stupid enough to think that what he wants is something worth obtaining.
Can I buy a disavowal?”
None needed, which is what I said.
But as a I wrote when McKinneyTexas wrote some long while ago that he wouldn’t trust Ted Cruz as far as he could throw him, or some such words:
“Yet here we are.”
Marty, who is a moderate on many issues, including gun control, if he hasn’t been feigning all along, nevertheless blames Obama for Trump’s (and Sanders; which is problematical for Marty’s argument, but so what) popularity.
See, it was so much easier to argue with Bellmore, who took total ownership of the madness and ruthlessness of his preferred ticket — Walker/Paul.
By the uncompromising standards of the Republican Party as it defines itself today, there are no true conservatives at OBWI, or rather there may be some true reasonable conservatives, but try explaining any of that at a Republican fete.
“Yeah, but ….” won’t fly. It’ll get you primaried and probably replaced by a cuckoo bird who is proud of its reptilian heritage.
You can’t feign agreeing with just one or two planks in their ideology. You take the whole enchilada, or you are not a conservative as the legitimate base of the Party now define it.
So, you’re saying this slope is slippery?
So, you’re saying this slope is slippery?
So, you’re saying this slope is slippery?
Slarti,
I echo Count’s 2/17 9:34 AM comment.
Slarti,
I echo Count’s 2/17 9:34 AM comment.
Slarti,
I echo Count’s 2/17 9:34 AM comment.
Enough of me today, but in closing, I don’t believe I’ve ever been involved in a negotiation of any kind (financial, legal, familial, purchasing cabbage in a third world market) wherein both sides weren’t feigning.
Feigning is the essence of negotiation despite the fact that I hate the entire idea. It’s tiring.
I have a brother with an attitude the size of Montana who doesn’t feign. I feign negotiating with him over any point of contention, large or small, to get any movement in his position at all for the good of the family, and his unfeigned response is a non-negotiable “F*ck you!”
With maybe an accompanying invite to the backyard. Or, like a sociopath, he will alternate the physical imposition with tears, like maybe that’s going to keep me off balance.
His most stubborn caucus wags his dog every time.
Then, he hunkers down, even staying in bed for a week so he can’t be approached on any further point.
My budget chief doesn’t get invited any longer to present my position. The total financial ruin of the United States might be what my brother is thinking, unless we accede 100% to his demands and that’s fine with him.
So, negotiation is done in his mind, which is that of a crocodile, kaputnik. But not like he thinks, that maybe he has won.
Because while he goes into a state of reptilian stasis to wait out the duration, like the current members of Congress and company the rest of his family puts our complete negotiating position into effect, inch by inch, to save the day, because he has non-negotiated himself out of any standing whatsoever to affect reality.
He caves completely simply by removing himself from the negotiation.
Enough of me today, but in closing, I don’t believe I’ve ever been involved in a negotiation of any kind (financial, legal, familial, purchasing cabbage in a third world market) wherein both sides weren’t feigning.
Feigning is the essence of negotiation despite the fact that I hate the entire idea. It’s tiring.
I have a brother with an attitude the size of Montana who doesn’t feign. I feign negotiating with him over any point of contention, large or small, to get any movement in his position at all for the good of the family, and his unfeigned response is a non-negotiable “F*ck you!”
With maybe an accompanying invite to the backyard. Or, like a sociopath, he will alternate the physical imposition with tears, like maybe that’s going to keep me off balance.
His most stubborn caucus wags his dog every time.
Then, he hunkers down, even staying in bed for a week so he can’t be approached on any further point.
My budget chief doesn’t get invited any longer to present my position. The total financial ruin of the United States might be what my brother is thinking, unless we accede 100% to his demands and that’s fine with him.
So, negotiation is done in his mind, which is that of a crocodile, kaputnik. But not like he thinks, that maybe he has won.
Because while he goes into a state of reptilian stasis to wait out the duration, like the current members of Congress and company the rest of his family puts our complete negotiating position into effect, inch by inch, to save the day, because he has non-negotiated himself out of any standing whatsoever to affect reality.
He caves completely simply by removing himself from the negotiation.
Enough of me today, but in closing, I don’t believe I’ve ever been involved in a negotiation of any kind (financial, legal, familial, purchasing cabbage in a third world market) wherein both sides weren’t feigning.
Feigning is the essence of negotiation despite the fact that I hate the entire idea. It’s tiring.
I have a brother with an attitude the size of Montana who doesn’t feign. I feign negotiating with him over any point of contention, large or small, to get any movement in his position at all for the good of the family, and his unfeigned response is a non-negotiable “F*ck you!”
With maybe an accompanying invite to the backyard. Or, like a sociopath, he will alternate the physical imposition with tears, like maybe that’s going to keep me off balance.
His most stubborn caucus wags his dog every time.
Then, he hunkers down, even staying in bed for a week so he can’t be approached on any further point.
My budget chief doesn’t get invited any longer to present my position. The total financial ruin of the United States might be what my brother is thinking, unless we accede 100% to his demands and that’s fine with him.
So, negotiation is done in his mind, which is that of a crocodile, kaputnik. But not like he thinks, that maybe he has won.
Because while he goes into a state of reptilian stasis to wait out the duration, like the current members of Congress and company the rest of his family puts our complete negotiating position into effect, inch by inch, to save the day, because he has non-negotiated himself out of any standing whatsoever to affect reality.
He caves completely simply by removing himself from the negotiation.
Anyone Obama would present can be improved on in February given a Republican win in November.
It won’t be an improvement if you are, for example, me.
Apparently, I am not an American person. Or, at least, not one whose interests merit consideration in the appointment of SCOTUS justices.
I’m fine with (a) Obama nominating and (b) the Senate declining to approve. Because both Obama and the (R) majority Senate represent constituencies with legitimate interests.
They’ll duke it out, and we’ll end up somewhere. I don’t know where, but we’ll sort it out from there.
But you seem to be having a hard time recognizing that folks to the left of, as a simple point of reference, Obama, are a constituency with legitimate interests.
Anyone Obama would present can be improved on in February given a Republican win in November.
It won’t be an improvement if you are, for example, me.
Apparently, I am not an American person. Or, at least, not one whose interests merit consideration in the appointment of SCOTUS justices.
I’m fine with (a) Obama nominating and (b) the Senate declining to approve. Because both Obama and the (R) majority Senate represent constituencies with legitimate interests.
They’ll duke it out, and we’ll end up somewhere. I don’t know where, but we’ll sort it out from there.
But you seem to be having a hard time recognizing that folks to the left of, as a simple point of reference, Obama, are a constituency with legitimate interests.
Anyone Obama would present can be improved on in February given a Republican win in November.
It won’t be an improvement if you are, for example, me.
Apparently, I am not an American person. Or, at least, not one whose interests merit consideration in the appointment of SCOTUS justices.
I’m fine with (a) Obama nominating and (b) the Senate declining to approve. Because both Obama and the (R) majority Senate represent constituencies with legitimate interests.
They’ll duke it out, and we’ll end up somewhere. I don’t know where, but we’ll sort it out from there.
But you seem to be having a hard time recognizing that folks to the left of, as a simple point of reference, Obama, are a constituency with legitimate interests.
But you seem to be having a hard time recognizing that folks to the left of, as a simple point of reference, Obama, are a constituency with legitimate interests.
Not only that, but we don’t know who Obama will nominate, nor do we know who the president will be in 2017, whether Republican or Democrat, or who that person will nominate.
What we have is Schrodinger’s Republican nominee, with some probabilities of being both worse and better than Obama’s Schrodinger’s nominee, Marty’s divinations aside.
But you seem to be having a hard time recognizing that folks to the left of, as a simple point of reference, Obama, are a constituency with legitimate interests.
Not only that, but we don’t know who Obama will nominate, nor do we know who the president will be in 2017, whether Republican or Democrat, or who that person will nominate.
What we have is Schrodinger’s Republican nominee, with some probabilities of being both worse and better than Obama’s Schrodinger’s nominee, Marty’s divinations aside.
But you seem to be having a hard time recognizing that folks to the left of, as a simple point of reference, Obama, are a constituency with legitimate interests.
Not only that, but we don’t know who Obama will nominate, nor do we know who the president will be in 2017, whether Republican or Democrat, or who that person will nominate.
What we have is Schrodinger’s Republican nominee, with some probabilities of being both worse and better than Obama’s Schrodinger’s nominee, Marty’s divinations aside.
Marty wrote:
“Personally I hope he submits a pretty good compromise candidate so the Senate can approve them if the general looks like its going badly.”
How does this fulfill the word “anyone” in the first sentence.
We need better feigners around here.
However, since McConnell and company are the unfeigning dicks we go to war with, not just sometimes, but always, your feigning an openness to a compromise candidate is a dead letter.
Marty wrote:
“Personally I hope he submits a pretty good compromise candidate so the Senate can approve them if the general looks like its going badly.”
How does this fulfill the word “anyone” in the first sentence.
We need better feigners around here.
However, since McConnell and company are the unfeigning dicks we go to war with, not just sometimes, but always, your feigning an openness to a compromise candidate is a dead letter.
Marty wrote:
“Personally I hope he submits a pretty good compromise candidate so the Senate can approve them if the general looks like its going badly.”
How does this fulfill the word “anyone” in the first sentence.
We need better feigners around here.
However, since McConnell and company are the unfeigning dicks we go to war with, not just sometimes, but always, your feigning an openness to a compromise candidate is a dead letter.
Anyone Obama would present can be improved on in February given a Republican win in November.
hahahahah…”given a Republican win in November”, the Senate would obviously shelve any Obama nomination and await the appointment of the nominee submitted by the new Republican president…a nominee that would undoubtedly be absolutely worse than any Obama would put forward.
Since McConnell is not taking my opinion into consideration, he is obviously a tyrant.
and what russell said.
Anyone Obama would present can be improved on in February given a Republican win in November.
hahahahah…”given a Republican win in November”, the Senate would obviously shelve any Obama nomination and await the appointment of the nominee submitted by the new Republican president…a nominee that would undoubtedly be absolutely worse than any Obama would put forward.
Since McConnell is not taking my opinion into consideration, he is obviously a tyrant.
and what russell said.
Anyone Obama would present can be improved on in February given a Republican win in November.
hahahahah…”given a Republican win in November”, the Senate would obviously shelve any Obama nomination and await the appointment of the nominee submitted by the new Republican president…a nominee that would undoubtedly be absolutely worse than any Obama would put forward.
Since McConnell is not taking my opinion into consideration, he is obviously a tyrant.
and what russell said.
let’s place a “do” and a comma in this sentence in my 10:45am, so sloppy phrasing doesn’t sabotage my feigning:
“Because while he goes into a state of reptilian stasis to wait out the duration, like the current members of Congress and company “do,” the rest of his family puts our complete negotiating position into effect, …..”
let’s place a “do” and a comma in this sentence in my 10:45am, so sloppy phrasing doesn’t sabotage my feigning:
“Because while he goes into a state of reptilian stasis to wait out the duration, like the current members of Congress and company “do,” the rest of his family puts our complete negotiating position into effect, …..”
let’s place a “do” and a comma in this sentence in my 10:45am, so sloppy phrasing doesn’t sabotage my feigning:
“Because while he goes into a state of reptilian stasis to wait out the duration, like the current members of Congress and company “do,” the rest of his family puts our complete negotiating position into effect, …..”
If Marco Rubio hadn’t feigned his participation in immigration legislation negotiations and then stopped feigning altogether to make hatred of the “Other” the centerpiece of the Republican Presidential campaign, Obama could have stopped feigning his willingness to sign such legislation and actually signed the Bill.
I feigned leaving the thread a few comments ago to attend to more important feigning, but now for realseys, sayonara.
If Marco Rubio hadn’t feigned his participation in immigration legislation negotiations and then stopped feigning altogether to make hatred of the “Other” the centerpiece of the Republican Presidential campaign, Obama could have stopped feigning his willingness to sign such legislation and actually signed the Bill.
I feigned leaving the thread a few comments ago to attend to more important feigning, but now for realseys, sayonara.
If Marco Rubio hadn’t feigned his participation in immigration legislation negotiations and then stopped feigning altogether to make hatred of the “Other” the centerpiece of the Republican Presidential campaign, Obama could have stopped feigning his willingness to sign such legislation and actually signed the Bill.
I feigned leaving the thread a few comments ago to attend to more important feigning, but now for realseys, sayonara.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist, but this reminds of the conservative negotiating position … them, not you … on everything:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/malheur-wildlife-refuge-human-feces-burial-grounds
The Burns Paiute Tribe knows this is not the first time they have been shat upon by vermin feigning being Americans.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist, but this reminds of the conservative negotiating position … them, not you … on everything:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/malheur-wildlife-refuge-human-feces-burial-grounds
The Burns Paiute Tribe knows this is not the first time they have been shat upon by vermin feigning being Americans.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist, but this reminds of the conservative negotiating position … them, not you … on everything:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/malheur-wildlife-refuge-human-feces-burial-grounds
The Burns Paiute Tribe knows this is not the first time they have been shat upon by vermin feigning being Americans.
McConnell apparently has undergone a reverse appedickectomy since 1970:
http://winningdemocrats.com/1970-mitch-mcconnell-destroys-2016-mitch-mcconnells-scotus-nominee-fckery-image/
McConnell apparently has undergone a reverse appedickectomy since 1970:
http://winningdemocrats.com/1970-mitch-mcconnell-destroys-2016-mitch-mcconnells-scotus-nominee-fckery-image/
McConnell apparently has undergone a reverse appedickectomy since 1970:
http://winningdemocrats.com/1970-mitch-mcconnell-destroys-2016-mitch-mcconnells-scotus-nominee-fckery-image/
This is a good point too:
Imagine if in a different Court constellation, dropping down to eight Justices was actually better for the Democrats than a Court with any ninth Justice the Senate would confirm. And then imagine that President Obama just said, ‘I’m good with eight. I’m not going to nominate anyone.’
Put the shoe on the other foot and nonsensical nature of the proposition becomes clear.
This is a good point too:
Imagine if in a different Court constellation, dropping down to eight Justices was actually better for the Democrats than a Court with any ninth Justice the Senate would confirm. And then imagine that President Obama just said, ‘I’m good with eight. I’m not going to nominate anyone.’
Put the shoe on the other foot and nonsensical nature of the proposition becomes clear.
This is a good point too:
Imagine if in a different Court constellation, dropping down to eight Justices was actually better for the Democrats than a Court with any ninth Justice the Senate would confirm. And then imagine that President Obama just said, ‘I’m good with eight. I’m not going to nominate anyone.’
Put the shoe on the other foot and nonsensical nature of the proposition becomes clear.
Pierce sweeps away the nonsense:
Pierce sweeps away the nonsense:
Pierce sweeps away the nonsense:
Not only that, but we don’t know who Obama will nominate, nor do we know who the president will be in 2017, whether Republican or Democrat, or who that person will nominate.
What we have is Schrodinger’s Republican nominee, with some probabilities of being both worse and better than Obama’s Schrodinger’s nominee, Marty’s divinations aside.
Another way to look at it is that McConnell et al are going “all in” on the Presidential election. Or, as I would be more likely to phrase it, they are “betting the ranch” on something that is, at the very best, an even chance.
Only a fool bets everything, sight unseen, on a hypothetical future. Consider, for example, the reasonable (albeit, admittedly, not real likely) chance that in November we see Sanders beating, for example, Cruz. How, in retrospect, will McConnell’s approach (rejecting any possible Obama nominee out of hand) look? Will the Republican base just smile and say “well, at least we took a principled stand”? Or will they howl in agony at how the universe is against them?
Not only that, but we don’t know who Obama will nominate, nor do we know who the president will be in 2017, whether Republican or Democrat, or who that person will nominate.
What we have is Schrodinger’s Republican nominee, with some probabilities of being both worse and better than Obama’s Schrodinger’s nominee, Marty’s divinations aside.
Another way to look at it is that McConnell et al are going “all in” on the Presidential election. Or, as I would be more likely to phrase it, they are “betting the ranch” on something that is, at the very best, an even chance.
Only a fool bets everything, sight unseen, on a hypothetical future. Consider, for example, the reasonable (albeit, admittedly, not real likely) chance that in November we see Sanders beating, for example, Cruz. How, in retrospect, will McConnell’s approach (rejecting any possible Obama nominee out of hand) look? Will the Republican base just smile and say “well, at least we took a principled stand”? Or will they howl in agony at how the universe is against them?
Not only that, but we don’t know who Obama will nominate, nor do we know who the president will be in 2017, whether Republican or Democrat, or who that person will nominate.
What we have is Schrodinger’s Republican nominee, with some probabilities of being both worse and better than Obama’s Schrodinger’s nominee, Marty’s divinations aside.
Another way to look at it is that McConnell et al are going “all in” on the Presidential election. Or, as I would be more likely to phrase it, they are “betting the ranch” on something that is, at the very best, an even chance.
Only a fool bets everything, sight unseen, on a hypothetical future. Consider, for example, the reasonable (albeit, admittedly, not real likely) chance that in November we see Sanders beating, for example, Cruz. How, in retrospect, will McConnell’s approach (rejecting any possible Obama nominee out of hand) look? Will the Republican base just smile and say “well, at least we took a principled stand”? Or will they howl in agony at how the universe is against them?
Marty, you describe Obama offering concessions as negotiating in bad faith because he “knew” they wouldn’t be accepted, so that’s not compromising. But the Republican legislators who state upfront an intention to obstruct and who respond to the aforementioned concessions with a demand for more concessions while offering nothing in return? Nothing to see, except Obama refusing to compromise when they offered him a “compromise” (i.e., the further concessions they expected) that – by their own admission – they had no intention of accepting. You’re not holding the two parties to the same standard, and I’d say russell is right as to why: you hold positions to your left to be illegitimate, so compromise can only involve abandoning unreasonable demands; i.e., capitulation.
Oh, and you suggested that a sincere negotiator would never withdraw a concession once offered… ha. If the other negotiator cannot deliver what they’re promising, and the stakeholders whose buy-in they’re offering but not delivering are responding to one-sided concessions with demands for more one-sided concessions, then the carrot isn’t working. The carrot isn’t the only tact for negotiating; you as a Republican shouldn’t have any problem understanding that. But I suppose only conservatives are allowed to do “hardball” negotiations, hmm? On the left our position needs to be more supple – well, okay, more supine…
Marty, you describe Obama offering concessions as negotiating in bad faith because he “knew” they wouldn’t be accepted, so that’s not compromising. But the Republican legislators who state upfront an intention to obstruct and who respond to the aforementioned concessions with a demand for more concessions while offering nothing in return? Nothing to see, except Obama refusing to compromise when they offered him a “compromise” (i.e., the further concessions they expected) that – by their own admission – they had no intention of accepting. You’re not holding the two parties to the same standard, and I’d say russell is right as to why: you hold positions to your left to be illegitimate, so compromise can only involve abandoning unreasonable demands; i.e., capitulation.
Oh, and you suggested that a sincere negotiator would never withdraw a concession once offered… ha. If the other negotiator cannot deliver what they’re promising, and the stakeholders whose buy-in they’re offering but not delivering are responding to one-sided concessions with demands for more one-sided concessions, then the carrot isn’t working. The carrot isn’t the only tact for negotiating; you as a Republican shouldn’t have any problem understanding that. But I suppose only conservatives are allowed to do “hardball” negotiations, hmm? On the left our position needs to be more supple – well, okay, more supine…
Marty, you describe Obama offering concessions as negotiating in bad faith because he “knew” they wouldn’t be accepted, so that’s not compromising. But the Republican legislators who state upfront an intention to obstruct and who respond to the aforementioned concessions with a demand for more concessions while offering nothing in return? Nothing to see, except Obama refusing to compromise when they offered him a “compromise” (i.e., the further concessions they expected) that – by their own admission – they had no intention of accepting. You’re not holding the two parties to the same standard, and I’d say russell is right as to why: you hold positions to your left to be illegitimate, so compromise can only involve abandoning unreasonable demands; i.e., capitulation.
Oh, and you suggested that a sincere negotiator would never withdraw a concession once offered… ha. If the other negotiator cannot deliver what they’re promising, and the stakeholders whose buy-in they’re offering but not delivering are responding to one-sided concessions with demands for more one-sided concessions, then the carrot isn’t working. The carrot isn’t the only tact for negotiating; you as a Republican shouldn’t have any problem understanding that. But I suppose only conservatives are allowed to do “hardball” negotiations, hmm? On the left our position needs to be more supple – well, okay, more supine…
compromise = Obama gets to implement GOP ideas.
compromise = Obama gets to implement GOP ideas.
compromise = Obama gets to implement GOP ideas.
Another way to look at it is that McConnell et al are going “all in” on the Presidential election. Or, as I would be more likely to phrase it, they are “betting the ranch” on something that is, at the very best, an even chance.
I posted a link up-thread to an article that discusses the few weeks Obama will remain in office after a new senate is in place. Who knows what that will look like? That’s another variable to consider.
Another way to look at it is that McConnell et al are going “all in” on the Presidential election. Or, as I would be more likely to phrase it, they are “betting the ranch” on something that is, at the very best, an even chance.
I posted a link up-thread to an article that discusses the few weeks Obama will remain in office after a new senate is in place. Who knows what that will look like? That’s another variable to consider.
Another way to look at it is that McConnell et al are going “all in” on the Presidential election. Or, as I would be more likely to phrase it, they are “betting the ranch” on something that is, at the very best, an even chance.
I posted a link up-thread to an article that discusses the few weeks Obama will remain in office after a new senate is in place. Who knows what that will look like? That’s another variable to consider.
Frankly, I don’t really care if Obama has been a good-faith negotiator, given the douchebaggery he’s been faced with. If that’s seen as an overly partisan stance, so be it. (And, really, what does it matter, anyway?)
Frankly, I don’t really care if Obama has been a good-faith negotiator, given the douchebaggery he’s been faced with. If that’s seen as an overly partisan stance, so be it. (And, really, what does it matter, anyway?)
Frankly, I don’t really care if Obama has been a good-faith negotiator, given the douchebaggery he’s been faced with. If that’s seen as an overly partisan stance, so be it. (And, really, what does it matter, anyway?)
Part of me wishes this vacancy had happened (via resignation) a year ago so I could test my hypothesis that a GOP controlled Senate will no longer confirm a nominee to SCOTUS set forth by a Democratic President.
Or a weaker version of that – will never confirm one if it means swinging the court in the way it would at present.
Maybe if Hillary or Bernie wins and the Senate remains in GOP hands we will get to test it. Although I’m beginning to get the feeling that McConnell’s maximalist approach is making a Democratic Senate in 2017 at least marginally more likely.
Part of me wishes this vacancy had happened (via resignation) a year ago so I could test my hypothesis that a GOP controlled Senate will no longer confirm a nominee to SCOTUS set forth by a Democratic President.
Or a weaker version of that – will never confirm one if it means swinging the court in the way it would at present.
Maybe if Hillary or Bernie wins and the Senate remains in GOP hands we will get to test it. Although I’m beginning to get the feeling that McConnell’s maximalist approach is making a Democratic Senate in 2017 at least marginally more likely.
Part of me wishes this vacancy had happened (via resignation) a year ago so I could test my hypothesis that a GOP controlled Senate will no longer confirm a nominee to SCOTUS set forth by a Democratic President.
Or a weaker version of that – will never confirm one if it means swinging the court in the way it would at present.
Maybe if Hillary or Bernie wins and the Senate remains in GOP hands we will get to test it. Although I’m beginning to get the feeling that McConnell’s maximalist approach is making a Democratic Senate in 2017 at least marginally more likely.
compromise = Obama gets to implement GOP ideas.
Cleek, you have to know that’s bollocks. If Obama embraces a GOP idea, it must immediately be seen to be leftist drivel, and must therefore be opposed at all costs. No matter how long and loudly it has been supported as a conservative idea.
compromise = Obama gets to implement GOP ideas.
Cleek, you have to know that’s bollocks. If Obama embraces a GOP idea, it must immediately be seen to be leftist drivel, and must therefore be opposed at all costs. No matter how long and loudly it has been supported as a conservative idea.
compromise = Obama gets to implement GOP ideas.
Cleek, you have to know that’s bollocks. If Obama embraces a GOP idea, it must immediately be seen to be leftist drivel, and must therefore be opposed at all costs. No matter how long and loudly it has been supported as a conservative idea.
It’s cleek’s law, after all!
It’s cleek’s law, after all!
It’s cleek’s law, after all!
it was so much easier to argue with Bellmore,
come on over to Kevin Drum’s site. Brett just appeared there!
it was so much easier to argue with Bellmore,
come on over to Kevin Drum’s site. Brett just appeared there!
it was so much easier to argue with Bellmore,
come on over to Kevin Drum’s site. Brett just appeared there!
doh
doh
doh
“compromise = Obama gets to implement GOP ideas.”
He did, with Romney/HeritageCare, and look where that got him. If there is anything conservative sociopaths can’t countenance, it’s YES.
Forget a Sanders Presidency. If that happens, the Republicans will shut down government, default on the national debt, and destroy the country.
I guarantee it.
He’ll lose to Trump, Cruz, Himmler, whomever the Republicans finally cough up.
Socialist, socialist, socialist, socialist ….
They do not feign, which is the f*cking problem.
Trump or Cruz will win.
And THEN there will be violence against their governments unlike anything this country has ever imagined.
It will not be feigned.
Hillary wins, then we’ll have tooth-pulling gridlock like now, with the republican base switching their invective from nigger witch doctor on the loose to lesbian feminazi bitch must be shown her place.
Impeachment will begin the day after the election, but she’ll weather that.
The country won’t.
“compromise = Obama gets to implement GOP ideas.”
He did, with Romney/HeritageCare, and look where that got him. If there is anything conservative sociopaths can’t countenance, it’s YES.
Forget a Sanders Presidency. If that happens, the Republicans will shut down government, default on the national debt, and destroy the country.
I guarantee it.
He’ll lose to Trump, Cruz, Himmler, whomever the Republicans finally cough up.
Socialist, socialist, socialist, socialist ….
They do not feign, which is the f*cking problem.
Trump or Cruz will win.
And THEN there will be violence against their governments unlike anything this country has ever imagined.
It will not be feigned.
Hillary wins, then we’ll have tooth-pulling gridlock like now, with the republican base switching their invective from nigger witch doctor on the loose to lesbian feminazi bitch must be shown her place.
Impeachment will begin the day after the election, but she’ll weather that.
The country won’t.
“compromise = Obama gets to implement GOP ideas.”
He did, with Romney/HeritageCare, and look where that got him. If there is anything conservative sociopaths can’t countenance, it’s YES.
Forget a Sanders Presidency. If that happens, the Republicans will shut down government, default on the national debt, and destroy the country.
I guarantee it.
He’ll lose to Trump, Cruz, Himmler, whomever the Republicans finally cough up.
Socialist, socialist, socialist, socialist ….
They do not feign, which is the f*cking problem.
Trump or Cruz will win.
And THEN there will be violence against their governments unlike anything this country has ever imagined.
It will not be feigned.
Hillary wins, then we’ll have tooth-pulling gridlock like now, with the republican base switching their invective from nigger witch doctor on the loose to lesbian feminazi bitch must be shown her place.
Impeachment will begin the day after the election, but she’ll weather that.
The country won’t.
“Although I’m beginning to get the feeling that McConnell’s maximalist approach is making a Democratic Senate in 2017 at least marginally more likely.”
Is that like the phantom leg feeling that amputees experience?
“Although I’m beginning to get the feeling that McConnell’s maximalist approach is making a Democratic Senate in 2017 at least marginally more likely.”
Is that like the phantom leg feeling that amputees experience?
“Although I’m beginning to get the feeling that McConnell’s maximalist approach is making a Democratic Senate in 2017 at least marginally more likely.”
Is that like the phantom leg feeling that amputees experience?
I wish Obama would negotiate like a conservative. Which animal head would be most appropriate for McConnell to wake up next to? Turtle, or a thousand turtles?
I wish Obama would negotiate like a conservative. Which animal head would be most appropriate for McConnell to wake up next to? Turtle, or a thousand turtles?
I wish Obama would negotiate like a conservative. Which animal head would be most appropriate for McConnell to wake up next to? Turtle, or a thousand turtles?
More like wishful thinking. Or optimism before I see my therapist?
More like wishful thinking. Or optimism before I see my therapist?
More like wishful thinking. Or optimism before I see my therapist?
This is the republican negotiating position. What comes out of the barrel of the gun is their final offer:
https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/699706718419345408/photo/1
Democrats negotiate with Skittles. Oh, we feign butter knives at 20 paces, but bang, you’re dead.
Really, showing his pistol to show he’s a made man to keep up with murderers Cruz and Trump? Expect the latter two to hold up their little fingers in response.
Must be Bush is in South Carolina at the moment and needs to drop trou to establish his bonerfides.
This is the republican negotiating position. What comes out of the barrel of the gun is their final offer:
https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/699706718419345408/photo/1
Democrats negotiate with Skittles. Oh, we feign butter knives at 20 paces, but bang, you’re dead.
Really, showing his pistol to show he’s a made man to keep up with murderers Cruz and Trump? Expect the latter two to hold up their little fingers in response.
Must be Bush is in South Carolina at the moment and needs to drop trou to establish his bonerfides.
This is the republican negotiating position. What comes out of the barrel of the gun is their final offer:
https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/699706718419345408/photo/1
Democrats negotiate with Skittles. Oh, we feign butter knives at 20 paces, but bang, you’re dead.
Really, showing his pistol to show he’s a made man to keep up with murderers Cruz and Trump? Expect the latter two to hold up their little fingers in response.
Must be Bush is in South Carolina at the moment and needs to drop trou to establish his bonerfides.
If McCarthy got a say, why not my Senator?
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42201/supreme-court-nomination-hearings/
This McCarthy (copped from digby) who at least thought there were two kinds of Democrat, not just one, like present-day Republicans believe.
By the way, get how he uses the phrase “Democrat Party”. You see where Gingrich, Armey, Kasich and company found the term?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iGGjGSdqf8
If McCarthy got a say, why not my Senator?
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42201/supreme-court-nomination-hearings/
This McCarthy (copped from digby) who at least thought there were two kinds of Democrat, not just one, like present-day Republicans believe.
By the way, get how he uses the phrase “Democrat Party”. You see where Gingrich, Armey, Kasich and company found the term?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iGGjGSdqf8
If McCarthy got a say, why not my Senator?
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42201/supreme-court-nomination-hearings/
This McCarthy (copped from digby) who at least thought there were two kinds of Democrat, not just one, like present-day Republicans believe.
By the way, get how he uses the phrase “Democrat Party”. You see where Gingrich, Armey, Kasich and company found the term?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iGGjGSdqf8
meanwhile, north of the border…
c’mon up, sez cape breton island.
maybe seems weird, but I do know folks who have emigrated from the US to CA.
top reasons:
health care
schools
health care
low stress lifestyle
and, health care
the families i know who’ve gone have had one spouse with CA citizenship, so it was pretty easy – almost automatic – to get entry. barring that, if you bring skills or investment capital, it ain’t that hard to get in.
yeah, it’s cold, but the maritimes are fairly temperate.
meanwhile, north of the border…
c’mon up, sez cape breton island.
maybe seems weird, but I do know folks who have emigrated from the US to CA.
top reasons:
health care
schools
health care
low stress lifestyle
and, health care
the families i know who’ve gone have had one spouse with CA citizenship, so it was pretty easy – almost automatic – to get entry. barring that, if you bring skills or investment capital, it ain’t that hard to get in.
yeah, it’s cold, but the maritimes are fairly temperate.
meanwhile, north of the border…
c’mon up, sez cape breton island.
maybe seems weird, but I do know folks who have emigrated from the US to CA.
top reasons:
health care
schools
health care
low stress lifestyle
and, health care
the families i know who’ve gone have had one spouse with CA citizenship, so it was pretty easy – almost automatic – to get entry. barring that, if you bring skills or investment capital, it ain’t that hard to get in.
yeah, it’s cold, but the maritimes are fairly temperate.
hell yeah. plus i could finally get the CAMP maple syrup i require!
go Trump!
hell yeah. plus i could finally get the CAMP maple syrup i require!
go Trump!
hell yeah. plus i could finally get the CAMP maple syrup i require!
go Trump!
I’ve already considered sending my resume to potential employers in Vancouver (maritime!) with a cover letter explaining my plan to leave the US if Trump is elected. It’s so crazy it might just work.
I’ve already considered sending my resume to potential employers in Vancouver (maritime!) with a cover letter explaining my plan to leave the US if Trump is elected. It’s so crazy it might just work.
I’ve already considered sending my resume to potential employers in Vancouver (maritime!) with a cover letter explaining my plan to leave the US if Trump is elected. It’s so crazy it might just work.
I have family up there. There were four generations of McKinnons up in Margaree Forks until my great-aunt passed, and then her daughter passed soon after of a sudden. This was just last year.
It’s beautiful. My great aunt moved up there many years ago, having lived in upper Michigan, New Hampshire and Florida, as well as other places and overseas.
Here is the obit of my cousin Diana, who was amazing in more ways than I knew. And I knew a few.
My aunt was in ways even more remarkable: Sergeant in the Marine Corps (director of the women’s band, WWII), former wife of a foreign service officer. And those are just the things that I know for sure. Also, sister to my grandmother. Both sisters were women of enormous intelligence and resourcefulness. They had iron in them. Both lived into their 90s, and both smoke and drank like the Surgeon General never had an opinion worth hearing.
If only Diana had lived as long. Shorter on the iron-lunged crustiness and longer on culture, she nevertheless had iron. Steel, even. A formidable woman.
Anyway, my cousin Emily still runs their campground business up in Margaree Forks, I believe, in addition to working at the larchwood factory where they make cutting boards that have to be seen. And used.
CBI is worth seeing, even if Trump loses. Which I fervently pray for.
But I digress. I’d do so professionally, if someone would pay me.
I have family up there. There were four generations of McKinnons up in Margaree Forks until my great-aunt passed, and then her daughter passed soon after of a sudden. This was just last year.
It’s beautiful. My great aunt moved up there many years ago, having lived in upper Michigan, New Hampshire and Florida, as well as other places and overseas.
Here is the obit of my cousin Diana, who was amazing in more ways than I knew. And I knew a few.
My aunt was in ways even more remarkable: Sergeant in the Marine Corps (director of the women’s band, WWII), former wife of a foreign service officer. And those are just the things that I know for sure. Also, sister to my grandmother. Both sisters were women of enormous intelligence and resourcefulness. They had iron in them. Both lived into their 90s, and both smoke and drank like the Surgeon General never had an opinion worth hearing.
If only Diana had lived as long. Shorter on the iron-lunged crustiness and longer on culture, she nevertheless had iron. Steel, even. A formidable woman.
Anyway, my cousin Emily still runs their campground business up in Margaree Forks, I believe, in addition to working at the larchwood factory where they make cutting boards that have to be seen. And used.
CBI is worth seeing, even if Trump loses. Which I fervently pray for.
But I digress. I’d do so professionally, if someone would pay me.
I have family up there. There were four generations of McKinnons up in Margaree Forks until my great-aunt passed, and then her daughter passed soon after of a sudden. This was just last year.
It’s beautiful. My great aunt moved up there many years ago, having lived in upper Michigan, New Hampshire and Florida, as well as other places and overseas.
Here is the obit of my cousin Diana, who was amazing in more ways than I knew. And I knew a few.
My aunt was in ways even more remarkable: Sergeant in the Marine Corps (director of the women’s band, WWII), former wife of a foreign service officer. And those are just the things that I know for sure. Also, sister to my grandmother. Both sisters were women of enormous intelligence and resourcefulness. They had iron in them. Both lived into their 90s, and both smoke and drank like the Surgeon General never had an opinion worth hearing.
If only Diana had lived as long. Shorter on the iron-lunged crustiness and longer on culture, she nevertheless had iron. Steel, even. A formidable woman.
Anyway, my cousin Emily still runs their campground business up in Margaree Forks, I believe, in addition to working at the larchwood factory where they make cutting boards that have to be seen. And used.
CBI is worth seeing, even if Trump loses. Which I fervently pray for.
But I digress. I’d do so professionally, if someone would pay me.
Hannity issues the Republican base’s ultimatum:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/qotd-sean-hannity.html
Uncanny how Obama can throw his voodoo voice and make the words “we will not compromise” come out of the mouths of country’s enemies.
Hannity issues the Republican base’s ultimatum:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/qotd-sean-hannity.html
Uncanny how Obama can throw his voodoo voice and make the words “we will not compromise” come out of the mouths of country’s enemies.
Hannity issues the Republican base’s ultimatum:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/qotd-sean-hannity.html
Uncanny how Obama can throw his voodoo voice and make the words “we will not compromise” come out of the mouths of country’s enemies.
,
poor Sean doesn’t know how Congress works.
what’s there to “fight” against? Obama nominates, and then the Senate GOP literally does nothing. that guarantees the outcome he wants and it requires zero effort from his team. all they have to do is get the ball, stand up, and let the clock run out.
poor Sean doesn’t understand how the Senate works.
,
poor Sean doesn’t know how Congress works.
what’s there to “fight” against? Obama nominates, and then the Senate GOP literally does nothing. that guarantees the outcome he wants and it requires zero effort from his team. all they have to do is get the ball, stand up, and let the clock run out.
poor Sean doesn’t understand how the Senate works.
,
poor Sean doesn’t know how Congress works.
what’s there to “fight” against? Obama nominates, and then the Senate GOP literally does nothing. that guarantees the outcome he wants and it requires zero effort from his team. all they have to do is get the ball, stand up, and let the clock run out.
poor Sean doesn’t understand how the Senate works.
A very good (and to me pretty fair minded) article from Slate, which raises the spectre of future court packing…
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/02/norm_ornstein_on_the_fight_over_scalia_s_scotus_replacement.single.html
A very good (and to me pretty fair minded) article from Slate, which raises the spectre of future court packing…
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/02/norm_ornstein_on_the_fight_over_scalia_s_scotus_replacement.single.html
A very good (and to me pretty fair minded) article from Slate, which raises the spectre of future court packing…
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/02/norm_ornstein_on_the_fight_over_scalia_s_scotus_replacement.single.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanda-day-oconnor-says-obama-should-name-scalia-successor
but:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/outside-groups-scotus-nom-fight
They repeat McConnell’s line that hearings should not even be considered for Obama’s nominees. There is a confirmation here: they don’t recognize Barack Obama’s democratically-elected Presidency and my franchise as an American as legitimate.
Goose, shoot the ganders.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanda-day-oconnor-says-obama-should-name-scalia-successor
but:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/outside-groups-scotus-nom-fight
They repeat McConnell’s line that hearings should not even be considered for Obama’s nominees. There is a confirmation here: they don’t recognize Barack Obama’s democratically-elected Presidency and my franchise as an American as legitimate.
Goose, shoot the ganders.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanda-day-oconnor-says-obama-should-name-scalia-successor
but:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/outside-groups-scotus-nom-fight
They repeat McConnell’s line that hearings should not even be considered for Obama’s nominees. There is a confirmation here: they don’t recognize Barack Obama’s democratically-elected Presidency and my franchise as an American as legitimate.
Goose, shoot the ganders.
that guarantees the outcome he wants
He’s not interested in outcomes. He wants to make a point.
Or, more accurately, he wants to strike a pose.
“We will not compromise” is not a realistic position to take in a nation of over 300 million people.
Go start your own country, Sean, where you can do whatever you like. The rest of us are just trying to get along.
that guarantees the outcome he wants
He’s not interested in outcomes. He wants to make a point.
Or, more accurately, he wants to strike a pose.
“We will not compromise” is not a realistic position to take in a nation of over 300 million people.
Go start your own country, Sean, where you can do whatever you like. The rest of us are just trying to get along.
that guarantees the outcome he wants
He’s not interested in outcomes. He wants to make a point.
Or, more accurately, he wants to strike a pose.
“We will not compromise” is not a realistic position to take in a nation of over 300 million people.
Go start your own country, Sean, where you can do whatever you like. The rest of us are just trying to get along.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/02/justice-scalias-orwellian-jurisprudence.html
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/02/justice-scalias-orwellian-jurisprudence.html
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/02/justice-scalias-orwellian-jurisprudence.html
From the link I posted:
By all accounts, Scalia was an honorable public servant who was gracious in private life and committed to advancing the common good as he saw it in public life. He had an exceptional capacity for friendship across ideological divides and there was never a hint of scandal in his behavior. A great many public officials might emulate those behaviors. Nevertheless, Scalia did more to cheapen than enrich public discourse. His judicial rants, even if they were of little concern to his colleagues, further polarized a too polarized polity. His false professions of judicial modesty converted appropriate debates over how the court should be activist into an historically silly debate over whether the court should be activist. His false professions of neutrality converted appropriate debates over which contemporary constitutional vision ought to be the official law of the land into an absurd debate over whether any contemporary constitutional vision ought to be the official law of the land. His false professions about the separation of law and politics obscured the myriad ways in which constitutional law does and should bleed into constitutional politics.
From the link I posted:
By all accounts, Scalia was an honorable public servant who was gracious in private life and committed to advancing the common good as he saw it in public life. He had an exceptional capacity for friendship across ideological divides and there was never a hint of scandal in his behavior. A great many public officials might emulate those behaviors. Nevertheless, Scalia did more to cheapen than enrich public discourse. His judicial rants, even if they were of little concern to his colleagues, further polarized a too polarized polity. His false professions of judicial modesty converted appropriate debates over how the court should be activist into an historically silly debate over whether the court should be activist. His false professions of neutrality converted appropriate debates over which contemporary constitutional vision ought to be the official law of the land into an absurd debate over whether any contemporary constitutional vision ought to be the official law of the land. His false professions about the separation of law and politics obscured the myriad ways in which constitutional law does and should bleed into constitutional politics.
From the link I posted:
By all accounts, Scalia was an honorable public servant who was gracious in private life and committed to advancing the common good as he saw it in public life. He had an exceptional capacity for friendship across ideological divides and there was never a hint of scandal in his behavior. A great many public officials might emulate those behaviors. Nevertheless, Scalia did more to cheapen than enrich public discourse. His judicial rants, even if they were of little concern to his colleagues, further polarized a too polarized polity. His false professions of judicial modesty converted appropriate debates over how the court should be activist into an historically silly debate over whether the court should be activist. His false professions of neutrality converted appropriate debates over which contemporary constitutional vision ought to be the official law of the land into an absurd debate over whether any contemporary constitutional vision ought to be the official law of the land. His false professions about the separation of law and politics obscured the myriad ways in which constitutional law does and should bleed into constitutional politics.
But you seem to be having a hard time recognizing that folks to the left of, as a simple point of reference, Obama, are a constituency with legitimate interests
I wanted to come back to this because, I recognize the legitimate interest of people to the left of the line you draw. In fact, I have complained very little, I think, over the last six years as one after another of those interests have been met. The list, starting with Dodd -Frank, the ACA, Marriage equality, expanded Medicaid, and now with executive orders climate change, gun control, etc. Isn’t a short one. Yet all I hear is complaints about 40 years of conservative domination. It’s really the left that just wont accept that we have legitimate interests. No matter how many ways they get there way it will never be enough until this country is a social democracy on the verge of bankruptcy like really all of Europe. Or, the most northern Mexican state.
SI, don’t talk to me about not recognizing legitimate interests in a world where the right needs a majority on the Supreme Court to have any standing or hope of having our rights protected.
But you seem to be having a hard time recognizing that folks to the left of, as a simple point of reference, Obama, are a constituency with legitimate interests
I wanted to come back to this because, I recognize the legitimate interest of people to the left of the line you draw. In fact, I have complained very little, I think, over the last six years as one after another of those interests have been met. The list, starting with Dodd -Frank, the ACA, Marriage equality, expanded Medicaid, and now with executive orders climate change, gun control, etc. Isn’t a short one. Yet all I hear is complaints about 40 years of conservative domination. It’s really the left that just wont accept that we have legitimate interests. No matter how many ways they get there way it will never be enough until this country is a social democracy on the verge of bankruptcy like really all of Europe. Or, the most northern Mexican state.
SI, don’t talk to me about not recognizing legitimate interests in a world where the right needs a majority on the Supreme Court to have any standing or hope of having our rights protected.
But you seem to be having a hard time recognizing that folks to the left of, as a simple point of reference, Obama, are a constituency with legitimate interests
I wanted to come back to this because, I recognize the legitimate interest of people to the left of the line you draw. In fact, I have complained very little, I think, over the last six years as one after another of those interests have been met. The list, starting with Dodd -Frank, the ACA, Marriage equality, expanded Medicaid, and now with executive orders climate change, gun control, etc. Isn’t a short one. Yet all I hear is complaints about 40 years of conservative domination. It’s really the left that just wont accept that we have legitimate interests. No matter how many ways they get there way it will never be enough until this country is a social democracy on the verge of bankruptcy like really all of Europe. Or, the most northern Mexican state.
SI, don’t talk to me about not recognizing legitimate interests in a world where the right needs a majority on the Supreme Court to have any standing or hope of having our rights protected.
“elections have consequences”
some dead guy said that.
“elections have consequences”
some dead guy said that.
“elections have consequences”
some dead guy said that.
“Originalism asserts that those who crafted and ratified our Constitution intended the meaning and effect of their handiwork to be limited to the specific understandings of their time. But this view erroneously attributes to the Framers a narrow-mindedness and shortsightedness that belies their true spirit.”
http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/21/the-framers-constitution/
“Originalism asserts that those who crafted and ratified our Constitution intended the meaning and effect of their handiwork to be limited to the specific understandings of their time. But this view erroneously attributes to the Framers a narrow-mindedness and shortsightedness that belies their true spirit.”
http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/21/the-framers-constitution/
“Originalism asserts that those who crafted and ratified our Constitution intended the meaning and effect of their handiwork to be limited to the specific understandings of their time. But this view erroneously attributes to the Framers a narrow-mindedness and shortsightedness that belies their true spirit.”
http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/21/the-framers-constitution/
it requires zero effort from his team. all they have to do is get the ball, stand up, and let the clock run out.
poor Sean doesn’t understand how the Senate works.
Somewhat similar to what Russell said. Sean isn’t inteerested in winning. What he wants is a fight.
Or, in these terms, he doesn’t want to run out the clock. He wants to see 4 Hail Mary! passes. Even if that opens up the chance that of an interception returned for a touchdown.
It’s all a matter of what is important to you.
it requires zero effort from his team. all they have to do is get the ball, stand up, and let the clock run out.
poor Sean doesn’t understand how the Senate works.
Somewhat similar to what Russell said. Sean isn’t inteerested in winning. What he wants is a fight.
Or, in these terms, he doesn’t want to run out the clock. He wants to see 4 Hail Mary! passes. Even if that opens up the chance that of an interception returned for a touchdown.
It’s all a matter of what is important to you.
it requires zero effort from his team. all they have to do is get the ball, stand up, and let the clock run out.
poor Sean doesn’t understand how the Senate works.
Somewhat similar to what Russell said. Sean isn’t inteerested in winning. What he wants is a fight.
Or, in these terms, he doesn’t want to run out the clock. He wants to see 4 Hail Mary! passes. Even if that opens up the chance that of an interception returned for a touchdown.
It’s all a matter of what is important to you.
don’t talk to me about not recognizing legitimate interests in a world where the right needs a majority on the Supreme Court to have any standing or hope of having our rights protected
My response to this is that there is a substantial difference between having policy stuff come out the way you like, and having your rights protected.
In your semi-long list of ways in which the left has prevailed, I don’t recognize a single point at which anybody’s rights have been threatened.
Folks won’t all agree that the policies were wise, but that’s a different question.
Obama should nominate a replacement to Scalia. The Senate can then do whatever they want.
That’s the way it works.
It is in all of our interests for the process to be respected.
Having the Senate majority leader announce that Scalia’s seat will not be filled, within hours of Scalia’s death, and before any nominee has even been presented, is utter bullshit.
don’t talk to me about not recognizing legitimate interests in a world where the right needs a majority on the Supreme Court to have any standing or hope of having our rights protected
My response to this is that there is a substantial difference between having policy stuff come out the way you like, and having your rights protected.
In your semi-long list of ways in which the left has prevailed, I don’t recognize a single point at which anybody’s rights have been threatened.
Folks won’t all agree that the policies were wise, but that’s a different question.
Obama should nominate a replacement to Scalia. The Senate can then do whatever they want.
That’s the way it works.
It is in all of our interests for the process to be respected.
Having the Senate majority leader announce that Scalia’s seat will not be filled, within hours of Scalia’s death, and before any nominee has even been presented, is utter bullshit.
don’t talk to me about not recognizing legitimate interests in a world where the right needs a majority on the Supreme Court to have any standing or hope of having our rights protected
My response to this is that there is a substantial difference between having policy stuff come out the way you like, and having your rights protected.
In your semi-long list of ways in which the left has prevailed, I don’t recognize a single point at which anybody’s rights have been threatened.
Folks won’t all agree that the policies were wise, but that’s a different question.
Obama should nominate a replacement to Scalia. The Senate can then do whatever they want.
That’s the way it works.
It is in all of our interests for the process to be respected.
Having the Senate majority leader announce that Scalia’s seat will not be filled, within hours of Scalia’s death, and before any nominee has even been presented, is utter bullshit.
the right needs a majority on the Supreme Court to have any standing or hope of having our rights protected.
Yes, you’re a discrete and insular minority in need of special protection.
the right needs a majority on the Supreme Court to have any standing or hope of having our rights protected.
Yes, you’re a discrete and insular minority in need of special protection.
the right needs a majority on the Supreme Court to have any standing or hope of having our rights protected.
Yes, you’re a discrete and insular minority in need of special protection.
Yes Ugh, we are. I have been saying that for years. Thanks for noticing.
Yes Ugh, we are. I have been saying that for years. Thanks for noticing.
Yes Ugh, we are. I have been saying that for years. Thanks for noticing.
Marty, you’ve been spending too much time in MA.
Marty, you’ve been spending too much time in MA.
Marty, you’ve been spending too much time in MA.
True enough russell.
True enough russell.
True enough russell.
Marty – What of your rights do you need the Court to defend that will no longer happen if an Obama nominee replaces Scalia on the Court?
Marty – What of your rights do you need the Court to defend that will no longer happen if an Obama nominee replaces Scalia on the Court?
Marty – What of your rights do you need the Court to defend that will no longer happen if an Obama nominee replaces Scalia on the Court?
Marty, I think you only revealed that you were a ginger in the last few months.
Marty, I think you only revealed that you were a ginger in the last few months.
Marty, I think you only revealed that you were a ginger in the last few months.
Marty:
I’d appreciate it if you would read this account of Republican meeting on Inauguration Day, 2009. AFAIK it has not been disproved.
GOP congresspeople were determined, from the start, not to make *any* deal or compromise with Obama, about anything. Does this change your opinion that the failure to reach compromise was Obama’s fault?
I found your self-quote from 2009 confusing, because I couldn’t tell what was supposed to be a sarcastic counterfactual. Can you, instead, look at Obama’s first inaugural address and give textual evidence to back up your beliefs?
Right now the most probable November matchup is Trump vs. Hillary, with no significant third party run. (many events have the chance to alter these probabilities.) If that *is* what we’re faced with in November, would you cast a vote for President? For whom?
Marty:
I’d appreciate it if you would read this account of Republican meeting on Inauguration Day, 2009. AFAIK it has not been disproved.
GOP congresspeople were determined, from the start, not to make *any* deal or compromise with Obama, about anything. Does this change your opinion that the failure to reach compromise was Obama’s fault?
I found your self-quote from 2009 confusing, because I couldn’t tell what was supposed to be a sarcastic counterfactual. Can you, instead, look at Obama’s first inaugural address and give textual evidence to back up your beliefs?
Right now the most probable November matchup is Trump vs. Hillary, with no significant third party run. (many events have the chance to alter these probabilities.) If that *is* what we’re faced with in November, would you cast a vote for President? For whom?
Marty:
I’d appreciate it if you would read this account of Republican meeting on Inauguration Day, 2009. AFAIK it has not been disproved.
GOP congresspeople were determined, from the start, not to make *any* deal or compromise with Obama, about anything. Does this change your opinion that the failure to reach compromise was Obama’s fault?
I found your self-quote from 2009 confusing, because I couldn’t tell what was supposed to be a sarcastic counterfactual. Can you, instead, look at Obama’s first inaugural address and give textual evidence to back up your beliefs?
Right now the most probable November matchup is Trump vs. Hillary, with no significant third party run. (many events have the chance to alter these probabilities.) If that *is* what we’re faced with in November, would you cast a vote for President? For whom?
The list, starting with Dodd -Frank, the ACA, Marriage equality, expanded Medicaid, and now with executive orders climate change, gun control, etc. Isn’t a short one. Yet all I hear is complaints about 40 years of conservative domination.
That’s not much of a list. We still have private property and a ‘free market’ economy dominated by large corporate players exercising undue amounts of private power; unions are flat on their back; the environment continues to go to hell; white racism is still a big problem; our elites still hold to their bosom a hegemonic view of America’s place in the world.
In fact, the New Deal over the last half century has not so much been repealed as has been allowed to lapse. But even the New Deal was a rather haphazard undertaking in a perfect storm. We continue to be a largely conservative country.
My socialist views have been largely ignored for my entire lifetime. I blame fluoride in the drinking water.
The list, starting with Dodd -Frank, the ACA, Marriage equality, expanded Medicaid, and now with executive orders climate change, gun control, etc. Isn’t a short one. Yet all I hear is complaints about 40 years of conservative domination.
That’s not much of a list. We still have private property and a ‘free market’ economy dominated by large corporate players exercising undue amounts of private power; unions are flat on their back; the environment continues to go to hell; white racism is still a big problem; our elites still hold to their bosom a hegemonic view of America’s place in the world.
In fact, the New Deal over the last half century has not so much been repealed as has been allowed to lapse. But even the New Deal was a rather haphazard undertaking in a perfect storm. We continue to be a largely conservative country.
My socialist views have been largely ignored for my entire lifetime. I blame fluoride in the drinking water.
The list, starting with Dodd -Frank, the ACA, Marriage equality, expanded Medicaid, and now with executive orders climate change, gun control, etc. Isn’t a short one. Yet all I hear is complaints about 40 years of conservative domination.
That’s not much of a list. We still have private property and a ‘free market’ economy dominated by large corporate players exercising undue amounts of private power; unions are flat on their back; the environment continues to go to hell; white racism is still a big problem; our elites still hold to their bosom a hegemonic view of America’s place in the world.
In fact, the New Deal over the last half century has not so much been repealed as has been allowed to lapse. But even the New Deal was a rather haphazard undertaking in a perfect storm. We continue to be a largely conservative country.
My socialist views have been largely ignored for my entire lifetime. I blame fluoride in the drinking water.
Doc, I see no value in rereading his inaugural address. Obama is the master of sweeping oration for huge crowds. There was nothing in my quote that should have been confusing. The President went and met with the Republicans multiple times and the feedback on all of those meetings at the time was he reminded them that he won the election and laid out what he was going to do.
The Republicans did set out to make him a one term President by essentially not passing any part of his agenda. However, that wasn’t so meaningful in the early days because they were all trying to sort out the financial crisis, where there were things passed.
However, in each of those things Obama tried to throw in pieces of his agenda and then complain that the Republicans were being uncooperative in solving the crisis because they wouldn’t pass the bills as presented.
I was actually aware of the things you are pointing out, in fact, its a little insulting for you to ask “Does this change your mind” like somehow I didn’t know the facts at the time, since I wrote those words at the time.
The problem is that the President is supposed to represent all of the people. He IS the one that is supposed to overcome the division. In fact, Obama made a whole campaign out of how he was going to do that. Then he immediately started trying to abuse the Congress into doing things his way, even knowing they were not in a cooperative frame of mind. Over three years every speech he gave after the inauguration, he spent some part of it blaming Congress for one thing or another, in harsh terms. His ability to alienate everyone he needed to work with was astonishing.
I had a string of posts after each of his key speeches, and he never failed to take his shots.
I doubt the election will be Trump vs Hilary, but in the last few days I have been given reason, in Scalia’s death, to vote Republican no matter the nominee.
I simply cant hand my country over to a court that will take away every right I believe is represented in our Constitution and centralize in Washington what’s left of the states powers.
If the next generation wants to decide we should abandon the principles our country is founded on then they can do that. I wont vote for handing them a country that will be a shadow of what it could have been.
Doc, I see no value in rereading his inaugural address. Obama is the master of sweeping oration for huge crowds. There was nothing in my quote that should have been confusing. The President went and met with the Republicans multiple times and the feedback on all of those meetings at the time was he reminded them that he won the election and laid out what he was going to do.
The Republicans did set out to make him a one term President by essentially not passing any part of his agenda. However, that wasn’t so meaningful in the early days because they were all trying to sort out the financial crisis, where there were things passed.
However, in each of those things Obama tried to throw in pieces of his agenda and then complain that the Republicans were being uncooperative in solving the crisis because they wouldn’t pass the bills as presented.
I was actually aware of the things you are pointing out, in fact, its a little insulting for you to ask “Does this change your mind” like somehow I didn’t know the facts at the time, since I wrote those words at the time.
The problem is that the President is supposed to represent all of the people. He IS the one that is supposed to overcome the division. In fact, Obama made a whole campaign out of how he was going to do that. Then he immediately started trying to abuse the Congress into doing things his way, even knowing they were not in a cooperative frame of mind. Over three years every speech he gave after the inauguration, he spent some part of it blaming Congress for one thing or another, in harsh terms. His ability to alienate everyone he needed to work with was astonishing.
I had a string of posts after each of his key speeches, and he never failed to take his shots.
I doubt the election will be Trump vs Hilary, but in the last few days I have been given reason, in Scalia’s death, to vote Republican no matter the nominee.
I simply cant hand my country over to a court that will take away every right I believe is represented in our Constitution and centralize in Washington what’s left of the states powers.
If the next generation wants to decide we should abandon the principles our country is founded on then they can do that. I wont vote for handing them a country that will be a shadow of what it could have been.
Doc, I see no value in rereading his inaugural address. Obama is the master of sweeping oration for huge crowds. There was nothing in my quote that should have been confusing. The President went and met with the Republicans multiple times and the feedback on all of those meetings at the time was he reminded them that he won the election and laid out what he was going to do.
The Republicans did set out to make him a one term President by essentially not passing any part of his agenda. However, that wasn’t so meaningful in the early days because they were all trying to sort out the financial crisis, where there were things passed.
However, in each of those things Obama tried to throw in pieces of his agenda and then complain that the Republicans were being uncooperative in solving the crisis because they wouldn’t pass the bills as presented.
I was actually aware of the things you are pointing out, in fact, its a little insulting for you to ask “Does this change your mind” like somehow I didn’t know the facts at the time, since I wrote those words at the time.
The problem is that the President is supposed to represent all of the people. He IS the one that is supposed to overcome the division. In fact, Obama made a whole campaign out of how he was going to do that. Then he immediately started trying to abuse the Congress into doing things his way, even knowing they were not in a cooperative frame of mind. Over three years every speech he gave after the inauguration, he spent some part of it blaming Congress for one thing or another, in harsh terms. His ability to alienate everyone he needed to work with was astonishing.
I had a string of posts after each of his key speeches, and he never failed to take his shots.
I doubt the election will be Trump vs Hilary, but in the last few days I have been given reason, in Scalia’s death, to vote Republican no matter the nominee.
I simply cant hand my country over to a court that will take away every right I believe is represented in our Constitution and centralize in Washington what’s left of the states powers.
If the next generation wants to decide we should abandon the principles our country is founded on then they can do that. I wont vote for handing them a country that will be a shadow of what it could have been.
I simply cant hand my country over to a court that will take away every right I believe is represented in our Constitution and centralize in Washington what’s left of the states powers.
This is an extreme way of seeing things. There’s not much to work with here.
I simply cant hand my country over to a court that will take away every right I believe is represented in our Constitution and centralize in Washington what’s left of the states powers.
This is an extreme way of seeing things. There’s not much to work with here.
I simply cant hand my country over to a court that will take away every right I believe is represented in our Constitution and centralize in Washington what’s left of the states powers.
This is an extreme way of seeing things. There’s not much to work with here.
the conservative mythology is rich and detailed.
the conservative mythology is rich and detailed.
the conservative mythology is rich and detailed.
The problem is that the President is supposed to represent all of the people. He IS the one that is supposed to overcome the division. In fact, Obama made a whole campaign out of how he was going to do that. Then he immediately started trying to abuse the Congress into doing things his way,
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” — Senator McConnell [emphasis added]
Somehow that doesn’t give me the impression of a group which is willing to do things for the good of the country. It says, essentially, we won’t do anything that could be construed as a “win” for Obama. Even if we actually like the idea. And that is exactly how they have behaved.
Who is abusing who here?
The problem is that the President is supposed to represent all of the people. He IS the one that is supposed to overcome the division. In fact, Obama made a whole campaign out of how he was going to do that. Then he immediately started trying to abuse the Congress into doing things his way,
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” — Senator McConnell [emphasis added]
Somehow that doesn’t give me the impression of a group which is willing to do things for the good of the country. It says, essentially, we won’t do anything that could be construed as a “win” for Obama. Even if we actually like the idea. And that is exactly how they have behaved.
Who is abusing who here?
The problem is that the President is supposed to represent all of the people. He IS the one that is supposed to overcome the division. In fact, Obama made a whole campaign out of how he was going to do that. Then he immediately started trying to abuse the Congress into doing things his way,
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” — Senator McConnell [emphasis added]
Somehow that doesn’t give me the impression of a group which is willing to do things for the good of the country. It says, essentially, we won’t do anything that could be construed as a “win” for Obama. Even if we actually like the idea. And that is exactly how they have behaved.
Who is abusing who here?
This is an extreme way of seeing things. There’s not much to work with here.
Having read the opinions of the left on the court over the years I don’t know what other conclusion a rational person could come to. I mean what they would do, not the good or bad of it. That’s all me.
This is an extreme way of seeing things. There’s not much to work with here.
Having read the opinions of the left on the court over the years I don’t know what other conclusion a rational person could come to. I mean what they would do, not the good or bad of it. That’s all me.
This is an extreme way of seeing things. There’s not much to work with here.
Having read the opinions of the left on the court over the years I don’t know what other conclusion a rational person could come to. I mean what they would do, not the good or bad of it. That’s all me.
Marty: …until this country is a social democracy on the verge of bankruptcy like really all of Europe.
Marty, are you worried about zombies, too? I ask because this bogeyman is unmitigated, walking-dead crapola.
Leave aside that “really all of Europe” is a bunch of separate nations which cannot conduct their own monetary policies because they do not have their own currencies. That’s too complex a subject for either of us.
Just tell me what “bankrupt” means for a “country”, in your parlance. Does it mean a country in which everybody is bankrupt, and former billionaires are selling apples in the street? Or does it mean a country whose government is incapable of paying its bills, while billionaires are private-jetting between their multiple mansions?
–TP
Marty: …until this country is a social democracy on the verge of bankruptcy like really all of Europe.
Marty, are you worried about zombies, too? I ask because this bogeyman is unmitigated, walking-dead crapola.
Leave aside that “really all of Europe” is a bunch of separate nations which cannot conduct their own monetary policies because they do not have their own currencies. That’s too complex a subject for either of us.
Just tell me what “bankrupt” means for a “country”, in your parlance. Does it mean a country in which everybody is bankrupt, and former billionaires are selling apples in the street? Or does it mean a country whose government is incapable of paying its bills, while billionaires are private-jetting between their multiple mansions?
–TP
Marty: …until this country is a social democracy on the verge of bankruptcy like really all of Europe.
Marty, are you worried about zombies, too? I ask because this bogeyman is unmitigated, walking-dead crapola.
Leave aside that “really all of Europe” is a bunch of separate nations which cannot conduct their own monetary policies because they do not have their own currencies. That’s too complex a subject for either of us.
Just tell me what “bankrupt” means for a “country”, in your parlance. Does it mean a country in which everybody is bankrupt, and former billionaires are selling apples in the street? Or does it mean a country whose government is incapable of paying its bills, while billionaires are private-jetting between their multiple mansions?
–TP
Let’s not forget that the democrats controlled congress during Obama’s first two years. Why he would, as Marty’s put it, immediately start abusing Congress is a little puzzling.
Perhaps your memory is not as clear as you thought Marty.
I would still ask you to list the rights the Court will take away should Obama get his nominee confirmed. I will give you that it might decide that the second amendment is not what the Court said it was in Heller. Anything else?
Let’s not forget that the democrats controlled congress during Obama’s first two years. Why he would, as Marty’s put it, immediately start abusing Congress is a little puzzling.
Perhaps your memory is not as clear as you thought Marty.
I would still ask you to list the rights the Court will take away should Obama get his nominee confirmed. I will give you that it might decide that the second amendment is not what the Court said it was in Heller. Anything else?
Let’s not forget that the democrats controlled congress during Obama’s first two years. Why he would, as Marty’s put it, immediately start abusing Congress is a little puzzling.
Perhaps your memory is not as clear as you thought Marty.
I would still ask you to list the rights the Court will take away should Obama get his nominee confirmed. I will give you that it might decide that the second amendment is not what the Court said it was in Heller. Anything else?
“And that is exactly how they have behaved. ”
Nope, they passed a stimulus, win for Obama. They actually had some back and forth early. What was lacking was that he never gave them a win. Not once. Never said they did this good thing. He took every shred of credit and showered them with every piece of blame.
You can bring people around. He never even tried.
“And that is exactly how they have behaved. ”
Nope, they passed a stimulus, win for Obama. They actually had some back and forth early. What was lacking was that he never gave them a win. Not once. Never said they did this good thing. He took every shred of credit and showered them with every piece of blame.
You can bring people around. He never even tried.
“And that is exactly how they have behaved. ”
Nope, they passed a stimulus, win for Obama. They actually had some back and forth early. What was lacking was that he never gave them a win. Not once. Never said they did this good thing. He took every shred of credit and showered them with every piece of blame.
You can bring people around. He never even tried.
Nope, they passed a stimulus, win for Obama.
The stimulus consisted of two parts:
TARP (which was passed in 2008 and signed by President Bush.)
ARRA (which passed in 2009 and was signed by President Obama.) The House passed the bill with 177 Republicans voting against (one did not vote). The Senate passed it with 3 Republicans in favor and 37 against.
So I’m a bit unclear on how you think that Congressional Republicans were anything but obstructive of the stimulus under Obama. Certainly they didn’t do anything that I would construe as “giving” Obama a “win”. What am I missing here?
Nope, they passed a stimulus, win for Obama.
The stimulus consisted of two parts:
TARP (which was passed in 2008 and signed by President Bush.)
ARRA (which passed in 2009 and was signed by President Obama.) The House passed the bill with 177 Republicans voting against (one did not vote). The Senate passed it with 3 Republicans in favor and 37 against.
So I’m a bit unclear on how you think that Congressional Republicans were anything but obstructive of the stimulus under Obama. Certainly they didn’t do anything that I would construe as “giving” Obama a “win”. What am I missing here?
Nope, they passed a stimulus, win for Obama.
The stimulus consisted of two parts:
TARP (which was passed in 2008 and signed by President Bush.)
ARRA (which passed in 2009 and was signed by President Obama.) The House passed the bill with 177 Republicans voting against (one did not vote). The Senate passed it with 3 Republicans in favor and 37 against.
So I’m a bit unclear on how you think that Congressional Republicans were anything but obstructive of the stimulus under Obama. Certainly they didn’t do anything that I would construe as “giving” Obama a “win”. What am I missing here?
Ugh, I do remember, perhaps you don’t remember that the filibuster proof majority was quite short lived, even sporadic. So yes, immediately.
The right to bear arms, the right to limit partial birth abortions, the right to have a right to work state, the right to not use state money at least to fund abortions, the right to educate children without common core, the right to donate to the candidate of my choice, the right to send my child to whatever school I want. The left wing agenda is endless and they are perfectly willing to have the court decide it all. The last bastion of defense for any kind of freedom is a conservative court.
Ugh, I do remember, perhaps you don’t remember that the filibuster proof majority was quite short lived, even sporadic. So yes, immediately.
The right to bear arms, the right to limit partial birth abortions, the right to have a right to work state, the right to not use state money at least to fund abortions, the right to educate children without common core, the right to donate to the candidate of my choice, the right to send my child to whatever school I want. The left wing agenda is endless and they are perfectly willing to have the court decide it all. The last bastion of defense for any kind of freedom is a conservative court.
Ugh, I do remember, perhaps you don’t remember that the filibuster proof majority was quite short lived, even sporadic. So yes, immediately.
The right to bear arms, the right to limit partial birth abortions, the right to have a right to work state, the right to not use state money at least to fund abortions, the right to educate children without common core, the right to donate to the candidate of my choice, the right to send my child to whatever school I want. The left wing agenda is endless and they are perfectly willing to have the court decide it all. The last bastion of defense for any kind of freedom is a conservative court.
hey wj, they gave him 3 votes. In fact, if I recall he needed a couple there. But, I have conceded that the Republican stance was not to cooperate. Stipulated in my earlier comment.
hey wj, they gave him 3 votes. In fact, if I recall he needed a couple there. But, I have conceded that the Republican stance was not to cooperate. Stipulated in my earlier comment.
hey wj, they gave him 3 votes. In fact, if I recall he needed a couple there. But, I have conceded that the Republican stance was not to cooperate. Stipulated in my earlier comment.
so, ‘right’ is a synonym for ‘preference’.
there goes the left, doing violence to the language again!
so, ‘right’ is a synonym for ‘preference’.
there goes the left, doing violence to the language again!
so, ‘right’ is a synonym for ‘preference’.
there goes the left, doing violence to the language again!
cleek,
The right to pursue life without the constant interference of the federal government has lots of symptoms. They are not “preferences” they are places where the federal government has no right to be in the first place. That makes them rights by extension.
cleek,
The right to pursue life without the constant interference of the federal government has lots of symptoms. They are not “preferences” they are places where the federal government has no right to be in the first place. That makes them rights by extension.
cleek,
The right to pursue life without the constant interference of the federal government has lots of symptoms. They are not “preferences” they are places where the federal government has no right to be in the first place. That makes them rights by extension.
What was lacking was that he never gave them a win.
Again, I bring up the matter of The Sequestration.
What was lacking was that he never gave them a win.
Again, I bring up the matter of The Sequestration.
What was lacking was that he never gave them a win.
Again, I bring up the matter of The Sequestration.
What was lacking was that he never gave them a win
i’m struggling to see why this, even if true, would be noteworthy. and the biggest consequence of not winning the Presidency is that it’s going to be very very hard for your party to get ‘wins’.
for example, what ‘wins’ did the Dems get out of W ?
What was lacking was that he never gave them a win
i’m struggling to see why this, even if true, would be noteworthy. and the biggest consequence of not winning the Presidency is that it’s going to be very very hard for your party to get ‘wins’.
for example, what ‘wins’ did the Dems get out of W ?
What was lacking was that he never gave them a win
i’m struggling to see why this, even if true, would be noteworthy. and the biggest consequence of not winning the Presidency is that it’s going to be very very hard for your party to get ‘wins’.
for example, what ‘wins’ did the Dems get out of W ?
Here’s my understanding regarding the stuff you mention.
Depending on who’s counting, the ratio of firearms to people in the US is either a little less than, or a little more than, 1 to 1. The vast majority of US states are have either shall-issue or unrestricted rules for concealed carry. I’m not sure if there are any places in the US anymore where you can’t get a firearm for hunting or to keep in your home for self-defense. Maybe they exist, if so they are damned rare.
If I’m not mistaken, 18 states prohibit abortions after some measure of viability, usually around 22 weeks. Per the Hyde Amendment, federal money can only be used for abortions in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life or health of the mother. Many states follow the same prohibition.
You can donate to any candidate you want. Full stop.
Whether you can send your kids to any school you want, or not, is not a federal issue as far as I can tell.
If that’s your list of heinous violations of your god-given rights, I have to say I’m not seeing what the freaking problem is.
Lastly, if you are thinking conservatives are any less interested in restricting what folks can or can’t do, you are mistaken. Seriously so.
Here’s my understanding regarding the stuff you mention.
Depending on who’s counting, the ratio of firearms to people in the US is either a little less than, or a little more than, 1 to 1. The vast majority of US states are have either shall-issue or unrestricted rules for concealed carry. I’m not sure if there are any places in the US anymore where you can’t get a firearm for hunting or to keep in your home for self-defense. Maybe they exist, if so they are damned rare.
If I’m not mistaken, 18 states prohibit abortions after some measure of viability, usually around 22 weeks. Per the Hyde Amendment, federal money can only be used for abortions in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life or health of the mother. Many states follow the same prohibition.
You can donate to any candidate you want. Full stop.
Whether you can send your kids to any school you want, or not, is not a federal issue as far as I can tell.
If that’s your list of heinous violations of your god-given rights, I have to say I’m not seeing what the freaking problem is.
Lastly, if you are thinking conservatives are any less interested in restricting what folks can or can’t do, you are mistaken. Seriously so.
Here’s my understanding regarding the stuff you mention.
Depending on who’s counting, the ratio of firearms to people in the US is either a little less than, or a little more than, 1 to 1. The vast majority of US states are have either shall-issue or unrestricted rules for concealed carry. I’m not sure if there are any places in the US anymore where you can’t get a firearm for hunting or to keep in your home for self-defense. Maybe they exist, if so they are damned rare.
If I’m not mistaken, 18 states prohibit abortions after some measure of viability, usually around 22 weeks. Per the Hyde Amendment, federal money can only be used for abortions in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life or health of the mother. Many states follow the same prohibition.
You can donate to any candidate you want. Full stop.
Whether you can send your kids to any school you want, or not, is not a federal issue as far as I can tell.
If that’s your list of heinous violations of your god-given rights, I have to say I’m not seeing what the freaking problem is.
Lastly, if you are thinking conservatives are any less interested in restricting what folks can or can’t do, you are mistaken. Seriously so.
oops, missed one.
At present, I believe there are 26 states with right-to-work policies.
I have to ask, what the hell are you on about? I’m just not getting it.
oops, missed one.
At present, I believe there are 26 states with right-to-work policies.
I have to ask, what the hell are you on about? I’m just not getting it.
oops, missed one.
At present, I believe there are 26 states with right-to-work policies.
I have to ask, what the hell are you on about? I’m just not getting it.
Russell, I was asked what rights I would expect to lose with a liberal court. If zI didn’t have them today they would be hard to lose. Thanks for the summary.
Russell, I was asked what rights I would expect to lose with a liberal court. If zI didn’t have them today they would be hard to lose. Thanks for the summary.
Russell, I was asked what rights I would expect to lose with a liberal court. If zI didn’t have them today they would be hard to lose. Thanks for the summary.
The right to pursue life without the constant interference of the federal government has lots of symptoms.
What I want to point out, again, is that what you are construing as ‘the constant interference of the federal government’ is basically ‘the constant need to account for what other people who also live in the same country want’.
The reason there is any interest in placing limits on the ownership or use of firearms is because *a lot of people want there to be*.
The reason there is any interest in abortions being legal *is because a lot of people want them to be*.
Lather rinse and repeat for every point in your list.
For every single one of your points, your having your way will impinge negatively on the lives of folks who have other interests and preferences.
It’s unfortunate that we can’t all have everything we want, but we can’t.
The right to pursue life without the constant interference of the federal government has lots of symptoms.
What I want to point out, again, is that what you are construing as ‘the constant interference of the federal government’ is basically ‘the constant need to account for what other people who also live in the same country want’.
The reason there is any interest in placing limits on the ownership or use of firearms is because *a lot of people want there to be*.
The reason there is any interest in abortions being legal *is because a lot of people want them to be*.
Lather rinse and repeat for every point in your list.
For every single one of your points, your having your way will impinge negatively on the lives of folks who have other interests and preferences.
It’s unfortunate that we can’t all have everything we want, but we can’t.
The right to pursue life without the constant interference of the federal government has lots of symptoms.
What I want to point out, again, is that what you are construing as ‘the constant interference of the federal government’ is basically ‘the constant need to account for what other people who also live in the same country want’.
The reason there is any interest in placing limits on the ownership or use of firearms is because *a lot of people want there to be*.
The reason there is any interest in abortions being legal *is because a lot of people want them to be*.
Lather rinse and repeat for every point in your list.
For every single one of your points, your having your way will impinge negatively on the lives of folks who have other interests and preferences.
It’s unfortunate that we can’t all have everything we want, but we can’t.
“That makes them rights by extension.”
Scalia may have just done his first in-grave rollover.
IF the rights are extended to their citizens via State Constitutions, under your formulation, but maybe they are not.
Then where does your “right” reside?
That you, for example, want the right to not educate your children under Common Core may be made moot by your state’s Board of Education decision to mandate Common Core statewide, as Jeb Bush would like to do.
What will you do, take it to the Supreme Court and expect Scalia and company to sniff out the Founders’ intentions regarding Common Core in the Constitution.
They won’t take the case.
And, why only partial birth abortions? How bout all abortions, as might be other people’s preference?
“The right to pursue life without the constant interference of the federal government has lots of symptoms.”
Infections, for one:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/michigan-catholic-hospital-women-miscarriage-abortion-mercy-health-partners
The right to bear arms?
I’ll bet you have some preferences regarding reasonable limitations. Or is this an unlimited wide-open right, everywhere, anytime, by whomever?
“That makes them rights by extension.”
Scalia may have just done his first in-grave rollover.
IF the rights are extended to their citizens via State Constitutions, under your formulation, but maybe they are not.
Then where does your “right” reside?
That you, for example, want the right to not educate your children under Common Core may be made moot by your state’s Board of Education decision to mandate Common Core statewide, as Jeb Bush would like to do.
What will you do, take it to the Supreme Court and expect Scalia and company to sniff out the Founders’ intentions regarding Common Core in the Constitution.
They won’t take the case.
And, why only partial birth abortions? How bout all abortions, as might be other people’s preference?
“The right to pursue life without the constant interference of the federal government has lots of symptoms.”
Infections, for one:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/michigan-catholic-hospital-women-miscarriage-abortion-mercy-health-partners
The right to bear arms?
I’ll bet you have some preferences regarding reasonable limitations. Or is this an unlimited wide-open right, everywhere, anytime, by whomever?
“That makes them rights by extension.”
Scalia may have just done his first in-grave rollover.
IF the rights are extended to their citizens via State Constitutions, under your formulation, but maybe they are not.
Then where does your “right” reside?
That you, for example, want the right to not educate your children under Common Core may be made moot by your state’s Board of Education decision to mandate Common Core statewide, as Jeb Bush would like to do.
What will you do, take it to the Supreme Court and expect Scalia and company to sniff out the Founders’ intentions regarding Common Core in the Constitution.
They won’t take the case.
And, why only partial birth abortions? How bout all abortions, as might be other people’s preference?
“The right to pursue life without the constant interference of the federal government has lots of symptoms.”
Infections, for one:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/michigan-catholic-hospital-women-miscarriage-abortion-mercy-health-partners
The right to bear arms?
I’ll bet you have some preferences regarding reasonable limitations. Or is this an unlimited wide-open right, everywhere, anytime, by whomever?
It’s unfortunate that we can’t all have everything we want, but we can’t.
But what Marty demands are “rights” and what you demand wrt public policy are just insatiable desires to control every aspect of his being for no apparent reason. His insatiable desire to control vital aspects of your your being are, by definition, “freedom” and therefore correct.
I do not find this line of reasoning persuasive.
It’s unfortunate that we can’t all have everything we want, but we can’t.
But what Marty demands are “rights” and what you demand wrt public policy are just insatiable desires to control every aspect of his being for no apparent reason. His insatiable desire to control vital aspects of your your being are, by definition, “freedom” and therefore correct.
I do not find this line of reasoning persuasive.
It’s unfortunate that we can’t all have everything we want, but we can’t.
But what Marty demands are “rights” and what you demand wrt public policy are just insatiable desires to control every aspect of his being for no apparent reason. His insatiable desire to control vital aspects of your your being are, by definition, “freedom” and therefore correct.
I do not find this line of reasoning persuasive.
What I want to point out, again, is that what you are construing as ‘the constant interference of the federal government’ is basically ‘the constant need to account for what other people who also live in the same country want.
You keep saying this like I don’t understand that there is another side. I guess my reaction is WTF? Yes, you have a side, I have a side, I want my elected officials to protect my side. You want the same. The federal government is constrained in the Constitution from imposing things from my side or yours on people in the various states. Your side regularly tries to impose your views on everyone through the federal government. My side tends, not always, to default to the state governments. Thus 26 right to work states and Kasichs failure to bring around Ohio. In your preferred world there would be zero right to work states because your court would outlaw them. My court, the current one, says the states should decide that. My “preference” and yours don’t equally impose our “preferences” on everyone else. We have had a conservative court for a very long time and Roe v Wade is still law, and DOMA is not. My “preferred” court is more fair right down to not throwing out the ACA.
What I want to point out, again, is that what you are construing as ‘the constant interference of the federal government’ is basically ‘the constant need to account for what other people who also live in the same country want.
You keep saying this like I don’t understand that there is another side. I guess my reaction is WTF? Yes, you have a side, I have a side, I want my elected officials to protect my side. You want the same. The federal government is constrained in the Constitution from imposing things from my side or yours on people in the various states. Your side regularly tries to impose your views on everyone through the federal government. My side tends, not always, to default to the state governments. Thus 26 right to work states and Kasichs failure to bring around Ohio. In your preferred world there would be zero right to work states because your court would outlaw them. My court, the current one, says the states should decide that. My “preference” and yours don’t equally impose our “preferences” on everyone else. We have had a conservative court for a very long time and Roe v Wade is still law, and DOMA is not. My “preferred” court is more fair right down to not throwing out the ACA.
What I want to point out, again, is that what you are construing as ‘the constant interference of the federal government’ is basically ‘the constant need to account for what other people who also live in the same country want.
You keep saying this like I don’t understand that there is another side. I guess my reaction is WTF? Yes, you have a side, I have a side, I want my elected officials to protect my side. You want the same. The federal government is constrained in the Constitution from imposing things from my side or yours on people in the various states. Your side regularly tries to impose your views on everyone through the federal government. My side tends, not always, to default to the state governments. Thus 26 right to work states and Kasichs failure to bring around Ohio. In your preferred world there would be zero right to work states because your court would outlaw them. My court, the current one, says the states should decide that. My “preference” and yours don’t equally impose our “preferences” on everyone else. We have had a conservative court for a very long time and Roe v Wade is still law, and DOMA is not. My “preferred” court is more fair right down to not throwing out the ACA.
I was asked what rights I would expect to lose with a liberal court. If zI didn’t have them today they would be hard to lose.
I confess that I don’t follow the Supreme Court in great detail. But perhaps you could enlighten me on which of these rights the Court has heard a case and the liberal minority has come down in favor of restricting them. Those, after all, being the ones that would presumably be “lost.”
I’ll stipulate some of the more ridiculous restrictions on abortion. But beyond that? Specific cases, perhaps?
I was asked what rights I would expect to lose with a liberal court. If zI didn’t have them today they would be hard to lose.
I confess that I don’t follow the Supreme Court in great detail. But perhaps you could enlighten me on which of these rights the Court has heard a case and the liberal minority has come down in favor of restricting them. Those, after all, being the ones that would presumably be “lost.”
I’ll stipulate some of the more ridiculous restrictions on abortion. But beyond that? Specific cases, perhaps?
I was asked what rights I would expect to lose with a liberal court. If zI didn’t have them today they would be hard to lose.
I confess that I don’t follow the Supreme Court in great detail. But perhaps you could enlighten me on which of these rights the Court has heard a case and the liberal minority has come down in favor of restricting them. Those, after all, being the ones that would presumably be “lost.”
I’ll stipulate some of the more ridiculous restrictions on abortion. But beyond that? Specific cases, perhaps?
for example, what ‘wins’ did the Dems get out of W?
Well, the smirking asshole climbed down on privatizing Social Security. Obama would have just rammed (pick Obama policy of your choice) up Boehner’s ass while whispering “elections have consequences” sweetly in his ear.
for example, what ‘wins’ did the Dems get out of W?
Well, the smirking asshole climbed down on privatizing Social Security. Obama would have just rammed (pick Obama policy of your choice) up Boehner’s ass while whispering “elections have consequences” sweetly in his ear.
for example, what ‘wins’ did the Dems get out of W?
Well, the smirking asshole climbed down on privatizing Social Security. Obama would have just rammed (pick Obama policy of your choice) up Boehner’s ass while whispering “elections have consequences” sweetly in his ear.
Your side regularly tries to impose your views on everyone through the federal government. My side tends, not always, to default to the state governments.
Not sure if that holds up, but I’ll concede the feds vs states point for the moment.
What you’re skipping over here is that ‘defaulting’ to the states quite often ends up impinging negatively on the lives of some of the folks who live in those states.
Often in ways that they consider to be violations of their rights, exactly as you see your rights (or ‘rights by extension’) being violated.
Your side regularly tries to impose your views on everyone through the federal government. My side tends, not always, to default to the state governments.
Not sure if that holds up, but I’ll concede the feds vs states point for the moment.
What you’re skipping over here is that ‘defaulting’ to the states quite often ends up impinging negatively on the lives of some of the folks who live in those states.
Often in ways that they consider to be violations of their rights, exactly as you see your rights (or ‘rights by extension’) being violated.
Your side regularly tries to impose your views on everyone through the federal government. My side tends, not always, to default to the state governments.
Not sure if that holds up, but I’ll concede the feds vs states point for the moment.
What you’re skipping over here is that ‘defaulting’ to the states quite often ends up impinging negatively on the lives of some of the folks who live in those states.
Often in ways that they consider to be violations of their rights, exactly as you see your rights (or ‘rights by extension’) being violated.
Thus 26 right to work states and Kasichs failure to bring around Ohio. In your preferred world there would be zero right to work states because your court would outlaw them.
This is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. On what basis would the Court overturn Taft-Hartley (a federal piece of legislation)? Conversely, the conservative SC has gutted the clear and express meaning of the 15th Amendment. But, yeah, liberals just want to ‘force’ their views on everybody.
So when it comes to “overturning” the Constitution, I’d say conservatives win this hands down, starting with the Courts rulings in the first Gilded Age when they basically slipped a crude version social Darwinism into the Law of The Land.
When it comes to judicial activism, conservative courts win hands down. Just LOOK at Scalia’s record for a classic example.
Thus 26 right to work states and Kasichs failure to bring around Ohio. In your preferred world there would be zero right to work states because your court would outlaw them.
This is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. On what basis would the Court overturn Taft-Hartley (a federal piece of legislation)? Conversely, the conservative SC has gutted the clear and express meaning of the 15th Amendment. But, yeah, liberals just want to ‘force’ their views on everybody.
So when it comes to “overturning” the Constitution, I’d say conservatives win this hands down, starting with the Courts rulings in the first Gilded Age when they basically slipped a crude version social Darwinism into the Law of The Land.
When it comes to judicial activism, conservative courts win hands down. Just LOOK at Scalia’s record for a classic example.
Thus 26 right to work states and Kasichs failure to bring around Ohio. In your preferred world there would be zero right to work states because your court would outlaw them.
This is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. On what basis would the Court overturn Taft-Hartley (a federal piece of legislation)? Conversely, the conservative SC has gutted the clear and express meaning of the 15th Amendment. But, yeah, liberals just want to ‘force’ their views on everybody.
So when it comes to “overturning” the Constitution, I’d say conservatives win this hands down, starting with the Courts rulings in the first Gilded Age when they basically slipped a crude version social Darwinism into the Law of The Land.
When it comes to judicial activism, conservative courts win hands down. Just LOOK at Scalia’s record for a classic example.
If Obama get his nominee, abortions will be mandatory … I guess … or something. Restricting my right to restrict other people’s rights is what it sounds like.
If Obama get his nominee, abortions will be mandatory … I guess … or something. Restricting my right to restrict other people’s rights is what it sounds like.
If Obama get his nominee, abortions will be mandatory … I guess … or something. Restricting my right to restrict other people’s rights is what it sounds like.
Then where does your “right” reside?
it’s in a penumbra, somewhere. you need the special glasses.
Then where does your “right” reside?
it’s in a penumbra, somewhere. you need the special glasses.
Then where does your “right” reside?
it’s in a penumbra, somewhere. you need the special glasses.
Who are the judicial activists?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/psst-justice-scalia-you-know-youre-an-activist-judge-too.html?_r=0
My side tends, not always, to default to the state governments.
Like you did in Bush v. Gore? Must have been one of those “not always” moments I guess.
Who are the judicial activists?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/psst-justice-scalia-you-know-youre-an-activist-judge-too.html?_r=0
My side tends, not always, to default to the state governments.
Like you did in Bush v. Gore? Must have been one of those “not always” moments I guess.
Who are the judicial activists?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/psst-justice-scalia-you-know-youre-an-activist-judge-too.html?_r=0
My side tends, not always, to default to the state governments.
Like you did in Bush v. Gore? Must have been one of those “not always” moments I guess.
Right to work states were given sanction in the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. The Democratic majorities after 1964 did not repeal it. The “activist” Warren court issued no ruling overturning it. The Democratic majorities and president of the late 70s, early 90s, and during Obama’s first two years did not repeal it. I am unaware of any pending or potential legal actions that would generate a possible court case that would affect it. Suggesting a 5-4 non-ultra conservative Supreme Court majority would have any impact on right to work states is complete nonsense.
Abortion restrictions are just that, restrictions on other women’s rights (not yours) to choose what to do with their own bodies. That is a hell of a lot more of a personal intrusion by the state than a court ruling barring certain restrictions. You would lose the right for representatives that you vote for and support to create statutes that affect other people’s bodies (they could still attempt to enact a Constitutional amendment). For me, individuals’ personal liberty weighs a ton more than other people’s desire to turn them into incubators against their will.
Right to work states were given sanction in the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. The Democratic majorities after 1964 did not repeal it. The “activist” Warren court issued no ruling overturning it. The Democratic majorities and president of the late 70s, early 90s, and during Obama’s first two years did not repeal it. I am unaware of any pending or potential legal actions that would generate a possible court case that would affect it. Suggesting a 5-4 non-ultra conservative Supreme Court majority would have any impact on right to work states is complete nonsense.
Abortion restrictions are just that, restrictions on other women’s rights (not yours) to choose what to do with their own bodies. That is a hell of a lot more of a personal intrusion by the state than a court ruling barring certain restrictions. You would lose the right for representatives that you vote for and support to create statutes that affect other people’s bodies (they could still attempt to enact a Constitutional amendment). For me, individuals’ personal liberty weighs a ton more than other people’s desire to turn them into incubators against their will.
Right to work states were given sanction in the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. The Democratic majorities after 1964 did not repeal it. The “activist” Warren court issued no ruling overturning it. The Democratic majorities and president of the late 70s, early 90s, and during Obama’s first two years did not repeal it. I am unaware of any pending or potential legal actions that would generate a possible court case that would affect it. Suggesting a 5-4 non-ultra conservative Supreme Court majority would have any impact on right to work states is complete nonsense.
Abortion restrictions are just that, restrictions on other women’s rights (not yours) to choose what to do with their own bodies. That is a hell of a lot more of a personal intrusion by the state than a court ruling barring certain restrictions. You would lose the right for representatives that you vote for and support to create statutes that affect other people’s bodies (they could still attempt to enact a Constitutional amendment). For me, individuals’ personal liberty weighs a ton more than other people’s desire to turn them into incubators against their will.
No bobbyp, we wanted it decided in Texas or Florida or Maine, but the other side wanted it decided by the SCOTUS. And I have to say I laughed out loud at that. Not in a mean way.
No bobbyp, we wanted it decided in Texas or Florida or Maine, but the other side wanted it decided by the SCOTUS. And I have to say I laughed out loud at that. Not in a mean way.
No bobbyp, we wanted it decided in Texas or Florida or Maine, but the other side wanted it decided by the SCOTUS. And I have to say I laughed out loud at that. Not in a mean way.
I don’t agree, Marty. Bush was the petitioner in that case. The Supremes, by 5-4 overturned the Florida SC ruling that had just ordered a statewide recount.
Look it up.
I don’t agree, Marty. Bush was the petitioner in that case. The Supremes, by 5-4 overturned the Florida SC ruling that had just ordered a statewide recount.
Look it up.
I don’t agree, Marty. Bush was the petitioner in that case. The Supremes, by 5-4 overturned the Florida SC ruling that had just ordered a statewide recount.
Look it up.
I know he was the petitioner, but everyone knew it was going to the SC, if the recount hadn’t been ordered then it would have been Gore. It seems a Presidential election is kind of a Federal matter by default, but you are right. It falls into “not always”.
I know he was the petitioner, but everyone knew it was going to the SC, if the recount hadn’t been ordered then it would have been Gore. It seems a Presidential election is kind of a Federal matter by default, but you are right. It falls into “not always”.
I know he was the petitioner, but everyone knew it was going to the SC, if the recount hadn’t been ordered then it would have been Gore. It seems a Presidential election is kind of a Federal matter by default, but you are right. It falls into “not always”.
“it falls into not always”
As do Heller and McDonald.
The expression isn’t ‘not always’; it’s ‘when it suits’. As for both sides.
“it falls into not always”
As do Heller and McDonald.
The expression isn’t ‘not always’; it’s ‘when it suits’. As for both sides.
“it falls into not always”
As do Heller and McDonald.
The expression isn’t ‘not always’; it’s ‘when it suits’. As for both sides.
The right to bear arms, the right to limit partial birth abortions, the right to have a right to work state, the right to not use state money at least to fund abortions, the right to educate children without common core, the right to donate to the candidate of my choice, the right to send my child to whatever school I want.
As others have noted, a lot of these rights are threatened moreso by states than by the Fed. And almost all of these rights are moreso policy preferences with the phrase “right to” prepended. So does this mean I get to go on about conservative tyranny attempting to take away my e.g. right to restrict the purchase and carry of firearms, my right to use state money to pay for single-payer health insurance, my right to return the capital gains tax rate to 28%, or my right to limit political contributions to electoral campaigns? Neat!
The right to bear arms, the right to limit partial birth abortions, the right to have a right to work state, the right to not use state money at least to fund abortions, the right to educate children without common core, the right to donate to the candidate of my choice, the right to send my child to whatever school I want.
As others have noted, a lot of these rights are threatened moreso by states than by the Fed. And almost all of these rights are moreso policy preferences with the phrase “right to” prepended. So does this mean I get to go on about conservative tyranny attempting to take away my e.g. right to restrict the purchase and carry of firearms, my right to use state money to pay for single-payer health insurance, my right to return the capital gains tax rate to 28%, or my right to limit political contributions to electoral campaigns? Neat!
The right to bear arms, the right to limit partial birth abortions, the right to have a right to work state, the right to not use state money at least to fund abortions, the right to educate children without common core, the right to donate to the candidate of my choice, the right to send my child to whatever school I want.
As others have noted, a lot of these rights are threatened moreso by states than by the Fed. And almost all of these rights are moreso policy preferences with the phrase “right to” prepended. So does this mean I get to go on about conservative tyranny attempting to take away my e.g. right to restrict the purchase and carry of firearms, my right to use state money to pay for single-payer health insurance, my right to return the capital gains tax rate to 28%, or my right to limit political contributions to electoral campaigns? Neat!
Yes NV absolutely. You can go on about your right to limit my freedom as much as you want. As each of the things you picked specifically limited other peoples rights. We now have a baseline in each side.
Yes NV absolutely. You can go on about your right to limit my freedom as much as you want. As each of the things you picked specifically limited other peoples rights. We now have a baseline in each side.
Yes NV absolutely. You can go on about your right to limit my freedom as much as you want. As each of the things you picked specifically limited other peoples rights. We now have a baseline in each side.
I must have really missed out on something in English class long ago. Because my understanding of “rights” is that you are allowed to do something, without the government restricting you from doing it.
It is NOT a right if what you want to do is restrict others. It may be a policy preference. It may be a good and noble and praiseworthy policy. But it is not a “right” in any meaningful sense.
Or else the English language has changed seriously while I wasn’t paying attention.
I must have really missed out on something in English class long ago. Because my understanding of “rights” is that you are allowed to do something, without the government restricting you from doing it.
It is NOT a right if what you want to do is restrict others. It may be a policy preference. It may be a good and noble and praiseworthy policy. But it is not a “right” in any meaningful sense.
Or else the English language has changed seriously while I wasn’t paying attention.
I must have really missed out on something in English class long ago. Because my understanding of “rights” is that you are allowed to do something, without the government restricting you from doing it.
It is NOT a right if what you want to do is restrict others. It may be a policy preference. It may be a good and noble and praiseworthy policy. But it is not a “right” in any meaningful sense.
Or else the English language has changed seriously while I wasn’t paying attention.
Put it another way. Do you have a right to do to others the sorts of things that you say the government does not have a right to do to you? And if so, why don’t they have the right to do the same to you?
Put it another way. Do you have a right to do to others the sorts of things that you say the government does not have a right to do to you? And if so, why don’t they have the right to do the same to you?
Put it another way. Do you have a right to do to others the sorts of things that you say the government does not have a right to do to you? And if so, why don’t they have the right to do the same to you?
wj,
There’s English and then there’s Republican. The French say “fromage” when they mean “cheese”; native speakers of Republican say “rights” when they mean “demands”. At least the French have the decency to publish French-English dictionaries.
–TP
wj,
There’s English and then there’s Republican. The French say “fromage” when they mean “cheese”; native speakers of Republican say “rights” when they mean “demands”. At least the French have the decency to publish French-English dictionaries.
–TP
wj,
There’s English and then there’s Republican. The French say “fromage” when they mean “cheese”; native speakers of Republican say “rights” when they mean “demands”. At least the French have the decency to publish French-English dictionaries.
–TP
Yes NV absolutely. You can go on about your right to limit my freedom as much as you want. As each of the things you picked specifically limited other peoples rights. We now have a baseline in each side.
Marty, I chose my examples with your list – and the complaint you predictably leveled at me, and rightly so – firmly in mind. Why? Because I was curious if it’d make you stop and re-examine the degree to which your list consists of a list of policy preferences enshrining your “freedom” to restrict the rights of others. Since you’ve made clear that you understand that the idea is bad, ya might wanna go back over your list of “rights to” with the rights of others in mind. Or if you prefer, what wj said.
Yes NV absolutely. You can go on about your right to limit my freedom as much as you want. As each of the things you picked specifically limited other peoples rights. We now have a baseline in each side.
Marty, I chose my examples with your list – and the complaint you predictably leveled at me, and rightly so – firmly in mind. Why? Because I was curious if it’d make you stop and re-examine the degree to which your list consists of a list of policy preferences enshrining your “freedom” to restrict the rights of others. Since you’ve made clear that you understand that the idea is bad, ya might wanna go back over your list of “rights to” with the rights of others in mind. Or if you prefer, what wj said.
Yes NV absolutely. You can go on about your right to limit my freedom as much as you want. As each of the things you picked specifically limited other peoples rights. We now have a baseline in each side.
Marty, I chose my examples with your list – and the complaint you predictably leveled at me, and rightly so – firmly in mind. Why? Because I was curious if it’d make you stop and re-examine the degree to which your list consists of a list of policy preferences enshrining your “freedom” to restrict the rights of others. Since you’ve made clear that you understand that the idea is bad, ya might wanna go back over your list of “rights to” with the rights of others in mind. Or if you prefer, what wj said.
no nv, as you turned them around they became limitations, mine are lack of limitations. not the same. Well, except for the abortion things, they have limits either way. One is limiting killing people. We used to be for that as a nation.
no nv, as you turned them around they became limitations, mine are lack of limitations. not the same. Well, except for the abortion things, they have limits either way. One is limiting killing people. We used to be for that as a nation.
no nv, as you turned them around they became limitations, mine are lack of limitations. not the same. Well, except for the abortion things, they have limits either way. One is limiting killing people. We used to be for that as a nation.
mine are lack of limitations
The right to bear arms…impinges on my right to safety, my right to life itself. Pretty damned basic.
the right to limit partial birth abortions..ugh, one of those abortion things.
the right to have a right to work state..cramps my freedom to collectively bargain.
the right to not use state money at least to fund abortions…another abortion thing
the right to educate children without common core…not clear to me how this is a federal issue, and by the way, many liberals are not fans of common core.
the right to donate to the candidate of my choice..not sure how this has anything to do with the issue at hand.
the right to send my child to whatever school I want..same as above.
The very essence of conservative ideology is to confer or at least maintain power (or “freedom”) to certain groups to do pretty much as they please. This has traditionally been for the white, the male, the propertied, and the economic well off. That tradition lives.
That is not freedom. It is the tyranny of the Elect.
mine are lack of limitations
The right to bear arms…impinges on my right to safety, my right to life itself. Pretty damned basic.
the right to limit partial birth abortions..ugh, one of those abortion things.
the right to have a right to work state..cramps my freedom to collectively bargain.
the right to not use state money at least to fund abortions…another abortion thing
the right to educate children without common core…not clear to me how this is a federal issue, and by the way, many liberals are not fans of common core.
the right to donate to the candidate of my choice..not sure how this has anything to do with the issue at hand.
the right to send my child to whatever school I want..same as above.
The very essence of conservative ideology is to confer or at least maintain power (or “freedom”) to certain groups to do pretty much as they please. This has traditionally been for the white, the male, the propertied, and the economic well off. That tradition lives.
That is not freedom. It is the tyranny of the Elect.
mine are lack of limitations
The right to bear arms…impinges on my right to safety, my right to life itself. Pretty damned basic.
the right to limit partial birth abortions..ugh, one of those abortion things.
the right to have a right to work state..cramps my freedom to collectively bargain.
the right to not use state money at least to fund abortions…another abortion thing
the right to educate children without common core…not clear to me how this is a federal issue, and by the way, many liberals are not fans of common core.
the right to donate to the candidate of my choice..not sure how this has anything to do with the issue at hand.
the right to send my child to whatever school I want..same as above.
The very essence of conservative ideology is to confer or at least maintain power (or “freedom”) to certain groups to do pretty much as they please. This has traditionally been for the white, the male, the propertied, and the economic well off. That tradition lives.
That is not freedom. It is the tyranny of the Elect.
One is limiting killing people. We used to be for that as a nation.
Except that you assume your conclusion. In reality, the abortion debate is about this: at what point do we have a person? Put another way, at what point does a soul join a body (or collection of cells)?
To bracket the end-points. Nobody (that I have heard of) is arguing that failing to fertilize every egg is “killing a person.” And even though we have the technology to clone a person from a single cell, killing a cell isn’t considered “killing a person” either. On the other end, nobody (in the US anyway) is arguing that we don’t have a person once a baby is born.**
In between, in current culture, there are lots of different views a person exists. But the critical feature of all of them is that they are opinions.
Pretty much everybody has one (it being a prominent issue). But there is no way to determine which one is correct. All we can do is create a legal definition for our society.
That legal definition will necessarily be one which leaves those whose opinion is significantly different extremely unhappy. But there really isn’t anyway around that. Especially since many of those holding opinions appear to be basing them on “my group vs their group” tribalism, rather than any specific thought on the subject at hand.
** Note that even that is not a historical absolute. There was a time (in the Middle Ages, if memory serves) when European culture held that a baby didn’t become a person until several days after it was born. At other times, definitions included “quickening” — i.e. the time at which you could feel the baby kick.
One is limiting killing people. We used to be for that as a nation.
Except that you assume your conclusion. In reality, the abortion debate is about this: at what point do we have a person? Put another way, at what point does a soul join a body (or collection of cells)?
To bracket the end-points. Nobody (that I have heard of) is arguing that failing to fertilize every egg is “killing a person.” And even though we have the technology to clone a person from a single cell, killing a cell isn’t considered “killing a person” either. On the other end, nobody (in the US anyway) is arguing that we don’t have a person once a baby is born.**
In between, in current culture, there are lots of different views a person exists. But the critical feature of all of them is that they are opinions.
Pretty much everybody has one (it being a prominent issue). But there is no way to determine which one is correct. All we can do is create a legal definition for our society.
That legal definition will necessarily be one which leaves those whose opinion is significantly different extremely unhappy. But there really isn’t anyway around that. Especially since many of those holding opinions appear to be basing them on “my group vs their group” tribalism, rather than any specific thought on the subject at hand.
** Note that even that is not a historical absolute. There was a time (in the Middle Ages, if memory serves) when European culture held that a baby didn’t become a person until several days after it was born. At other times, definitions included “quickening” — i.e. the time at which you could feel the baby kick.
One is limiting killing people. We used to be for that as a nation.
Except that you assume your conclusion. In reality, the abortion debate is about this: at what point do we have a person? Put another way, at what point does a soul join a body (or collection of cells)?
To bracket the end-points. Nobody (that I have heard of) is arguing that failing to fertilize every egg is “killing a person.” And even though we have the technology to clone a person from a single cell, killing a cell isn’t considered “killing a person” either. On the other end, nobody (in the US anyway) is arguing that we don’t have a person once a baby is born.**
In between, in current culture, there are lots of different views a person exists. But the critical feature of all of them is that they are opinions.
Pretty much everybody has one (it being a prominent issue). But there is no way to determine which one is correct. All we can do is create a legal definition for our society.
That legal definition will necessarily be one which leaves those whose opinion is significantly different extremely unhappy. But there really isn’t anyway around that. Especially since many of those holding opinions appear to be basing them on “my group vs their group” tribalism, rather than any specific thought on the subject at hand.
** Note that even that is not a historical absolute. There was a time (in the Middle Ages, if memory serves) when European culture held that a baby didn’t become a person until several days after it was born. At other times, definitions included “quickening” — i.e. the time at which you could feel the baby kick.
Actually, no, Marty. You’re playing semantic games, and saying yours are “lack[s] of limitations” changes nothing about that.
E.g., “the right to educate children without Common Core” is just saying “I want to restrict the curriculum that can be legally taught in public schools” – please do correct me if I’m mistaken in believing that there’s nothing preventing you from educating children at home or at non-CC schools.
“the right to send my child to whatever school I want” -> “I want to forbid my fellow citizens from using the government to establishing any sort of enrollment criteria (including but not limited to locality, residency, citizenship, etc.) for public schools; I’m cool with citizens doing it for private schools, but taxpayers have to pay for my kids to go to those too”.
“the right to donate to the candidate of my choice” -> “I want to restrict the ability of my fellow citizens to outlaw institutionalized corruption of elections and de facto bribery of elected officials”.
“the right to have a right to work state” -> “I want to use the government to impose restrictions on the range of labor agreements that are permissible between private entities”.
All of those are policy issues, not rights issues, and all of them are about restricting policy implementations you don’t like by allusion to non-existent blanket bans on activities, or in the case of right-to-work, imposing restrictions on contracts between private parties (for the effective purpose of increasing the power of one of the two parties, and to de facto limit workers’ right to organize).
As to your support of forced pregnancy, you at least admit that one is about restricting the rights of others.
Actually, no, Marty. You’re playing semantic games, and saying yours are “lack[s] of limitations” changes nothing about that.
E.g., “the right to educate children without Common Core” is just saying “I want to restrict the curriculum that can be legally taught in public schools” – please do correct me if I’m mistaken in believing that there’s nothing preventing you from educating children at home or at non-CC schools.
“the right to send my child to whatever school I want” -> “I want to forbid my fellow citizens from using the government to establishing any sort of enrollment criteria (including but not limited to locality, residency, citizenship, etc.) for public schools; I’m cool with citizens doing it for private schools, but taxpayers have to pay for my kids to go to those too”.
“the right to donate to the candidate of my choice” -> “I want to restrict the ability of my fellow citizens to outlaw institutionalized corruption of elections and de facto bribery of elected officials”.
“the right to have a right to work state” -> “I want to use the government to impose restrictions on the range of labor agreements that are permissible between private entities”.
All of those are policy issues, not rights issues, and all of them are about restricting policy implementations you don’t like by allusion to non-existent blanket bans on activities, or in the case of right-to-work, imposing restrictions on contracts between private parties (for the effective purpose of increasing the power of one of the two parties, and to de facto limit workers’ right to organize).
As to your support of forced pregnancy, you at least admit that one is about restricting the rights of others.
Actually, no, Marty. You’re playing semantic games, and saying yours are “lack[s] of limitations” changes nothing about that.
E.g., “the right to educate children without Common Core” is just saying “I want to restrict the curriculum that can be legally taught in public schools” – please do correct me if I’m mistaken in believing that there’s nothing preventing you from educating children at home or at non-CC schools.
“the right to send my child to whatever school I want” -> “I want to forbid my fellow citizens from using the government to establishing any sort of enrollment criteria (including but not limited to locality, residency, citizenship, etc.) for public schools; I’m cool with citizens doing it for private schools, but taxpayers have to pay for my kids to go to those too”.
“the right to donate to the candidate of my choice” -> “I want to restrict the ability of my fellow citizens to outlaw institutionalized corruption of elections and de facto bribery of elected officials”.
“the right to have a right to work state” -> “I want to use the government to impose restrictions on the range of labor agreements that are permissible between private entities”.
All of those are policy issues, not rights issues, and all of them are about restricting policy implementations you don’t like by allusion to non-existent blanket bans on activities, or in the case of right-to-work, imposing restrictions on contracts between private parties (for the effective purpose of increasing the power of one of the two parties, and to de facto limit workers’ right to organize).
As to your support of forced pregnancy, you at least admit that one is about restricting the rights of others.
regarding soi-disaster ‘right to work’, priest’s 5:30 is correct.
and not for nothing, but what taft-Hartley does is prohibit a category of contractual agreement between private corporate persons.
how is that a conservative position?
regarding soi-disaster ‘right to work’, priest’s 5:30 is correct.
and not for nothing, but what taft-Hartley does is prohibit a category of contractual agreement between private corporate persons.
how is that a conservative position?
regarding soi-disaster ‘right to work’, priest’s 5:30 is correct.
and not for nothing, but what taft-Hartley does is prohibit a category of contractual agreement between private corporate persons.
how is that a conservative position?
Wow NV, that was pretty contorted. Policy us fine with me if that’s what you want to call it.
Wj, I do assume a baby us viable at 25 weeks, .y twin grandsons are the proof. It’s not a guess they are alive. So sometime before that is killing a person. It’s nit an assumption, its a fact. Saying it isn’t makes you a science denier beyond any climate change denier. Real live people exist. The whole abortion debate isn’t about whether a fetus is alive, it is about the point in time that we as a society confer the right to live and the relative value of that life to the life of the mother in specific circumstances. Di yes it is about weighing rights.
Wow NV, that was pretty contorted. Policy us fine with me if that’s what you want to call it.
Wj, I do assume a baby us viable at 25 weeks, .y twin grandsons are the proof. It’s not a guess they are alive. So sometime before that is killing a person. It’s nit an assumption, its a fact. Saying it isn’t makes you a science denier beyond any climate change denier. Real live people exist. The whole abortion debate isn’t about whether a fetus is alive, it is about the point in time that we as a society confer the right to live and the relative value of that life to the life of the mother in specific circumstances. Di yes it is about weighing rights.
Wow NV, that was pretty contorted. Policy us fine with me if that’s what you want to call it.
Wj, I do assume a baby us viable at 25 weeks, .y twin grandsons are the proof. It’s not a guess they are alive. So sometime before that is killing a person. It’s nit an assumption, its a fact. Saying it isn’t makes you a science denier beyond any climate change denier. Real live people exist. The whole abortion debate isn’t about whether a fetus is alive, it is about the point in time that we as a society confer the right to live and the relative value of that life to the life of the mother in specific circumstances. Di yes it is about weighing rights.
“I do assume a baby us viable at 25 weeks …. So sometime before that is killing a person ..”
Sounds like there is wiggle room. But I assume a baby is viable at 25 weeks as well, with a number of exceptions, including life of the mother, and whether the foetus was conceived via rape, but let’s assume we agree on the basic humanity.
I want to infringe on your rights, Marty, across all 50 states at the national level by guaranteeing fully insured prenatal care to mother and baby and perhaps even some unspecified remuneration as incentive for bringing the baby to term.
Further, I believe in equal rights at par between the baby 25 weeks before term and the post-fetal baby at 25 weeks of age, and why stop there since our very humanity is in the balance, 26 weeks all the way to legal age, let’s say 21, so I would continue fully insured coverage via government subsidy for those souls too.
After that, we let our common humanity lapse, and they can go f*ck themselves, except for pregnant mothers and their pre, and post born children who will be fully covered by government .. ah, can’t bring myself to do that either, everyone must be covered.
When I was growing up .. an upper/middle class white upbringing … but the whispers were that THOSE other people bred like rabbits, while my mother gave birth to five lively wolf puppies, apparently.
Then THOSE people stopped breeding like rabbits because various methods were employed, not to mention the normal drop in birthrates as society’s gross income increased, and now no one likes that either.
So, I would cover the birth and health of rabbits, hare, and bunnies as well under this fully humane government insurance scheme, and make room for choice by fully funding birth control for those who choose to make use of it.
All of these rights herein enumerated will take precedence over the religious preferences of employers, hospitals, doctors, nurses, government clerks, florists, hobbyists, and Randall Terry.
The one right I take away from toddlers, who are otherwise covered medically under my preferences, is they may not touch a gun and shoot their older sister.
So measures will need to be taken in that area aw well, after the hostilities of the coming Civil War subside.
“I do assume a baby us viable at 25 weeks …. So sometime before that is killing a person ..”
Sounds like there is wiggle room. But I assume a baby is viable at 25 weeks as well, with a number of exceptions, including life of the mother, and whether the foetus was conceived via rape, but let’s assume we agree on the basic humanity.
I want to infringe on your rights, Marty, across all 50 states at the national level by guaranteeing fully insured prenatal care to mother and baby and perhaps even some unspecified remuneration as incentive for bringing the baby to term.
Further, I believe in equal rights at par between the baby 25 weeks before term and the post-fetal baby at 25 weeks of age, and why stop there since our very humanity is in the balance, 26 weeks all the way to legal age, let’s say 21, so I would continue fully insured coverage via government subsidy for those souls too.
After that, we let our common humanity lapse, and they can go f*ck themselves, except for pregnant mothers and their pre, and post born children who will be fully covered by government .. ah, can’t bring myself to do that either, everyone must be covered.
When I was growing up .. an upper/middle class white upbringing … but the whispers were that THOSE other people bred like rabbits, while my mother gave birth to five lively wolf puppies, apparently.
Then THOSE people stopped breeding like rabbits because various methods were employed, not to mention the normal drop in birthrates as society’s gross income increased, and now no one likes that either.
So, I would cover the birth and health of rabbits, hare, and bunnies as well under this fully humane government insurance scheme, and make room for choice by fully funding birth control for those who choose to make use of it.
All of these rights herein enumerated will take precedence over the religious preferences of employers, hospitals, doctors, nurses, government clerks, florists, hobbyists, and Randall Terry.
The one right I take away from toddlers, who are otherwise covered medically under my preferences, is they may not touch a gun and shoot their older sister.
So measures will need to be taken in that area aw well, after the hostilities of the coming Civil War subside.
“I do assume a baby us viable at 25 weeks …. So sometime before that is killing a person ..”
Sounds like there is wiggle room. But I assume a baby is viable at 25 weeks as well, with a number of exceptions, including life of the mother, and whether the foetus was conceived via rape, but let’s assume we agree on the basic humanity.
I want to infringe on your rights, Marty, across all 50 states at the national level by guaranteeing fully insured prenatal care to mother and baby and perhaps even some unspecified remuneration as incentive for bringing the baby to term.
Further, I believe in equal rights at par between the baby 25 weeks before term and the post-fetal baby at 25 weeks of age, and why stop there since our very humanity is in the balance, 26 weeks all the way to legal age, let’s say 21, so I would continue fully insured coverage via government subsidy for those souls too.
After that, we let our common humanity lapse, and they can go f*ck themselves, except for pregnant mothers and their pre, and post born children who will be fully covered by government .. ah, can’t bring myself to do that either, everyone must be covered.
When I was growing up .. an upper/middle class white upbringing … but the whispers were that THOSE other people bred like rabbits, while my mother gave birth to five lively wolf puppies, apparently.
Then THOSE people stopped breeding like rabbits because various methods were employed, not to mention the normal drop in birthrates as society’s gross income increased, and now no one likes that either.
So, I would cover the birth and health of rabbits, hare, and bunnies as well under this fully humane government insurance scheme, and make room for choice by fully funding birth control for those who choose to make use of it.
All of these rights herein enumerated will take precedence over the religious preferences of employers, hospitals, doctors, nurses, government clerks, florists, hobbyists, and Randall Terry.
The one right I take away from toddlers, who are otherwise covered medically under my preferences, is they may not touch a gun and shoot their older sister.
So measures will need to be taken in that area aw well, after the hostilities of the coming Civil War subside.
Marty, I wasn’t proposing a specific threshold. Just pointing out that opinions differ. For example, at 25 weeks premature it is possible (not certain, but possible) to sustain life. Provided you have access to the necessary technology and can afford to have it used.
So would I be correct in concluding that you want everyone to have such access? (Since otherwise you are, under your criteria, killing a person via neglect?) And you would be willing to provide government funding to assure such access — because otherwise it isn’t going to happen. Even if doing so would require that your taxes go up?
Personally, I would incline rather to a threshold of when it is possible for a baby to survive outside the womb without massive medical intervention. Which would, admittedly, be somewhat later than your criteria. But I could live with either — provided anyone arguing for earlier is willing to pay the price.
Marty, I wasn’t proposing a specific threshold. Just pointing out that opinions differ. For example, at 25 weeks premature it is possible (not certain, but possible) to sustain life. Provided you have access to the necessary technology and can afford to have it used.
So would I be correct in concluding that you want everyone to have such access? (Since otherwise you are, under your criteria, killing a person via neglect?) And you would be willing to provide government funding to assure such access — because otherwise it isn’t going to happen. Even if doing so would require that your taxes go up?
Personally, I would incline rather to a threshold of when it is possible for a baby to survive outside the womb without massive medical intervention. Which would, admittedly, be somewhat later than your criteria. But I could live with either — provided anyone arguing for earlier is willing to pay the price.
Marty, I wasn’t proposing a specific threshold. Just pointing out that opinions differ. For example, at 25 weeks premature it is possible (not certain, but possible) to sustain life. Provided you have access to the necessary technology and can afford to have it used.
So would I be correct in concluding that you want everyone to have such access? (Since otherwise you are, under your criteria, killing a person via neglect?) And you would be willing to provide government funding to assure such access — because otherwise it isn’t going to happen. Even if doing so would require that your taxes go up?
Personally, I would incline rather to a threshold of when it is possible for a baby to survive outside the womb without massive medical intervention. Which would, admittedly, be somewhat later than your criteria. But I could live with either — provided anyone arguing for earlier is willing to pay the price.
[Emphasis added.]
OMG, how did I miss this before? How on Earth, even by the contorted standards offered by your proposed “rights”, is this a matter of limiting a right? Are you actually proposing that there exists a right to have one’s capital gains taxed below 28%?
…which leads into the broader point.
It really wasn’t contorted, particularly your advocacy of “right” to work. As others also pointed out. So yes, in general, policy, not rights, because that’s what you’re talking about even if you willfully misconstrue a desire to enact certain policies as a right to not be “limited” from enjoying the fruits of those policies. Claiming policy preferences that do not involve particular rights do in fact involve rights is a sleazy rhetorical ploy, because it affords you an illegitimate moral high ground from which you can decry those who disagree with you on policy as seeking to limit your rights. This is obviously not an idle charge on my part, as you did precisely this upthread.
So yes, call it policy when it is policy, and call it rights when it is rights. When you claim to have a right to have every policy go your way while denying the same status to policy preferences of those you disagree with, you grossly cheapen the meaning of rights.
[Emphasis added.]
OMG, how did I miss this before? How on Earth, even by the contorted standards offered by your proposed “rights”, is this a matter of limiting a right? Are you actually proposing that there exists a right to have one’s capital gains taxed below 28%?
…which leads into the broader point.
It really wasn’t contorted, particularly your advocacy of “right” to work. As others also pointed out. So yes, in general, policy, not rights, because that’s what you’re talking about even if you willfully misconstrue a desire to enact certain policies as a right to not be “limited” from enjoying the fruits of those policies. Claiming policy preferences that do not involve particular rights do in fact involve rights is a sleazy rhetorical ploy, because it affords you an illegitimate moral high ground from which you can decry those who disagree with you on policy as seeking to limit your rights. This is obviously not an idle charge on my part, as you did precisely this upthread.
So yes, call it policy when it is policy, and call it rights when it is rights. When you claim to have a right to have every policy go your way while denying the same status to policy preferences of those you disagree with, you grossly cheapen the meaning of rights.
[Emphasis added.]
OMG, how did I miss this before? How on Earth, even by the contorted standards offered by your proposed “rights”, is this a matter of limiting a right? Are you actually proposing that there exists a right to have one’s capital gains taxed below 28%?
…which leads into the broader point.
It really wasn’t contorted, particularly your advocacy of “right” to work. As others also pointed out. So yes, in general, policy, not rights, because that’s what you’re talking about even if you willfully misconstrue a desire to enact certain policies as a right to not be “limited” from enjoying the fruits of those policies. Claiming policy preferences that do not involve particular rights do in fact involve rights is a sleazy rhetorical ploy, because it affords you an illegitimate moral high ground from which you can decry those who disagree with you on policy as seeking to limit your rights. This is obviously not an idle charge on my part, as you did precisely this upthread.
So yes, call it policy when it is policy, and call it rights when it is rights. When you claim to have a right to have every policy go your way while denying the same status to policy preferences of those you disagree with, you grossly cheapen the meaning of rights.
So you really like to get to name calling, specifically I stated that my right to live free of federal meddling is specified in the constitution. You asked how that would be effected. I answered that these were the symptoms, or extensions of that right. You threw in the 28%, wasn’t even in my list.
We started with me answering a question about how having a liberal court would negatively effect me, or I thought that was the question. You seem intent on the gotcha..
It is specifically seeking to limit my rights in more than one case. The right to work is an unpopular left wing target that I would expect to end up in front of a liberal court, because everything is fair game for litigation these days. The history is really irrelevant and irritating in that case.
So you really like to get to name calling, specifically I stated that my right to live free of federal meddling is specified in the constitution. You asked how that would be effected. I answered that these were the symptoms, or extensions of that right. You threw in the 28%, wasn’t even in my list.
We started with me answering a question about how having a liberal court would negatively effect me, or I thought that was the question. You seem intent on the gotcha..
It is specifically seeking to limit my rights in more than one case. The right to work is an unpopular left wing target that I would expect to end up in front of a liberal court, because everything is fair game for litigation these days. The history is really irrelevant and irritating in that case.
So you really like to get to name calling, specifically I stated that my right to live free of federal meddling is specified in the constitution. You asked how that would be effected. I answered that these were the symptoms, or extensions of that right. You threw in the 28%, wasn’t even in my list.
We started with me answering a question about how having a liberal court would negatively effect me, or I thought that was the question. You seem intent on the gotcha..
It is specifically seeking to limit my rights in more than one case. The right to work is an unpopular left wing target that I would expect to end up in front of a liberal court, because everything is fair game for litigation these days. The history is really irrelevant and irritating in that case.
there is no ‘right to live free of federal meddling’ specified in the constitution.
there is no ‘right to live free of federal meddling’ specified in the constitution.
there is no ‘right to live free of federal meddling’ specified in the constitution.
Even if we’re talking about rights (though I agree we mostly aren’t), rights aren’t absolute. One person’s exercise of his rights can limit another’s. So what about my right to unionize? Or does Marty’s “right to work” (for whatever compensation capital deems sufficient) simply help me exercise my right to live under a bridge?
Even if we’re talking about rights (though I agree we mostly aren’t), rights aren’t absolute. One person’s exercise of his rights can limit another’s. So what about my right to unionize? Or does Marty’s “right to work” (for whatever compensation capital deems sufficient) simply help me exercise my right to live under a bridge?
Even if we’re talking about rights (though I agree we mostly aren’t), rights aren’t absolute. One person’s exercise of his rights can limit another’s. So what about my right to unionize? Or does Marty’s “right to work” (for whatever compensation capital deems sufficient) simply help me exercise my right to live under a bridge?
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That is very specific russell.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That is very specific russell.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That is very specific russell.
hsh, you can unionize. You should not be able to require me to join a union to have a job. Nor should you be able to make my employer hire only union workers. I have a right to work. Why shouldn’t I is the question.
hsh, you can unionize. You should not be able to require me to join a union to have a job. Nor should you be able to make my employer hire only union workers. I have a right to work. Why shouldn’t I is the question.
hsh, you can unionize. You should not be able to require me to join a union to have a job. Nor should you be able to make my employer hire only union workers. I have a right to work. Why shouldn’t I is the question.
Got to say it for the Founders, they would have cut out mush-mouthed language like “right-to-work” and called a spade a spade — the right to not pay dues for the work a union does on behalf of all employees in a union shop.
Unless one of the Founders was Frank Luntz, which, I guess at this point, he was.
Do I have a right as a shareholder, let’s call it the right-to-sharehold, to make it illegal for corporations in which I own stock to stop using my money to bribe political candidates?
‘”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That is very specific russell.’
No, it’s actually a quite general statement, because the Founders were not much into specifics, leaving those to posterity.
And we have 240 years of legislation vetted by the Supreme Court, to both of our exasperation, as proof of that.
As in don’t touch my Medicare or the Tea Party will start killing.
Got to say it for the Founders, they would have cut out mush-mouthed language like “right-to-work” and called a spade a spade — the right to not pay dues for the work a union does on behalf of all employees in a union shop.
Unless one of the Founders was Frank Luntz, which, I guess at this point, he was.
Do I have a right as a shareholder, let’s call it the right-to-sharehold, to make it illegal for corporations in which I own stock to stop using my money to bribe political candidates?
‘”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That is very specific russell.’
No, it’s actually a quite general statement, because the Founders were not much into specifics, leaving those to posterity.
And we have 240 years of legislation vetted by the Supreme Court, to both of our exasperation, as proof of that.
As in don’t touch my Medicare or the Tea Party will start killing.
Got to say it for the Founders, they would have cut out mush-mouthed language like “right-to-work” and called a spade a spade — the right to not pay dues for the work a union does on behalf of all employees in a union shop.
Unless one of the Founders was Frank Luntz, which, I guess at this point, he was.
Do I have a right as a shareholder, let’s call it the right-to-sharehold, to make it illegal for corporations in which I own stock to stop using my money to bribe political candidates?
‘”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That is very specific russell.’
No, it’s actually a quite general statement, because the Founders were not much into specifics, leaving those to posterity.
And we have 240 years of legislation vetted by the Supreme Court, to both of our exasperation, as proof of that.
As in don’t touch my Medicare or the Tea Party will start killing.
My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
You might be of the opinion that it does, but your opinion would at that point be not well fastened to reality.
My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
You might be of the opinion that it does, but your opinion would at that point be not well fastened to reality.
My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
You might be of the opinion that it does, but your opinion would at that point be not well fastened to reality.
You can’t have the right to bear arms without other people having that right, Slartibartfast, and some of the others aren’t responsible people.
Not that this means you shouldn’t have the right, but there are trade offs.
You can’t have the right to bear arms without other people having that right, Slartibartfast, and some of the others aren’t responsible people.
Not that this means you shouldn’t have the right, but there are trade offs.
You can’t have the right to bear arms without other people having that right, Slartibartfast, and some of the others aren’t responsible people.
Not that this means you shouldn’t have the right, but there are trade offs.
My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
i refer the court to the case of Assertion v Data:
My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
i refer the court to the case of Assertion v Data:
My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
i refer the court to the case of Assertion v Data:
I think my iPad corrected slarti to Slartibartfast. Yes, it did it just now. Must think I’m taking liberties.
I think my iPad corrected slarti to Slartibartfast. Yes, it did it just now. Must think I’m taking liberties.
I think my iPad corrected slarti to Slartibartfast. Yes, it did it just now. Must think I’m taking liberties.
“My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
You might be of the opinion that it does, but your opinion would at that point be not well fastened to reality.”
Prove it.
“My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
You might be of the opinion that it does, but your opinion would at that point be not well fastened to reality.”
Prove it.
“My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
You might be of the opinion that it does, but your opinion would at that point be not well fastened to reality.”
Prove it.
That is very specific russell.
Well, no, actually it is not.
My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
Insofar as this “right” is used in the public sphere of political combat to bludgeon those who would advocate some kind of sane regulations (yes, opinions differ) on the use and distribution of firearms, yes, it does.
That is very specific russell.
Well, no, actually it is not.
My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
Insofar as this “right” is used in the public sphere of political combat to bludgeon those who would advocate some kind of sane regulations (yes, opinions differ) on the use and distribution of firearms, yes, it does.
That is very specific russell.
Well, no, actually it is not.
My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
Insofar as this “right” is used in the public sphere of political combat to bludgeon those who would advocate some kind of sane regulations (yes, opinions differ) on the use and distribution of firearms, yes, it does.
You should not be able to require me to join a union to have a job. Nor should you be able to make my employer hire only union workers. I have a right to work. Why shouldn’t I is the question.
What you really want is a right to work at a unionized job without joining the union. That isn’t the same thing as a right to work. I could say I want the right to work for at least $15/hr and attempt to say it’s the same thing as a simple right to work, even though it’s not.
Unions don’t get to “make” employers do anything. Employers agree to do things in negotiations with unions. Call it a contract, if you will.
If one of the conditions of working at a particular job at a particular place is that you have to join the union, that doesn’t prevent you from working. You can certainly choose not to join the union and forego taking that job, but that would be your choice, not a matter of your right to work.
One of the conditions of my job is that I have to dress appropriately for an office environment. Another is that I can’t use racial slurs against my fellow employees. But maybe I’d prefer to be a slob and a bigot, and I’m actually free to be both of those things – just not at work if I want to keep my job.
Jobs have conditions, one of which may be joining a union.
You should not be able to require me to join a union to have a job. Nor should you be able to make my employer hire only union workers. I have a right to work. Why shouldn’t I is the question.
What you really want is a right to work at a unionized job without joining the union. That isn’t the same thing as a right to work. I could say I want the right to work for at least $15/hr and attempt to say it’s the same thing as a simple right to work, even though it’s not.
Unions don’t get to “make” employers do anything. Employers agree to do things in negotiations with unions. Call it a contract, if you will.
If one of the conditions of working at a particular job at a particular place is that you have to join the union, that doesn’t prevent you from working. You can certainly choose not to join the union and forego taking that job, but that would be your choice, not a matter of your right to work.
One of the conditions of my job is that I have to dress appropriately for an office environment. Another is that I can’t use racial slurs against my fellow employees. But maybe I’d prefer to be a slob and a bigot, and I’m actually free to be both of those things – just not at work if I want to keep my job.
Jobs have conditions, one of which may be joining a union.
You should not be able to require me to join a union to have a job. Nor should you be able to make my employer hire only union workers. I have a right to work. Why shouldn’t I is the question.
What you really want is a right to work at a unionized job without joining the union. That isn’t the same thing as a right to work. I could say I want the right to work for at least $15/hr and attempt to say it’s the same thing as a simple right to work, even though it’s not.
Unions don’t get to “make” employers do anything. Employers agree to do things in negotiations with unions. Call it a contract, if you will.
If one of the conditions of working at a particular job at a particular place is that you have to join the union, that doesn’t prevent you from working. You can certainly choose not to join the union and forego taking that job, but that would be your choice, not a matter of your right to work.
One of the conditions of my job is that I have to dress appropriately for an office environment. Another is that I can’t use racial slurs against my fellow employees. But maybe I’d prefer to be a slob and a bigot, and I’m actually free to be both of those things – just not at work if I want to keep my job.
Jobs have conditions, one of which may be joining a union.
Not my job. You want to take away my Constitutional right; you have to come armed with something more than “prove it”.
Show, at best, that _I_ am at risk as a result of owning firearms.
I assume that risk, just as I assume risks from driving, rock climbing, and curing my own bacon.
Metaphorical bludgeoning does not constitute harm, however much you might feel hurt by the words of others.
Also: we already have sane regulations. You want further sane regulations; you’re going to have to establish they are both effective and not unduly restrictive, and then you’re going to have to put it to a vote. That’s how democracy works.
Not my job. You want to take away my Constitutional right; you have to come armed with something more than “prove it”.
Show, at best, that _I_ am at risk as a result of owning firearms.
I assume that risk, just as I assume risks from driving, rock climbing, and curing my own bacon.
Metaphorical bludgeoning does not constitute harm, however much you might feel hurt by the words of others.
Also: we already have sane regulations. You want further sane regulations; you’re going to have to establish they are both effective and not unduly restrictive, and then you’re going to have to put it to a vote. That’s how democracy works.
Not my job. You want to take away my Constitutional right; you have to come armed with something more than “prove it”.
Show, at best, that _I_ am at risk as a result of owning firearms.
I assume that risk, just as I assume risks from driving, rock climbing, and curing my own bacon.
Metaphorical bludgeoning does not constitute harm, however much you might feel hurt by the words of others.
Also: we already have sane regulations. You want further sane regulations; you’re going to have to establish they are both effective and not unduly restrictive, and then you’re going to have to put it to a vote. That’s how democracy works.
…and then you’re going to have to put it to a vote. That’s how democracy works.
That’s kind of the whole point of this thread now, isn’t it? We won’t all get our way, except in the unlikely scenario that everyone fully agrees on whatever is under consideration. But when, say, Marty has to pay some capital gains rate that he doesn’t like, it’s a super-unfair violation of his rights.
…and then you’re going to have to put it to a vote. That’s how democracy works.
That’s kind of the whole point of this thread now, isn’t it? We won’t all get our way, except in the unlikely scenario that everyone fully agrees on whatever is under consideration. But when, say, Marty has to pay some capital gains rate that he doesn’t like, it’s a super-unfair violation of his rights.
…and then you’re going to have to put it to a vote. That’s how democracy works.
That’s kind of the whole point of this thread now, isn’t it? We won’t all get our way, except in the unlikely scenario that everyone fully agrees on whatever is under consideration. But when, say, Marty has to pay some capital gains rate that he doesn’t like, it’s a super-unfair violation of his rights.
hsh, requiring me to join a union to get a job is limiting my right to work. Everything else is rationalization. I didn’t sign a contract agreeing to be a union member, your agreement should not impact my relationship with the employer.
One more time, your policy preference limits my freedom. Mine does not limit yours.
hsh, requiring me to join a union to get a job is limiting my right to work. Everything else is rationalization. I didn’t sign a contract agreeing to be a union member, your agreement should not impact my relationship with the employer.
One more time, your policy preference limits my freedom. Mine does not limit yours.
hsh, requiring me to join a union to get a job is limiting my right to work. Everything else is rationalization. I didn’t sign a contract agreeing to be a union member, your agreement should not impact my relationship with the employer.
One more time, your policy preference limits my freedom. Mine does not limit yours.
And on the guns thing, I would guess that whatever most of the people on this blog would advocate for as gun-control measures go would have no effect whatsoever on Slartibartfast’s gun ownership. I mean, you might have to fill out a new form or something like that, but you’d still have your gun(s).
But I admit I’m guessing. (Maybe it’s well documented that you’re criminally insane or something.)
And on the guns thing, I would guess that whatever most of the people on this blog would advocate for as gun-control measures go would have no effect whatsoever on Slartibartfast’s gun ownership. I mean, you might have to fill out a new form or something like that, but you’d still have your gun(s).
But I admit I’m guessing. (Maybe it’s well documented that you’re criminally insane or something.)
And on the guns thing, I would guess that whatever most of the people on this blog would advocate for as gun-control measures go would have no effect whatsoever on Slartibartfast’s gun ownership. I mean, you might have to fill out a new form or something like that, but you’d still have your gun(s).
But I admit I’m guessing. (Maybe it’s well documented that you’re criminally insane or something.)
Show, at best, that _I_ am at risk as a result of owning firearms.
did you read that paragraph?
i’ll repeat the final sentence for you:
it doesn’t say “the owner” or “owning”, it says “having a gun in the home”. sharing a roof with a gun is the factor; it’s not about having your name on the receipt.
Show, at best, that _I_ am at risk as a result of owning firearms.
did you read that paragraph?
i’ll repeat the final sentence for you:
it doesn’t say “the owner” or “owning”, it says “having a gun in the home”. sharing a roof with a gun is the factor; it’s not about having your name on the receipt.
Show, at best, that _I_ am at risk as a result of owning firearms.
did you read that paragraph?
i’ll repeat the final sentence for you:
it doesn’t say “the owner” or “owning”, it says “having a gun in the home”. sharing a roof with a gun is the factor; it’s not about having your name on the receipt.
“You want further sane regulations”
Yes, I do.
“you’re going to have to establish they are both effective and not unduly restrictive”
And you get to argue otherwise. But I point out that “unduly” is carrying a lot of weight there.
“… and then you’re going to have to put it to a vote. That’s how democracy works.”
I agree. Let’s put it to a vote. But my efforts are not going to cease simply because others play the “it’s a right” card. The word “militia” cannot be excised from the Amendment, however much those who want unrestricted use and ownership of guns pretend it is not there.
“You want further sane regulations”
Yes, I do.
“you’re going to have to establish they are both effective and not unduly restrictive”
And you get to argue otherwise. But I point out that “unduly” is carrying a lot of weight there.
“… and then you’re going to have to put it to a vote. That’s how democracy works.”
I agree. Let’s put it to a vote. But my efforts are not going to cease simply because others play the “it’s a right” card. The word “militia” cannot be excised from the Amendment, however much those who want unrestricted use and ownership of guns pretend it is not there.
“You want further sane regulations”
Yes, I do.
“you’re going to have to establish they are both effective and not unduly restrictive”
And you get to argue otherwise. But I point out that “unduly” is carrying a lot of weight there.
“… and then you’re going to have to put it to a vote. That’s how democracy works.”
I agree. Let’s put it to a vote. But my efforts are not going to cease simply because others play the “it’s a right” card. The word “militia” cannot be excised from the Amendment, however much those who want unrestricted use and ownership of guns pretend it is not there.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And all the powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution are not.
They are actually pretty broad.
There is no right, whatsoever, for any of us to be free from federal ‘meddling’, which is to say, interference in our lives through laws or regulations.
It would be really helpful for folks to get that idea out of their heads, it is the source of no end of mischief. He added, by way of editorial comment.
You should not be able to require me to join a union to have a job. Nor should you be able to make my employer hire only union workers. I have a right to work
Just to be clear about what we’re talking about:
Right to work laws prohibit union and agency shops. I.e., shops where you either have to join a union within a specified time, or at least pay union dues even if you don’t join the union.
Those work rules are forms of security agreements between the employer (typically a corporation) and the union (also a corporation).
Right to work rules prohibit certain categories of private contractual agreement between two private corporate persons. As such, they are arguably a limitation on liberty, rather than the opposite.
In any case, they do not establish or confer a ‘right to work’. No such right exists. In general, ‘right to work’ arguments are based on First A guarantees of free speech, under the understanding that requiring someone to pay union dues involves them in political speech that they may not agree with.
Nothing to do with a ‘right to work’.
In the absence of right to work laws, there is no requirement that employers and employees work in only union or agency shops. It’s a private contractual agreement between the employer and the union.
Unless I’m missing something, which is possible.
Contrary to your claim, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to work, in a particular trade, for a particular employer. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to work at all.
I’m neither pro nor anti union. They exist because there is a need for them to exist, which is something that should prompt all of us to consider the nature of what working for a living means here in the good old USA.
But it’s useful to be accurate about what we’re talking about.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And all the powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution are not.
They are actually pretty broad.
There is no right, whatsoever, for any of us to be free from federal ‘meddling’, which is to say, interference in our lives through laws or regulations.
It would be really helpful for folks to get that idea out of their heads, it is the source of no end of mischief. He added, by way of editorial comment.
You should not be able to require me to join a union to have a job. Nor should you be able to make my employer hire only union workers. I have a right to work
Just to be clear about what we’re talking about:
Right to work laws prohibit union and agency shops. I.e., shops where you either have to join a union within a specified time, or at least pay union dues even if you don’t join the union.
Those work rules are forms of security agreements between the employer (typically a corporation) and the union (also a corporation).
Right to work rules prohibit certain categories of private contractual agreement between two private corporate persons. As such, they are arguably a limitation on liberty, rather than the opposite.
In any case, they do not establish or confer a ‘right to work’. No such right exists. In general, ‘right to work’ arguments are based on First A guarantees of free speech, under the understanding that requiring someone to pay union dues involves them in political speech that they may not agree with.
Nothing to do with a ‘right to work’.
In the absence of right to work laws, there is no requirement that employers and employees work in only union or agency shops. It’s a private contractual agreement between the employer and the union.
Unless I’m missing something, which is possible.
Contrary to your claim, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to work, in a particular trade, for a particular employer. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to work at all.
I’m neither pro nor anti union. They exist because there is a need for them to exist, which is something that should prompt all of us to consider the nature of what working for a living means here in the good old USA.
But it’s useful to be accurate about what we’re talking about.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And all the powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution are not.
They are actually pretty broad.
There is no right, whatsoever, for any of us to be free from federal ‘meddling’, which is to say, interference in our lives through laws or regulations.
It would be really helpful for folks to get that idea out of their heads, it is the source of no end of mischief. He added, by way of editorial comment.
You should not be able to require me to join a union to have a job. Nor should you be able to make my employer hire only union workers. I have a right to work
Just to be clear about what we’re talking about:
Right to work laws prohibit union and agency shops. I.e., shops where you either have to join a union within a specified time, or at least pay union dues even if you don’t join the union.
Those work rules are forms of security agreements between the employer (typically a corporation) and the union (also a corporation).
Right to work rules prohibit certain categories of private contractual agreement between two private corporate persons. As such, they are arguably a limitation on liberty, rather than the opposite.
In any case, they do not establish or confer a ‘right to work’. No such right exists. In general, ‘right to work’ arguments are based on First A guarantees of free speech, under the understanding that requiring someone to pay union dues involves them in political speech that they may not agree with.
Nothing to do with a ‘right to work’.
In the absence of right to work laws, there is no requirement that employers and employees work in only union or agency shops. It’s a private contractual agreement between the employer and the union.
Unless I’m missing something, which is possible.
Contrary to your claim, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to work, in a particular trade, for a particular employer. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to work at all.
I’m neither pro nor anti union. They exist because there is a need for them to exist, which is something that should prompt all of us to consider the nature of what working for a living means here in the good old USA.
But it’s useful to be accurate about what we’re talking about.
guns aside, let us remember that Scalia was a “>http://www.salon.com/2016/02/18/scalia_was_an_intellectual_phony_can_we_please_stop_calling_him_a_brilliant_jurist/”> judicial hack.
My partisan work is done.
guns aside, let us remember that Scalia was a “>http://www.salon.com/2016/02/18/scalia_was_an_intellectual_phony_can_we_please_stop_calling_him_a_brilliant_jurist/”> judicial hack.
My partisan work is done.
guns aside, let us remember that Scalia was a “>http://www.salon.com/2016/02/18/scalia_was_an_intellectual_phony_can_we_please_stop_calling_him_a_brilliant_jurist/”> judicial hack.
My partisan work is done.
Marty: hsh, requiring me to join a union to get a [particular] job is limiting my right to work.
Either Marty meant to say it as revised above, or Marty totally ignored what hsh wrote at 9:09
–TP
Marty: hsh, requiring me to join a union to get a [particular] job is limiting my right to work.
Either Marty meant to say it as revised above, or Marty totally ignored what hsh wrote at 9:09
–TP
Marty: hsh, requiring me to join a union to get a [particular] job is limiting my right to work.
Either Marty meant to say it as revised above, or Marty totally ignored what hsh wrote at 9:09
–TP
My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
You’re a very responsible guy, slarti. Not everyone is.
There are many jurisdictions in the US where you can carry a firearm in public without having demonstrated that you know how to operate it safely, or that you can even hit what you’re aiming at in the relatively ideal conditions of a gun range.
That creates a risk for all of the people in the vicinity of whoever is carrying the firearm.
I’m not saying folks should not be allowed to carry firearms, I’m simply making the (obvious, to me) observation that when folks do that, it creates some risk of harm for folks around them.
My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
You’re a very responsible guy, slarti. Not everyone is.
There are many jurisdictions in the US where you can carry a firearm in public without having demonstrated that you know how to operate it safely, or that you can even hit what you’re aiming at in the relatively ideal conditions of a gun range.
That creates a risk for all of the people in the vicinity of whoever is carrying the firearm.
I’m not saying folks should not be allowed to carry firearms, I’m simply making the (obvious, to me) observation that when folks do that, it creates some risk of harm for folks around them.
My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
You’re a very responsible guy, slarti. Not everyone is.
There are many jurisdictions in the US where you can carry a firearm in public without having demonstrated that you know how to operate it safely, or that you can even hit what you’re aiming at in the relatively ideal conditions of a gun range.
That creates a risk for all of the people in the vicinity of whoever is carrying the firearm.
I’m not saying folks should not be allowed to carry firearms, I’m simply making the (obvious, to me) observation that when folks do that, it creates some risk of harm for folks around them.
Mine does not limit yours.
Except that it does, because it makes unions virtually powerless to negotiate on behalf of their members. It limits my right to unionize at least as much as unions limit your right to work.
That’s was my point. Rights aren’t absolute. Your rights don’t trump mine. And they may be in conflict, which means one or both of us will have our rights limited to some degree or another.
…your agreement should not impact my relationship with the employer.
Your employer would have some say in what your relationship would be, no? The union can’t force you to join. The employer would be the one putting the condition of union membership on the employee, not the union.
You can choose to accept your employer’s reasonable conditions on your employment or you can choose to find work elsewhere. And there’s nothing unique about union shops in that regard.
I’m not in a union, but there are still conditions placed on my employment. I might not even like some of them. Let’s call them “preferences.” Sometimes you forego them in life. Suck it up.
Mine does not limit yours.
Except that it does, because it makes unions virtually powerless to negotiate on behalf of their members. It limits my right to unionize at least as much as unions limit your right to work.
That’s was my point. Rights aren’t absolute. Your rights don’t trump mine. And they may be in conflict, which means one or both of us will have our rights limited to some degree or another.
…your agreement should not impact my relationship with the employer.
Your employer would have some say in what your relationship would be, no? The union can’t force you to join. The employer would be the one putting the condition of union membership on the employee, not the union.
You can choose to accept your employer’s reasonable conditions on your employment or you can choose to find work elsewhere. And there’s nothing unique about union shops in that regard.
I’m not in a union, but there are still conditions placed on my employment. I might not even like some of them. Let’s call them “preferences.” Sometimes you forego them in life. Suck it up.
Mine does not limit yours.
Except that it does, because it makes unions virtually powerless to negotiate on behalf of their members. It limits my right to unionize at least as much as unions limit your right to work.
That’s was my point. Rights aren’t absolute. Your rights don’t trump mine. And they may be in conflict, which means one or both of us will have our rights limited to some degree or another.
…your agreement should not impact my relationship with the employer.
Your employer would have some say in what your relationship would be, no? The union can’t force you to join. The employer would be the one putting the condition of union membership on the employee, not the union.
You can choose to accept your employer’s reasonable conditions on your employment or you can choose to find work elsewhere. And there’s nothing unique about union shops in that regard.
I’m not in a union, but there are still conditions placed on my employment. I might not even like some of them. Let’s call them “preferences.” Sometimes you forego them in life. Suck it up.
“….or you can choose to find work elsewhere.”
Conservatives use that line all the time when it comes to discussions of “employment at will”, but when a union bargains for such a condition, “poof”…there suddenly are no other jobs.
“….or you can choose to find work elsewhere.”
Conservatives use that line all the time when it comes to discussions of “employment at will”, but when a union bargains for such a condition, “poof”…there suddenly are no other jobs.
“….or you can choose to find work elsewhere.”
Conservatives use that line all the time when it comes to discussions of “employment at will”, but when a union bargains for such a condition, “poof”…there suddenly are no other jobs.
And, really, WRS. I’m discussing rights because Marty is framing everything that way, not because rights are necessarily what’s at issue. But, even if they were, Marty’s case still isn’t all that great AFAIAC.
And, really, WRS. I’m discussing rights because Marty is framing everything that way, not because rights are necessarily what’s at issue. But, even if they were, Marty’s case still isn’t all that great AFAIAC.
And, really, WRS. I’m discussing rights because Marty is framing everything that way, not because rights are necessarily what’s at issue. But, even if they were, Marty’s case still isn’t all that great AFAIAC.
I’m not saying folks should not be allowed to carry firearms, I’m simply making the (obvious, to me) observation that when folks do that, it creates some risk of harm for folks around them.
Precisely the point I was making. Thank you.
I’m not saying folks should not be allowed to carry firearms, I’m simply making the (obvious, to me) observation that when folks do that, it creates some risk of harm for folks around them.
Precisely the point I was making. Thank you.
I’m not saying folks should not be allowed to carry firearms, I’m simply making the (obvious, to me) observation that when folks do that, it creates some risk of harm for folks around them.
Precisely the point I was making. Thank you.
My employer is currently violating my right to work at the same job I now have while making $50k more per year than I now do.
My employer is currently violating my right to work at the same job I now have while making $50k more per year than I now do.
My employer is currently violating my right to work at the same job I now have while making $50k more per year than I now do.
“My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.”
In Slart’s individual case, barring some tragic misfortune, I expect this is true.
In Tamir Rice’s case, the right of babes in toyland to bear (see how imprecise that language is) something that looked like arms while breathing was infringed because apparently it endangered public safety.
Charlton Heston would say that the safety of others would be endangered if those unspecified others infringed his absolute right to bear arms, so there is that.
His absolute right to bear arms, I’m sure, was infringed, I expect by his family, when he was deep into his dementia, but I don’t see anything in the Constitution that permitted that infringement without some immediate chilling and deadening of his hands, unless the word dementia can be somehow penumbraed and/or Dr. Demento was a signee.
If Slart, on the other hand, was sitting at a table at Chili’s I happen to be patronizing or working in as he is bearing any kind of firearm openly — we’ll leave aside concealed carry for this example — then I will receive that provocation in such a way as to sorely press said slarti, an unknown quantity, to endanger my public safety and the cops will have to bring along plenty of chalk to draw body outlines.
I mean, how do I know whether or not he is catching a bite to eat on his way to the nearest college campus to take out some liberal arts students.
You go into a self-defense mode with the information you have, or have not. Call the cops, you say, to handle that? I don’t believe in government regulation, especially from a union shop.
hairshirt wrote: “Another is that I can’t use racial slurs against my fellow employees.”
On the other hand, a sure way to avoid slurs, without depending on troublesome government or private clerks to maintain silly rules, is to keep a loaded automatic weapon in clear sight of all racial provocateurs, and blow them away at the first sign of any disturbance.
The Constitution specifically did not prohibit the firing of weapons where ever and whenever I so choose as a “people”, and I don’t recognize any other jurisdiction, state, local or otherwise, which seeks any further specificity, whether it’s into the air on a city street or into Lee Atwater’s gizzard as he is half through his laundry list of the many ways of using the “N” word without attracting a bullet.
As it is, I choose to forgo the arms, and rely on my bare hands to do similar damage.
I keep them in a safe, handcuffed at all times.
I have to open the safe with my bare feet.
“My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.”
In Slart’s individual case, barring some tragic misfortune, I expect this is true.
In Tamir Rice’s case, the right of babes in toyland to bear (see how imprecise that language is) something that looked like arms while breathing was infringed because apparently it endangered public safety.
Charlton Heston would say that the safety of others would be endangered if those unspecified others infringed his absolute right to bear arms, so there is that.
His absolute right to bear arms, I’m sure, was infringed, I expect by his family, when he was deep into his dementia, but I don’t see anything in the Constitution that permitted that infringement without some immediate chilling and deadening of his hands, unless the word dementia can be somehow penumbraed and/or Dr. Demento was a signee.
If Slart, on the other hand, was sitting at a table at Chili’s I happen to be patronizing or working in as he is bearing any kind of firearm openly — we’ll leave aside concealed carry for this example — then I will receive that provocation in such a way as to sorely press said slarti, an unknown quantity, to endanger my public safety and the cops will have to bring along plenty of chalk to draw body outlines.
I mean, how do I know whether or not he is catching a bite to eat on his way to the nearest college campus to take out some liberal arts students.
You go into a self-defense mode with the information you have, or have not. Call the cops, you say, to handle that? I don’t believe in government regulation, especially from a union shop.
hairshirt wrote: “Another is that I can’t use racial slurs against my fellow employees.”
On the other hand, a sure way to avoid slurs, without depending on troublesome government or private clerks to maintain silly rules, is to keep a loaded automatic weapon in clear sight of all racial provocateurs, and blow them away at the first sign of any disturbance.
The Constitution specifically did not prohibit the firing of weapons where ever and whenever I so choose as a “people”, and I don’t recognize any other jurisdiction, state, local or otherwise, which seeks any further specificity, whether it’s into the air on a city street or into Lee Atwater’s gizzard as he is half through his laundry list of the many ways of using the “N” word without attracting a bullet.
As it is, I choose to forgo the arms, and rely on my bare hands to do similar damage.
I keep them in a safe, handcuffed at all times.
I have to open the safe with my bare feet.
“My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.”
In Slart’s individual case, barring some tragic misfortune, I expect this is true.
In Tamir Rice’s case, the right of babes in toyland to bear (see how imprecise that language is) something that looked like arms while breathing was infringed because apparently it endangered public safety.
Charlton Heston would say that the safety of others would be endangered if those unspecified others infringed his absolute right to bear arms, so there is that.
His absolute right to bear arms, I’m sure, was infringed, I expect by his family, when he was deep into his dementia, but I don’t see anything in the Constitution that permitted that infringement without some immediate chilling and deadening of his hands, unless the word dementia can be somehow penumbraed and/or Dr. Demento was a signee.
If Slart, on the other hand, was sitting at a table at Chili’s I happen to be patronizing or working in as he is bearing any kind of firearm openly — we’ll leave aside concealed carry for this example — then I will receive that provocation in such a way as to sorely press said slarti, an unknown quantity, to endanger my public safety and the cops will have to bring along plenty of chalk to draw body outlines.
I mean, how do I know whether or not he is catching a bite to eat on his way to the nearest college campus to take out some liberal arts students.
You go into a self-defense mode with the information you have, or have not. Call the cops, you say, to handle that? I don’t believe in government regulation, especially from a union shop.
hairshirt wrote: “Another is that I can’t use racial slurs against my fellow employees.”
On the other hand, a sure way to avoid slurs, without depending on troublesome government or private clerks to maintain silly rules, is to keep a loaded automatic weapon in clear sight of all racial provocateurs, and blow them away at the first sign of any disturbance.
The Constitution specifically did not prohibit the firing of weapons where ever and whenever I so choose as a “people”, and I don’t recognize any other jurisdiction, state, local or otherwise, which seeks any further specificity, whether it’s into the air on a city street or into Lee Atwater’s gizzard as he is half through his laundry list of the many ways of using the “N” word without attracting a bullet.
As it is, I choose to forgo the arms, and rely on my bare hands to do similar damage.
I keep them in a safe, handcuffed at all times.
I have to open the safe with my bare feet.
In Slart’s individual case, barring some tragic misfortune, I expect this is true.
as soon as he becomes the sole gun owner in the US, we’ll all be better off.
In Slart’s individual case, barring some tragic misfortune, I expect this is true.
as soon as he becomes the sole gun owner in the US, we’ll all be better off.
In Slart’s individual case, barring some tragic misfortune, I expect this is true.
as soon as he becomes the sole gun owner in the US, we’ll all be better off.
“it doesn’t say “the owner” or “owning”, it says “having a gun in the home”. sharing a roof with a gun is the factor; it’s not about having your name on the receipt.”
Coolio. Two of the guns belong to my wife. These are risks we choose to take; who are you to say we can’t?
I haven’t bothered reading the study because it isn’t relevant for reasons I have just covered, but I suspect that it hasn’t considered that increased violence in the home is correlated with other thing and not causative.
Unless the argument is that guns are inherently evil.
“it doesn’t say “the owner” or “owning”, it says “having a gun in the home”. sharing a roof with a gun is the factor; it’s not about having your name on the receipt.”
Coolio. Two of the guns belong to my wife. These are risks we choose to take; who are you to say we can’t?
I haven’t bothered reading the study because it isn’t relevant for reasons I have just covered, but I suspect that it hasn’t considered that increased violence in the home is correlated with other thing and not causative.
Unless the argument is that guns are inherently evil.
“it doesn’t say “the owner” or “owning”, it says “having a gun in the home”. sharing a roof with a gun is the factor; it’s not about having your name on the receipt.”
Coolio. Two of the guns belong to my wife. These are risks we choose to take; who are you to say we can’t?
I haven’t bothered reading the study because it isn’t relevant for reasons I have just covered, but I suspect that it hasn’t considered that increased violence in the home is correlated with other thing and not causative.
Unless the argument is that guns are inherently evil.
“I’m simply making the (obvious, to me) observation that when folks do that, it creates some risk of harm for folks around them”
Now we’re talking about carry, apparently. I don’t carry, either openly or concealed.
“I’m simply making the (obvious, to me) observation that when folks do that, it creates some risk of harm for folks around them”
Now we’re talking about carry, apparently. I don’t carry, either openly or concealed.
“I’m simply making the (obvious, to me) observation that when folks do that, it creates some risk of harm for folks around them”
Now we’re talking about carry, apparently. I don’t carry, either openly or concealed.
I haven’t bothered reading the study because it isn’t relevant for reasons I have just covered
the ability to summarize without reading seems like a strange superpower.
I haven’t bothered reading the study because it isn’t relevant for reasons I have just covered
the ability to summarize without reading seems like a strange superpower.
I haven’t bothered reading the study because it isn’t relevant for reasons I have just covered
the ability to summarize without reading seems like a strange superpower.
There is presumably a right to seek work, not a right to work.
Those guys who yell “Get a job!” seem to think there is a right to work out there somewhere stipulated in natural law.
They should be kicked in the nuts.
Then they can be denied insurance because the words “preexisting conditions” are not specified in the Constitution.
There is presumably a right to seek work, not a right to work.
Those guys who yell “Get a job!” seem to think there is a right to work out there somewhere stipulated in natural law.
They should be kicked in the nuts.
Then they can be denied insurance because the words “preexisting conditions” are not specified in the Constitution.
There is presumably a right to seek work, not a right to work.
Those guys who yell “Get a job!” seem to think there is a right to work out there somewhere stipulated in natural law.
They should be kicked in the nuts.
Then they can be denied insurance because the words “preexisting conditions” are not specified in the Constitution.
Unless the argument is that guns are inherently evil.
Guns are dangerous, right? There are specific measures required to handle them safely, right? They do enable people to end other people’s lives from some distance by pointing and applying pressure with a finger, don’t they?
Evil or not, and inherent or not, they are effective implements of death. I imagine there is a reason that soldiers and police officers all over the world carry them around, and it’s not just because they look cool.
Without getting into the weeds on whatever policy one might formulate for gun control, can we not pretend that guns aren’t dangerous in the hands of human beings or that somehow responsible gun owners are infallible in their ability to keep guns out of the wrong hands or from being used for undue harm? Can we not pretend that one person’s gun poses no threat whatsoever to anyone else?
(Can we also not pretend that there aren’t several functioning societies of millions of people where far fewer people have guns and far fewer people die from being shot?)
Unless the argument is that guns are inherently evil.
Guns are dangerous, right? There are specific measures required to handle them safely, right? They do enable people to end other people’s lives from some distance by pointing and applying pressure with a finger, don’t they?
Evil or not, and inherent or not, they are effective implements of death. I imagine there is a reason that soldiers and police officers all over the world carry them around, and it’s not just because they look cool.
Without getting into the weeds on whatever policy one might formulate for gun control, can we not pretend that guns aren’t dangerous in the hands of human beings or that somehow responsible gun owners are infallible in their ability to keep guns out of the wrong hands or from being used for undue harm? Can we not pretend that one person’s gun poses no threat whatsoever to anyone else?
(Can we also not pretend that there aren’t several functioning societies of millions of people where far fewer people have guns and far fewer people die from being shot?)
Unless the argument is that guns are inherently evil.
Guns are dangerous, right? There are specific measures required to handle them safely, right? They do enable people to end other people’s lives from some distance by pointing and applying pressure with a finger, don’t they?
Evil or not, and inherent or not, they are effective implements of death. I imagine there is a reason that soldiers and police officers all over the world carry them around, and it’s not just because they look cool.
Without getting into the weeds on whatever policy one might formulate for gun control, can we not pretend that guns aren’t dangerous in the hands of human beings or that somehow responsible gun owners are infallible in their ability to keep guns out of the wrong hands or from being used for undue harm? Can we not pretend that one person’s gun poses no threat whatsoever to anyone else?
(Can we also not pretend that there aren’t several functioning societies of millions of people where far fewer people have guns and far fewer people die from being shot?)
Slarti,
You may find this interesting.
Slarti,
You may find this interesting.
Slarti,
You may find this interesting.
“*I* have rights. *YOU* have ‘privileges'”
Words mean exactly what I want them to mean, no more and no less, also, too.
“*I* have rights. *YOU* have ‘privileges'”
Words mean exactly what I want them to mean, no more and no less, also, too.
“*I* have rights. *YOU* have ‘privileges'”
Words mean exactly what I want them to mean, no more and no less, also, too.
“Now we’re talking about carry, apparently. I don’t carry, either openly or concealed.”
I figured as much.
But given the national movement to equate carrying with bearing, how were we not talking about it?
“but I suspect that it hasn’t considered that increased violence in the home is correlated with other thing and not causative.”
Chekhov disagreed:
“One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it.”
The concept is fleshed out a bit in Memoirs, in which S. Shchukin quotes Chekhov as saying this:
“If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on a wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there.”
“Now we’re talking about carry, apparently. I don’t carry, either openly or concealed.”
I figured as much.
But given the national movement to equate carrying with bearing, how were we not talking about it?
“but I suspect that it hasn’t considered that increased violence in the home is correlated with other thing and not causative.”
Chekhov disagreed:
“One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it.”
The concept is fleshed out a bit in Memoirs, in which S. Shchukin quotes Chekhov as saying this:
“If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on a wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there.”
“Now we’re talking about carry, apparently. I don’t carry, either openly or concealed.”
I figured as much.
But given the national movement to equate carrying with bearing, how were we not talking about it?
“but I suspect that it hasn’t considered that increased violence in the home is correlated with other thing and not causative.”
Chekhov disagreed:
“One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it.”
The concept is fleshed out a bit in Memoirs, in which S. Shchukin quotes Chekhov as saying this:
“If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on a wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there.”
I guess a weapon, an object, but nevertheless created expressly for one purpose, to kill or wound, cannot be said to be evil in itself.
But guns make the carrying out of EVIL intentions much more efficient.
Also killing via stupidity, carelessness, inattention, etc.
Despite Oppenheimer’s regrets about the evil of creating and using nuclear weapons, they are simple objects too.
But if one goes off accidentally somewhere, evil is done.
I guess a weapon, an object, but nevertheless created expressly for one purpose, to kill or wound, cannot be said to be evil in itself.
But guns make the carrying out of EVIL intentions much more efficient.
Also killing via stupidity, carelessness, inattention, etc.
Despite Oppenheimer’s regrets about the evil of creating and using nuclear weapons, they are simple objects too.
But if one goes off accidentally somewhere, evil is done.
I guess a weapon, an object, but nevertheless created expressly for one purpose, to kill or wound, cannot be said to be evil in itself.
But guns make the carrying out of EVIL intentions much more efficient.
Also killing via stupidity, carelessness, inattention, etc.
Despite Oppenheimer’s regrets about the evil of creating and using nuclear weapons, they are simple objects too.
But if one goes off accidentally somewhere, evil is done.
These are risks we choose to take; who are you to say we can’t?
Not me.
Now we’re talking about carry, apparently. I don’t carry, either openly or concealed.
Yes, my point was really directed toward carrying a firearm in public, whether concealed or open.
Your statement – that your personal exercise of your right to own and use firearms creates no real negative risk to anyone else – is not anything I disagree with.
FWIW.
These are risks we choose to take; who are you to say we can’t?
Not me.
Now we’re talking about carry, apparently. I don’t carry, either openly or concealed.
Yes, my point was really directed toward carrying a firearm in public, whether concealed or open.
Your statement – that your personal exercise of your right to own and use firearms creates no real negative risk to anyone else – is not anything I disagree with.
FWIW.
These are risks we choose to take; who are you to say we can’t?
Not me.
Now we’re talking about carry, apparently. I don’t carry, either openly or concealed.
Yes, my point was really directed toward carrying a firearm in public, whether concealed or open.
Your statement – that your personal exercise of your right to own and use firearms creates no real negative risk to anyone else – is not anything I disagree with.
FWIW.
I’ve got an idea for how to square a circle. Marty (and others) want the right to work without having to join (or pay) a union. Russell (and others) want the right to form a union, and to not have “free-riders” getting the benefit of the union’s contract without paying for it. OK, we can do both.
The company does not have to pay non-union employees the same as it does union employees. That gets rid of the free-rider problem.
But the company also does not get to discriminate against, or even ask about, union membership when hiring — they hire first, and only then discover whether they have to pay union wages or not. That prevents emasculating the union.
Of course, it does constrain the right of the company to discriminate . . . . 😉
Note, however, there is one exception — at least there should be IMO. If you want to work for the government, you don’t get to have a union negotiate a contract for you. You get civil service pay, whatever that happens to be, and that’s the end of the story.
The government can pay “prevailing wages” or not. It can impose conditions of employment regardless of whether private employers are doing so. If you can’t live with that, stick to the private sector. (Yes, there are some kinds of jobs which are only available from the government. Almost all of them are salaried positions which do not get union representation even today. So no nothing new.)
I’ve got an idea for how to square a circle. Marty (and others) want the right to work without having to join (or pay) a union. Russell (and others) want the right to form a union, and to not have “free-riders” getting the benefit of the union’s contract without paying for it. OK, we can do both.
The company does not have to pay non-union employees the same as it does union employees. That gets rid of the free-rider problem.
But the company also does not get to discriminate against, or even ask about, union membership when hiring — they hire first, and only then discover whether they have to pay union wages or not. That prevents emasculating the union.
Of course, it does constrain the right of the company to discriminate . . . . 😉
Note, however, there is one exception — at least there should be IMO. If you want to work for the government, you don’t get to have a union negotiate a contract for you. You get civil service pay, whatever that happens to be, and that’s the end of the story.
The government can pay “prevailing wages” or not. It can impose conditions of employment regardless of whether private employers are doing so. If you can’t live with that, stick to the private sector. (Yes, there are some kinds of jobs which are only available from the government. Almost all of them are salaried positions which do not get union representation even today. So no nothing new.)
I’ve got an idea for how to square a circle. Marty (and others) want the right to work without having to join (or pay) a union. Russell (and others) want the right to form a union, and to not have “free-riders” getting the benefit of the union’s contract without paying for it. OK, we can do both.
The company does not have to pay non-union employees the same as it does union employees. That gets rid of the free-rider problem.
But the company also does not get to discriminate against, or even ask about, union membership when hiring — they hire first, and only then discover whether they have to pay union wages or not. That prevents emasculating the union.
Of course, it does constrain the right of the company to discriminate . . . . 😉
Note, however, there is one exception — at least there should be IMO. If you want to work for the government, you don’t get to have a union negotiate a contract for you. You get civil service pay, whatever that happens to be, and that’s the end of the story.
The government can pay “prevailing wages” or not. It can impose conditions of employment regardless of whether private employers are doing so. If you can’t live with that, stick to the private sector. (Yes, there are some kinds of jobs which are only available from the government. Almost all of them are salaried positions which do not get union representation even today. So no nothing new.)
I’ve got a solution to the “open carry” conflict. One which will have zero impact on the right to bear arms. Bring back the codpeice. That is what the open carry folks are actually interested in. So why not cut out the middle man, go with what they really are trying to communicate.
I’ve got a solution to the “open carry” conflict. One which will have zero impact on the right to bear arms. Bring back the codpeice. That is what the open carry folks are actually interested in. So why not cut out the middle man, go with what they really are trying to communicate.
I’ve got a solution to the “open carry” conflict. One which will have zero impact on the right to bear arms. Bring back the codpeice. That is what the open carry folks are actually interested in. So why not cut out the middle man, go with what they really are trying to communicate.
Obama is the root of all devisiveness:
http://juanitajean.com/friday-toons-168/
Obama is the root of all devisiveness:
http://juanitajean.com/friday-toons-168/
Obama is the root of all devisiveness:
http://juanitajean.com/friday-toons-168/
“Bring back the codpiece.”
If you wear it on the outside of your britches, it might be equivalent.
Crotch bulges are prohibited at Hobby Lobby on account of religious sensibilities, unless the bulge is cause by a weapon that can kill a guy.
Then it’s OK.
“Bring back the codpiece.”
If you wear it on the outside of your britches, it might be equivalent.
Crotch bulges are prohibited at Hobby Lobby on account of religious sensibilities, unless the bulge is cause by a weapon that can kill a guy.
Then it’s OK.
“Bring back the codpiece.”
If you wear it on the outside of your britches, it might be equivalent.
Crotch bulges are prohibited at Hobby Lobby on account of religious sensibilities, unless the bulge is cause by a weapon that can kill a guy.
Then it’s OK.
The company does not have to pay non-union employees the same as it does union employees. That gets rid of the free-rider problem.
No. That just exchanges one problem for another. Central to the whole idea of a union-employer collectively bargained agreement is the condition that the union is the SOLE bargaining agent for the employees.
The company does not have to pay non-union employees the same as it does union employees. That gets rid of the free-rider problem.
No. That just exchanges one problem for another. Central to the whole idea of a union-employer collectively bargained agreement is the condition that the union is the SOLE bargaining agent for the employees.
The company does not have to pay non-union employees the same as it does union employees. That gets rid of the free-rider problem.
No. That just exchanges one problem for another. Central to the whole idea of a union-employer collectively bargained agreement is the condition that the union is the SOLE bargaining agent for the employees.
Marty’s preferential right to work has contributed to the decline of wages for the lower and middle classes in recent decades which has caused those groups to go all in for Sanders and Trump as an angry populist backlash.
One result, among many, may be the end of the era of trade relaxation and the the end of open international markets, which will cause enormous currency disruptions, civil discord within countries, and I predict, the heightening of military tensions between countries, most notably between China and the United States, especially under Trump.
I predict in that instance things could go nuclear very quickly.
I’ll be blaming Marty and company for that, not Obama.
Marty’s preferential right to work has contributed to the decline of wages for the lower and middle classes in recent decades which has caused those groups to go all in for Sanders and Trump as an angry populist backlash.
One result, among many, may be the end of the era of trade relaxation and the the end of open international markets, which will cause enormous currency disruptions, civil discord within countries, and I predict, the heightening of military tensions between countries, most notably between China and the United States, especially under Trump.
I predict in that instance things could go nuclear very quickly.
I’ll be blaming Marty and company for that, not Obama.
Marty’s preferential right to work has contributed to the decline of wages for the lower and middle classes in recent decades which has caused those groups to go all in for Sanders and Trump as an angry populist backlash.
One result, among many, may be the end of the era of trade relaxation and the the end of open international markets, which will cause enormous currency disruptions, civil discord within countries, and I predict, the heightening of military tensions between countries, most notably between China and the United States, especially under Trump.
I predict in that instance things could go nuclear very quickly.
I’ll be blaming Marty and company for that, not Obama.
Interesting article on Scalia by Richard Posner here.
(bobbyp prays for a correct html outcome)
Interesting article on Scalia by Richard Posner here.
(bobbyp prays for a correct html outcome)
Interesting article on Scalia by Richard Posner here.
(bobbyp prays for a correct html outcome)
Of course you will.
Of course you will.
Of course you will.
No. That just exchanges one problem for another
See also ‘two tier wage systems’.
No. That just exchanges one problem for another
See also ‘two tier wage systems’.
No. That just exchanges one problem for another
See also ‘two tier wage systems’.
bobbyp and I read the same blogs, it seems.
bobbyp and I read the same blogs, it seems.
bobbyp and I read the same blogs, it seems.
Obviously I am not communicating well, here.
My home belongs to my wife and I. We, together, own all of the guns in the house. Therefore, your point (as I understand it) does not apply. Or maybe I am not understanding you correctly. People who come to visit typically know us well enough to know we have guns. They, like us, are free to calculate their own risks.
As for the study, it doesn’t seem to examine the possibility that people might have firearms in their home not to protect against the odd coyote or execute a wayward rooster, but to protect against violence from outside the home.
So, I am not giving its conclusions all that much weight. Various factors are “controlled for”, purportedly. How does that affect expectations? Does someone in an urban setting where the violence is substantially higher than here have exactly the same risk as I do? I rather doubt that. And if my risk is negligible but twice what it would be if I didn’t have a gun in the house, I don’t care. Cutting that level of risk in half doesn’t get me much.
Obviously I am not communicating well, here.
My home belongs to my wife and I. We, together, own all of the guns in the house. Therefore, your point (as I understand it) does not apply. Or maybe I am not understanding you correctly. People who come to visit typically know us well enough to know we have guns. They, like us, are free to calculate their own risks.
As for the study, it doesn’t seem to examine the possibility that people might have firearms in their home not to protect against the odd coyote or execute a wayward rooster, but to protect against violence from outside the home.
So, I am not giving its conclusions all that much weight. Various factors are “controlled for”, purportedly. How does that affect expectations? Does someone in an urban setting where the violence is substantially higher than here have exactly the same risk as I do? I rather doubt that. And if my risk is negligible but twice what it would be if I didn’t have a gun in the house, I don’t care. Cutting that level of risk in half doesn’t get me much.
Obviously I am not communicating well, here.
My home belongs to my wife and I. We, together, own all of the guns in the house. Therefore, your point (as I understand it) does not apply. Or maybe I am not understanding you correctly. People who come to visit typically know us well enough to know we have guns. They, like us, are free to calculate their own risks.
As for the study, it doesn’t seem to examine the possibility that people might have firearms in their home not to protect against the odd coyote or execute a wayward rooster, but to protect against violence from outside the home.
So, I am not giving its conclusions all that much weight. Various factors are “controlled for”, purportedly. How does that affect expectations? Does someone in an urban setting where the violence is substantially higher than here have exactly the same risk as I do? I rather doubt that. And if my risk is negligible but twice what it would be if I didn’t have a gun in the house, I don’t care. Cutting that level of risk in half doesn’t get me much.
Obviously I am not communicating well, here.
You? Nah. 🙂
Obviously I am not communicating well, here.
You? Nah. 🙂
Obviously I am not communicating well, here.
You? Nah. 🙂
bobbyp and I read the same blogs, it seems.
and the same links!
bobbyp and I read the same blogs, it seems.
and the same links!
bobbyp and I read the same blogs, it seems.
and the same links!
As far as the Connecticut laws went: somehow they managed to bring down the murder rate in the entire northeastern US by the same amount that it was reduced in Connecticut.
That, right there, is magic. Either that or there’s something ELSE going on that the study doesn’t account for.
This is one of the many reasons I don’t glom onto study results like some others: because there are always things going on that the studies fail to take into account.
As far as the Connecticut laws went: somehow they managed to bring down the murder rate in the entire northeastern US by the same amount that it was reduced in Connecticut.
That, right there, is magic. Either that or there’s something ELSE going on that the study doesn’t account for.
This is one of the many reasons I don’t glom onto study results like some others: because there are always things going on that the studies fail to take into account.
As far as the Connecticut laws went: somehow they managed to bring down the murder rate in the entire northeastern US by the same amount that it was reduced in Connecticut.
That, right there, is magic. Either that or there’s something ELSE going on that the study doesn’t account for.
This is one of the many reasons I don’t glom onto study results like some others: because there are always things going on that the studies fail to take into account.
people might have firearms in their home not to protect against the odd coyote or execute a wayward rooster, but to protect against violence from outside the home.
I’m curious about something. Has anyone done a study on how many cases of violence from outside the home occur (in the same or similar neighborhoods, obviously) in houses with guns vs those without? And when was the last time someone in a suburban (or rural) home used a gun to defend their home (vs. the last time someone in that situation died from such a gun, whether by accident or suicide)?
Seriously. I have no idea what the answers are to those questions. And it seems like something that would actually contribute some data to the discussion.
people might have firearms in their home not to protect against the odd coyote or execute a wayward rooster, but to protect against violence from outside the home.
I’m curious about something. Has anyone done a study on how many cases of violence from outside the home occur (in the same or similar neighborhoods, obviously) in houses with guns vs those without? And when was the last time someone in a suburban (or rural) home used a gun to defend their home (vs. the last time someone in that situation died from such a gun, whether by accident or suicide)?
Seriously. I have no idea what the answers are to those questions. And it seems like something that would actually contribute some data to the discussion.
people might have firearms in their home not to protect against the odd coyote or execute a wayward rooster, but to protect against violence from outside the home.
I’m curious about something. Has anyone done a study on how many cases of violence from outside the home occur (in the same or similar neighborhoods, obviously) in houses with guns vs those without? And when was the last time someone in a suburban (or rural) home used a gun to defend their home (vs. the last time someone in that situation died from such a gun, whether by accident or suicide)?
Seriously. I have no idea what the answers are to those questions. And it seems like something that would actually contribute some data to the discussion.
My home belongs to my wife and I. We, together, own all of the guns in the house. Therefore, your point (as I understand it) does not apply.
the study found that:
They, like us, are free to calculate their own risks.
of course. and having a gun in the house appears to increases the risk of being killed by a gun in your house.
So, I am not giving its conclusions all that much weight.
then how do you calculate the risks ? what’s your methodology ?
My home belongs to my wife and I. We, together, own all of the guns in the house. Therefore, your point (as I understand it) does not apply.
the study found that:
They, like us, are free to calculate their own risks.
of course. and having a gun in the house appears to increases the risk of being killed by a gun in your house.
So, I am not giving its conclusions all that much weight.
then how do you calculate the risks ? what’s your methodology ?
My home belongs to my wife and I. We, together, own all of the guns in the house. Therefore, your point (as I understand it) does not apply.
the study found that:
They, like us, are free to calculate their own risks.
of course. and having a gun in the house appears to increases the risk of being killed by a gun in your house.
So, I am not giving its conclusions all that much weight.
then how do you calculate the risks ? what’s your methodology ?
Some significant amount of the violence from outside the home can be attributed to people who use illegal guns to commit said violence. Where did those illegal guns come from? Is there an illegal-gun factory? (That particular hyphen is particularly important, if you get my meaning.)
Some significant amount of the violence from outside the home can be attributed to people who use illegal guns to commit said violence. Where did those illegal guns come from? Is there an illegal-gun factory? (That particular hyphen is particularly important, if you get my meaning.)
Some significant amount of the violence from outside the home can be attributed to people who use illegal guns to commit said violence. Where did those illegal guns come from? Is there an illegal-gun factory? (That particular hyphen is particularly important, if you get my meaning.)
Slarti,
Could you point to the numbers you refer to?
The newspaper article says,
In the control states, homicide rates tumbled in the mid ’90s — but in Connecticut, the gun homicide rate fell faster and farther, even after controlling for demographic changes, incomes and policing levels. This is a sign that Connecticut’s gun policy was having an effect.
To arrive at a more precise estimate, the researchers tried to predict what Connecticut would have looked like without its “permit-to-purchase” law. Taking data from statistically similar states, they made a “synthetic” Connecticut — a Frankensteinian creation that is mostly Rhode Island, with some Maryland, and traces of California, Nevada and New Hampshire.
Synthetic Connecticut and real Connecticut look the same before 1996. But they diverge soon after Connecticut’s law kicks in. In the end, there is a 40 percent gap between synthetic Connecticut and real Connecticut — between the expected number of gun-related homicides and the actual number of gun-related homicides.
Sounds reasonable to me.
You might also comment on the Missouri experience described.
Slarti,
Could you point to the numbers you refer to?
The newspaper article says,
In the control states, homicide rates tumbled in the mid ’90s — but in Connecticut, the gun homicide rate fell faster and farther, even after controlling for demographic changes, incomes and policing levels. This is a sign that Connecticut’s gun policy was having an effect.
To arrive at a more precise estimate, the researchers tried to predict what Connecticut would have looked like without its “permit-to-purchase” law. Taking data from statistically similar states, they made a “synthetic” Connecticut — a Frankensteinian creation that is mostly Rhode Island, with some Maryland, and traces of California, Nevada and New Hampshire.
Synthetic Connecticut and real Connecticut look the same before 1996. But they diverge soon after Connecticut’s law kicks in. In the end, there is a 40 percent gap between synthetic Connecticut and real Connecticut — between the expected number of gun-related homicides and the actual number of gun-related homicides.
Sounds reasonable to me.
You might also comment on the Missouri experience described.
Slarti,
Could you point to the numbers you refer to?
The newspaper article says,
In the control states, homicide rates tumbled in the mid ’90s — but in Connecticut, the gun homicide rate fell faster and farther, even after controlling for demographic changes, incomes and policing levels. This is a sign that Connecticut’s gun policy was having an effect.
To arrive at a more precise estimate, the researchers tried to predict what Connecticut would have looked like without its “permit-to-purchase” law. Taking data from statistically similar states, they made a “synthetic” Connecticut — a Frankensteinian creation that is mostly Rhode Island, with some Maryland, and traces of California, Nevada and New Hampshire.
Synthetic Connecticut and real Connecticut look the same before 1996. But they diverge soon after Connecticut’s law kicks in. In the end, there is a 40 percent gap between synthetic Connecticut and real Connecticut — between the expected number of gun-related homicides and the actual number of gun-related homicides.
Sounds reasonable to me.
You might also comment on the Missouri experience described.
Bernard, I was referring to data compiled by the US Department of Justice, here. If you look at Appendix Table 13 (Firearms Homicides by Region) you’ll see that Connecticut’s data fell not exactly synchronously with but over a few years equivalently to the Northeast region as a whole.
Bernard, I was referring to data compiled by the US Department of Justice, here. If you look at Appendix Table 13 (Firearms Homicides by Region) you’ll see that Connecticut’s data fell not exactly synchronously with but over a few years equivalently to the Northeast region as a whole.
Bernard, I was referring to data compiled by the US Department of Justice, here. If you look at Appendix Table 13 (Firearms Homicides by Region) you’ll see that Connecticut’s data fell not exactly synchronously with but over a few years equivalently to the Northeast region as a whole.
This is just a case in point of what studies like this really mean. They mean pretty much what the people publishing them want them to mean. Or you could spin a wheel of misfortune and interpret their results semi-randomly.
But with great statistical confidence, most likely.
This is just a case in point of what studies like this really mean. They mean pretty much what the people publishing them want them to mean. Or you could spin a wheel of misfortune and interpret their results semi-randomly.
But with great statistical confidence, most likely.
This is just a case in point of what studies like this really mean. They mean pretty much what the people publishing them want them to mean. Or you could spin a wheel of misfortune and interpret their results semi-randomly.
But with great statistical confidence, most likely.
Huh:
It is generally assumed that the Constitution requires the Senate to vote to confirm the President’s nominees to principal federal offices. This Essay argues, to the contrary, that when the President nominates an individual to a principal executive branch position, the Senate’s failure to act on the nomination within a reasonable period of time can and should be construed as providing the Senate’s tacit or implied advice and consent to the appointment. On this understanding, although the Senate can always withhold its constitutionally required consent by voting against a nominee, the Senate cannot withhold its consent indefinitely through the expedient of failing to vote on the nominee one way or the other. Although this proposal seems radical, and certainly would upset longstanding assumptions, the Essay argues that this reading of the Appointments Clause would not contravene the constitutional text, structure, or history. The Essay further argues that, at least under some circumstances, reading the Constitution to construe Senate inaction as implied consent to an appointment would have desirable consequences in light of deteriorating norms of Senate collegiality and of prompt action on presidential nominations.
Not sure I would endorse this approach, in fact I’m pretty sure I would oppose it, but thought it interesting.
Huh:
It is generally assumed that the Constitution requires the Senate to vote to confirm the President’s nominees to principal federal offices. This Essay argues, to the contrary, that when the President nominates an individual to a principal executive branch position, the Senate’s failure to act on the nomination within a reasonable period of time can and should be construed as providing the Senate’s tacit or implied advice and consent to the appointment. On this understanding, although the Senate can always withhold its constitutionally required consent by voting against a nominee, the Senate cannot withhold its consent indefinitely through the expedient of failing to vote on the nominee one way or the other. Although this proposal seems radical, and certainly would upset longstanding assumptions, the Essay argues that this reading of the Appointments Clause would not contravene the constitutional text, structure, or history. The Essay further argues that, at least under some circumstances, reading the Constitution to construe Senate inaction as implied consent to an appointment would have desirable consequences in light of deteriorating norms of Senate collegiality and of prompt action on presidential nominations.
Not sure I would endorse this approach, in fact I’m pretty sure I would oppose it, but thought it interesting.
Huh:
It is generally assumed that the Constitution requires the Senate to vote to confirm the President’s nominees to principal federal offices. This Essay argues, to the contrary, that when the President nominates an individual to a principal executive branch position, the Senate’s failure to act on the nomination within a reasonable period of time can and should be construed as providing the Senate’s tacit or implied advice and consent to the appointment. On this understanding, although the Senate can always withhold its constitutionally required consent by voting against a nominee, the Senate cannot withhold its consent indefinitely through the expedient of failing to vote on the nominee one way or the other. Although this proposal seems radical, and certainly would upset longstanding assumptions, the Essay argues that this reading of the Appointments Clause would not contravene the constitutional text, structure, or history. The Essay further argues that, at least under some circumstances, reading the Constitution to construe Senate inaction as implied consent to an appointment would have desirable consequences in light of deteriorating norms of Senate collegiality and of prompt action on presidential nominations.
Not sure I would endorse this approach, in fact I’m pretty sure I would oppose it, but thought it interesting.
Connecticut’s decline looks rather steeper to me, slarti.
During the study period it loks like the rate dropped by about 50% there, compared to maybe 30% in the Northeast
Not always easy to tell from a graph as opposed to a table, of course, especially when the figures being compared have some differences in definitions. but the methods used in the study seems sensible enough. These guys didn’t just look at some graphs and publish.
Connecticut’s decline looks rather steeper to me, slarti.
During the study period it loks like the rate dropped by about 50% there, compared to maybe 30% in the Northeast
Not always easy to tell from a graph as opposed to a table, of course, especially when the figures being compared have some differences in definitions. but the methods used in the study seems sensible enough. These guys didn’t just look at some graphs and publish.
Connecticut’s decline looks rather steeper to me, slarti.
During the study period it loks like the rate dropped by about 50% there, compared to maybe 30% in the Northeast
Not always easy to tell from a graph as opposed to a table, of course, especially when the figures being compared have some differences in definitions. but the methods used in the study seems sensible enough. These guys didn’t just look at some graphs and publish.
Here’s how the murders break down, relative to a 1994 baseline:
Year Connecticut Northeast
1994 +4% -15%
1995 -27% -28%
1996 -23% -37%
1997 -40% -44%
1998 -35% -54%
1999 -48% -55%
2000 -52% -52%
All of that is sort of ad-hoc analysis, granted. Baselining the 1993 year as a starting point could have made one of those curves look better than the other. If I had instead chosen 1994, the year before the law took effect, the data would look like this:
Year Connecticut Northeast
1995 -30% -16%
1996 -27% -26%
1997 -42% -34%
1998 -38% -46%
1999 -50% -47%
2000 -54% -44%
It’s clear there was a trend affecting the entire Northeast, and since Connecticut’s murders account for fewer than 10% of those in the region, it’s going to be responsible for some of it, but I rather doubt it’s the prime mover.
Here’s how the murders break down, relative to a 1994 baseline:
Year Connecticut Northeast
1994 +4% -15%
1995 -27% -28%
1996 -23% -37%
1997 -40% -44%
1998 -35% -54%
1999 -48% -55%
2000 -52% -52%
All of that is sort of ad-hoc analysis, granted. Baselining the 1993 year as a starting point could have made one of those curves look better than the other. If I had instead chosen 1994, the year before the law took effect, the data would look like this:
Year Connecticut Northeast
1995 -30% -16%
1996 -27% -26%
1997 -42% -34%
1998 -38% -46%
1999 -50% -47%
2000 -54% -44%
It’s clear there was a trend affecting the entire Northeast, and since Connecticut’s murders account for fewer than 10% of those in the region, it’s going to be responsible for some of it, but I rather doubt it’s the prime mover.
Here’s how the murders break down, relative to a 1994 baseline:
Year Connecticut Northeast
1994 +4% -15%
1995 -27% -28%
1996 -23% -37%
1997 -40% -44%
1998 -35% -54%
1999 -48% -55%
2000 -52% -52%
All of that is sort of ad-hoc analysis, granted. Baselining the 1993 year as a starting point could have made one of those curves look better than the other. If I had instead chosen 1994, the year before the law took effect, the data would look like this:
Year Connecticut Northeast
1995 -30% -16%
1996 -27% -26%
1997 -42% -34%
1998 -38% -46%
1999 -50% -47%
2000 -54% -44%
It’s clear there was a trend affecting the entire Northeast, and since Connecticut’s murders account for fewer than 10% of those in the region, it’s going to be responsible for some of it, but I rather doubt it’s the prime mover.
NYC
NYC
NYC
slarti,
I looked at the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, which report Murder and Non-negligent homicides by region and state.
For 1994-5 go here and scroll to p. 60.
For 1996 go here and scroll to p. 64.
For 2014 go here.
What I see is the following for the rates per 100, 000:
1994
Northeast 7.1
New England 3.9
Connecticut 6.6
1995
Northeast 6.2
New England 3.4
Connecticut 4.6
1996
Northeast 5.4
New England 3.0
Connecticut 4.8
2014
Northeast 4.1
New England 2.5
Connecticut 2.4
The law went into effect in 1995, per the news article, though at what point in the year is not specified.
The CT drop looks much steeper here.
slarti,
I looked at the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, which report Murder and Non-negligent homicides by region and state.
For 1994-5 go here and scroll to p. 60.
For 1996 go here and scroll to p. 64.
For 2014 go here.
What I see is the following for the rates per 100, 000:
1994
Northeast 7.1
New England 3.9
Connecticut 6.6
1995
Northeast 6.2
New England 3.4
Connecticut 4.6
1996
Northeast 5.4
New England 3.0
Connecticut 4.8
2014
Northeast 4.1
New England 2.5
Connecticut 2.4
The law went into effect in 1995, per the news article, though at what point in the year is not specified.
The CT drop looks much steeper here.
slarti,
I looked at the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, which report Murder and Non-negligent homicides by region and state.
For 1994-5 go here and scroll to p. 60.
For 1996 go here and scroll to p. 64.
For 2014 go here.
What I see is the following for the rates per 100, 000:
1994
Northeast 7.1
New England 3.9
Connecticut 6.6
1995
Northeast 6.2
New England 3.4
Connecticut 4.6
1996
Northeast 5.4
New England 3.0
Connecticut 4.8
2014
Northeast 4.1
New England 2.5
Connecticut 2.4
The law went into effect in 1995, per the news article, though at what point in the year is not specified.
The CT drop looks much steeper here.
‘The right to bear arms…impinges on my right to safety’
“My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
You might be of the opinion that it does, but your opinion would at that point be not well fastened to reality.”
He said “the right to bear arms.” You changed the subject to your specific exercise of the right. For the sake of argument I will assume that you are a responsible gun owner whose ownership of a gun produces zero negative externalities. Nevertheless, “the right” (as in, the generalized right) to bear arms does affect safety. Your shining example is nice but really has no bearing on what humanity at large is doing.
‘The right to bear arms…impinges on my right to safety’
“My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
You might be of the opinion that it does, but your opinion would at that point be not well fastened to reality.”
He said “the right to bear arms.” You changed the subject to your specific exercise of the right. For the sake of argument I will assume that you are a responsible gun owner whose ownership of a gun produces zero negative externalities. Nevertheless, “the right” (as in, the generalized right) to bear arms does affect safety. Your shining example is nice but really has no bearing on what humanity at large is doing.
‘The right to bear arms…impinges on my right to safety’
“My right to bear arms doesn’t affect your safety at all, in any negative way.
You might be of the opinion that it does, but your opinion would at that point be not well fastened to reality.”
He said “the right to bear arms.” You changed the subject to your specific exercise of the right. For the sake of argument I will assume that you are a responsible gun owner whose ownership of a gun produces zero negative externalities. Nevertheless, “the right” (as in, the generalized right) to bear arms does affect safety. Your shining example is nice but really has no bearing on what humanity at large is doing.
It is steeper. Connecticut’s homicide rate fell by 63% while that of the Northeast fell by 42%.
The point is that the rest of that area’s homicide rate was falling anyway. How much of Connecticut’s drop was due to its new gun laws? All? None? 30%? Impossible to know?
I think just about any of those is a better guess than making a synthetic Connecticut out of Rhode Island, Maryland, New Hampshire and California and deciding that’s what Connecticut would have looked like. Why New Hampshire and not New York? Why California and not Massachusetts?
Anyway, my choice would be to pick 30%, but that, like everything else, is guesswork. It’d need a lot more research, like whether the state elected to take any additional measures to enacting firearm laws.
In conclusion: my thinking is that the truth in this case is much less simple than triumphalist articles touting the advantages of firearms laws would have us think.
It is steeper. Connecticut’s homicide rate fell by 63% while that of the Northeast fell by 42%.
The point is that the rest of that area’s homicide rate was falling anyway. How much of Connecticut’s drop was due to its new gun laws? All? None? 30%? Impossible to know?
I think just about any of those is a better guess than making a synthetic Connecticut out of Rhode Island, Maryland, New Hampshire and California and deciding that’s what Connecticut would have looked like. Why New Hampshire and not New York? Why California and not Massachusetts?
Anyway, my choice would be to pick 30%, but that, like everything else, is guesswork. It’d need a lot more research, like whether the state elected to take any additional measures to enacting firearm laws.
In conclusion: my thinking is that the truth in this case is much less simple than triumphalist articles touting the advantages of firearms laws would have us think.
It is steeper. Connecticut’s homicide rate fell by 63% while that of the Northeast fell by 42%.
The point is that the rest of that area’s homicide rate was falling anyway. How much of Connecticut’s drop was due to its new gun laws? All? None? 30%? Impossible to know?
I think just about any of those is a better guess than making a synthetic Connecticut out of Rhode Island, Maryland, New Hampshire and California and deciding that’s what Connecticut would have looked like. Why New Hampshire and not New York? Why California and not Massachusetts?
Anyway, my choice would be to pick 30%, but that, like everything else, is guesswork. It’d need a lot more research, like whether the state elected to take any additional measures to enacting firearm laws.
In conclusion: my thinking is that the truth in this case is much less simple than triumphalist articles touting the advantages of firearms laws would have us think.
While you can’t be certain how much of Conencticut’s drop was due to its gun laws, you can get an approximation. Look at each of the other states individually. See what kind of spread you have in their drops. And how far Connecticut is outside that range of variation (if at all).
Granted, you’re looking at a small sample. But you still can use basic statistics to see roughly how likely it is that Connecticut’s experience is merely random variation.
While you can’t be certain how much of Conencticut’s drop was due to its gun laws, you can get an approximation. Look at each of the other states individually. See what kind of spread you have in their drops. And how far Connecticut is outside that range of variation (if at all).
Granted, you’re looking at a small sample. But you still can use basic statistics to see roughly how likely it is that Connecticut’s experience is merely random variation.
While you can’t be certain how much of Conencticut’s drop was due to its gun laws, you can get an approximation. Look at each of the other states individually. See what kind of spread you have in their drops. And how far Connecticut is outside that range of variation (if at all).
Granted, you’re looking at a small sample. But you still can use basic statistics to see roughly how likely it is that Connecticut’s experience is merely random variation.
Simply having a gun in the home increased the risk of a firearm homicide or firearm suicide in the home.
Did you know that simply living in a home with electrical service increases the risk of electrocution?
That simply riding in a car increases the risk of being killed in a car accident?
That simply being around a swimming pool increases the risk of drowning?
So, be warned.
Simply having a gun in the home increased the risk of a firearm homicide or firearm suicide in the home.
Did you know that simply living in a home with electrical service increases the risk of electrocution?
That simply riding in a car increases the risk of being killed in a car accident?
That simply being around a swimming pool increases the risk of drowning?
So, be warned.
Simply having a gun in the home increased the risk of a firearm homicide or firearm suicide in the home.
Did you know that simply living in a home with electrical service increases the risk of electrocution?
That simply riding in a car increases the risk of being killed in a car accident?
That simply being around a swimming pool increases the risk of drowning?
So, be warned.
That’s why there are licensing requirements for electricians and inspections and permits mandated for electrical installations.
That’s why cars must meet specific safety standards and be insured and drivers must be licensed.
That’s why most places require fences around swimming pools and why homeowner’s insurance will adjust the premiums for homes with swimming pools.
That’s why there are licensing requirements for electricians and inspections and permits mandated for electrical installations.
That’s why cars must meet specific safety standards and be insured and drivers must be licensed.
That’s why most places require fences around swimming pools and why homeowner’s insurance will adjust the premiums for homes with swimming pools.
That’s why there are licensing requirements for electricians and inspections and permits mandated for electrical installations.
That’s why cars must meet specific safety standards and be insured and drivers must be licensed.
That’s why most places require fences around swimming pools and why homeowner’s insurance will adjust the premiums for homes with swimming pools.
I also don’t have electricity for the purpose of protecting myself from electrocution, I don’t drive for the purpose of avoiding car accidents, and I wouldn’t have a pool for the purpose of avoiding drowning.
I mean, I do and would take steps to avoid all those risks, but those aren’t the purposes for electricity, driving or pools.
Some people own guns for reasons other than personal protection, of course. But many do own them for that purpose.
I also don’t have electricity for the purpose of protecting myself from electrocution, I don’t drive for the purpose of avoiding car accidents, and I wouldn’t have a pool for the purpose of avoiding drowning.
I mean, I do and would take steps to avoid all those risks, but those aren’t the purposes for electricity, driving or pools.
Some people own guns for reasons other than personal protection, of course. But many do own them for that purpose.
I also don’t have electricity for the purpose of protecting myself from electrocution, I don’t drive for the purpose of avoiding car accidents, and I wouldn’t have a pool for the purpose of avoiding drowning.
I mean, I do and would take steps to avoid all those risks, but those aren’t the purposes for electricity, driving or pools.
Some people own guns for reasons other than personal protection, of course. But many do own them for that purpose.
Did you know that simply living in a home with electrical service increases the risk of electrocution?
indeed it does.
(i’m not arguing against that obvious point, though)
Did you know that simply living in a home with electrical service increases the risk of electrocution?
indeed it does.
(i’m not arguing against that obvious point, though)
Did you know that simply living in a home with electrical service increases the risk of electrocution?
indeed it does.
(i’m not arguing against that obvious point, though)
What are the homicide and suicide rates from home electrical service, riding in a car, and swan dives into the swimming pool?
What are the accidental rates of death or maiming by home electrical/gas service, and drowning in the swimming pool.
Yes, death by automobile accidents are as great or greater than death by gun. I guess we should take comfort in the fact that dying by bullet is at least the single design feature and function of a weapon, whereas death by automobile is a series of unfortunate events having little to do with the design function of a car or truck.
If an alien army invades your town, do they electrocute you by forcing you to stick your fingers in the electrical outlets, do they run you over with their vehicles, or do they march you into the neighbor’s swimming pool and hold your heads under the water? Are they issued home electrical harnesses, swimming pools, and vehicles other than tanks and planes with weapons mounted on them to run everyone over?
When you walk into a Home Depot to buy electrical paraphernalia, does the salesman hand it over and say “this baby will do some damage”? Does your local Volvo dealer hand you keys to the brand new car, wink, and say, “This’ll take out all comers”? When you buy the kid’s wading pool at Jerry’s Water and Sun Fun Dome, does Jerry shake your hand and say “Tell you what, anyone wants to mess with you in your castle, or a bear gets into the garage all you have to do is point and you’ve got yourself a drowned intruder, man or beast.”
When the manufacturers of home electrical wiring sit down to design a safe product, do they try to design something that only electrocutes those who have it coming to them? How bout the car designer and manufacturer? Does he or she picture the vehicle they are designing running over and then backing over — just to be sure — a human being, or a skunk? Does the pool installer stand back and look at his work and think to himself, if someone who deserves to die drowns in this thing, I and my product have done our jobs.
Do any of these three products come with high capacity clips to repeat and increase whatever damage they may have done?
Do any of the three ever think, each of their products are must-have items, but pray you’ll never have to use them for what they are designed for.
When a guy practices turning on and off the lights in his house, is he tuning up for an electrocution of his wife? When a driver at the Daytona 500 practices his laps, is he honing his techniques for running people over? When I’m cleaning out the pool after a rough winter, am I making sure the pool is ready for either accidental or deliberate drownings.
Unless I’m a hunter of wild game or skeet, or an Olympic target shooter, when I’m target shooting, what am I practicing to hit?
Was Tamir Rice gunned down because he was manhandling a toy electrical rig, a toy automobile, or toy swimming pool?
What did the cops use to gun him down? Their tasers? Their squad car? Their kid’s blow up pool toy?
Actually those last two are trick questions.
Tamir Rice would have been shot down if he had been manhandling a package of Skittles.
Anyway, I don’t want to take away MCTX’s weapons, nor Slart’s.
The problem with gun violence, accidental and deliberate by the civilian population in America seems to be a problem inherent to America and Americans.
It’s hopeless.
Since it’s not viewed as tragic, but rather via Jeb Bush’s shrug “Hey, stuff happens”, then the only alternative view is that it is hilarious and everything should be done to increase the death toll so we can fill up the days with laughter.
What are the homicide and suicide rates from home electrical service, riding in a car, and swan dives into the swimming pool?
What are the accidental rates of death or maiming by home electrical/gas service, and drowning in the swimming pool.
Yes, death by automobile accidents are as great or greater than death by gun. I guess we should take comfort in the fact that dying by bullet is at least the single design feature and function of a weapon, whereas death by automobile is a series of unfortunate events having little to do with the design function of a car or truck.
If an alien army invades your town, do they electrocute you by forcing you to stick your fingers in the electrical outlets, do they run you over with their vehicles, or do they march you into the neighbor’s swimming pool and hold your heads under the water? Are they issued home electrical harnesses, swimming pools, and vehicles other than tanks and planes with weapons mounted on them to run everyone over?
When you walk into a Home Depot to buy electrical paraphernalia, does the salesman hand it over and say “this baby will do some damage”? Does your local Volvo dealer hand you keys to the brand new car, wink, and say, “This’ll take out all comers”? When you buy the kid’s wading pool at Jerry’s Water and Sun Fun Dome, does Jerry shake your hand and say “Tell you what, anyone wants to mess with you in your castle, or a bear gets into the garage all you have to do is point and you’ve got yourself a drowned intruder, man or beast.”
When the manufacturers of home electrical wiring sit down to design a safe product, do they try to design something that only electrocutes those who have it coming to them? How bout the car designer and manufacturer? Does he or she picture the vehicle they are designing running over and then backing over — just to be sure — a human being, or a skunk? Does the pool installer stand back and look at his work and think to himself, if someone who deserves to die drowns in this thing, I and my product have done our jobs.
Do any of these three products come with high capacity clips to repeat and increase whatever damage they may have done?
Do any of the three ever think, each of their products are must-have items, but pray you’ll never have to use them for what they are designed for.
When a guy practices turning on and off the lights in his house, is he tuning up for an electrocution of his wife? When a driver at the Daytona 500 practices his laps, is he honing his techniques for running people over? When I’m cleaning out the pool after a rough winter, am I making sure the pool is ready for either accidental or deliberate drownings.
Unless I’m a hunter of wild game or skeet, or an Olympic target shooter, when I’m target shooting, what am I practicing to hit?
Was Tamir Rice gunned down because he was manhandling a toy electrical rig, a toy automobile, or toy swimming pool?
What did the cops use to gun him down? Their tasers? Their squad car? Their kid’s blow up pool toy?
Actually those last two are trick questions.
Tamir Rice would have been shot down if he had been manhandling a package of Skittles.
Anyway, I don’t want to take away MCTX’s weapons, nor Slart’s.
The problem with gun violence, accidental and deliberate by the civilian population in America seems to be a problem inherent to America and Americans.
It’s hopeless.
Since it’s not viewed as tragic, but rather via Jeb Bush’s shrug “Hey, stuff happens”, then the only alternative view is that it is hilarious and everything should be done to increase the death toll so we can fill up the days with laughter.
What are the homicide and suicide rates from home electrical service, riding in a car, and swan dives into the swimming pool?
What are the accidental rates of death or maiming by home electrical/gas service, and drowning in the swimming pool.
Yes, death by automobile accidents are as great or greater than death by gun. I guess we should take comfort in the fact that dying by bullet is at least the single design feature and function of a weapon, whereas death by automobile is a series of unfortunate events having little to do with the design function of a car or truck.
If an alien army invades your town, do they electrocute you by forcing you to stick your fingers in the electrical outlets, do they run you over with their vehicles, or do they march you into the neighbor’s swimming pool and hold your heads under the water? Are they issued home electrical harnesses, swimming pools, and vehicles other than tanks and planes with weapons mounted on them to run everyone over?
When you walk into a Home Depot to buy electrical paraphernalia, does the salesman hand it over and say “this baby will do some damage”? Does your local Volvo dealer hand you keys to the brand new car, wink, and say, “This’ll take out all comers”? When you buy the kid’s wading pool at Jerry’s Water and Sun Fun Dome, does Jerry shake your hand and say “Tell you what, anyone wants to mess with you in your castle, or a bear gets into the garage all you have to do is point and you’ve got yourself a drowned intruder, man or beast.”
When the manufacturers of home electrical wiring sit down to design a safe product, do they try to design something that only electrocutes those who have it coming to them? How bout the car designer and manufacturer? Does he or she picture the vehicle they are designing running over and then backing over — just to be sure — a human being, or a skunk? Does the pool installer stand back and look at his work and think to himself, if someone who deserves to die drowns in this thing, I and my product have done our jobs.
Do any of these three products come with high capacity clips to repeat and increase whatever damage they may have done?
Do any of the three ever think, each of their products are must-have items, but pray you’ll never have to use them for what they are designed for.
When a guy practices turning on and off the lights in his house, is he tuning up for an electrocution of his wife? When a driver at the Daytona 500 practices his laps, is he honing his techniques for running people over? When I’m cleaning out the pool after a rough winter, am I making sure the pool is ready for either accidental or deliberate drownings.
Unless I’m a hunter of wild game or skeet, or an Olympic target shooter, when I’m target shooting, what am I practicing to hit?
Was Tamir Rice gunned down because he was manhandling a toy electrical rig, a toy automobile, or toy swimming pool?
What did the cops use to gun him down? Their tasers? Their squad car? Their kid’s blow up pool toy?
Actually those last two are trick questions.
Tamir Rice would have been shot down if he had been manhandling a package of Skittles.
Anyway, I don’t want to take away MCTX’s weapons, nor Slart’s.
The problem with gun violence, accidental and deliberate by the civilian population in America seems to be a problem inherent to America and Americans.
It’s hopeless.
Since it’s not viewed as tragic, but rather via Jeb Bush’s shrug “Hey, stuff happens”, then the only alternative view is that it is hilarious and everything should be done to increase the death toll so we can fill up the days with laughter.
Anyway, I don’t want to take away MCTX’s weapons, nor Slart’s.
Me, neither. Just dumb arguments (for or against, what, I’m still not sure.)
Anyway, I don’t want to take away MCTX’s weapons, nor Slart’s.
Me, neither. Just dumb arguments (for or against, what, I’m still not sure.)
Anyway, I don’t want to take away MCTX’s weapons, nor Slart’s.
Me, neither. Just dumb arguments (for or against, what, I’m still not sure.)
I will concede that a pistol with the barrel welded shut makes a far superior paperweight to a home electrical system, a Hummer, or an Olympic swimming pool.
I will concede that a pistol with the barrel welded shut makes a far superior paperweight to a home electrical system, a Hummer, or an Olympic swimming pool.
I will concede that a pistol with the barrel welded shut makes a far superior paperweight to a home electrical system, a Hummer, or an Olympic swimming pool.
Did you know that simply living in a home with electrical service increases the risk of electrocution?
I had never thought of it in those terms. Rather these:
1. Less risk of dying due to exposure to extreme weather.
2. Less risk of burning the house down due to reliance on burning coal, oil, or wood.
2a…..and of dying from carbon monoxide poisoning!
3. Being able to comfortably read a book after the sun goes down.
4. Television!
5. Internets!
6. Kitchen appliances!
7. Washing machines!
This, as opposed to the so called psychic comfort of imagining myself as a hero defending hearth and home, the risk of accidentally shooting somebody, or the higher risk of taking my own life.
So if the argument is guns vs. electricity, I will take the electrons (and their associated risks), please.
Thanks.
Did you know that simply living in a home with electrical service increases the risk of electrocution?
I had never thought of it in those terms. Rather these:
1. Less risk of dying due to exposure to extreme weather.
2. Less risk of burning the house down due to reliance on burning coal, oil, or wood.
2a…..and of dying from carbon monoxide poisoning!
3. Being able to comfortably read a book after the sun goes down.
4. Television!
5. Internets!
6. Kitchen appliances!
7. Washing machines!
This, as opposed to the so called psychic comfort of imagining myself as a hero defending hearth and home, the risk of accidentally shooting somebody, or the higher risk of taking my own life.
So if the argument is guns vs. electricity, I will take the electrons (and their associated risks), please.
Thanks.
Did you know that simply living in a home with electrical service increases the risk of electrocution?
I had never thought of it in those terms. Rather these:
1. Less risk of dying due to exposure to extreme weather.
2. Less risk of burning the house down due to reliance on burning coal, oil, or wood.
2a…..and of dying from carbon monoxide poisoning!
3. Being able to comfortably read a book after the sun goes down.
4. Television!
5. Internets!
6. Kitchen appliances!
7. Washing machines!
This, as opposed to the so called psychic comfort of imagining myself as a hero defending hearth and home, the risk of accidentally shooting somebody, or the higher risk of taking my own life.
So if the argument is guns vs. electricity, I will take the electrons (and their associated risks), please.
Thanks.
There are no reports of murdering pigf*cker Ted Nugent, him with the shortened life, appearing on stage with his band or on a right-wing talk show while wielding a residential fuse box, a Jeep, or a large container of water and threatening to murder Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
I spose if he did the local home building code inspectors, Triple-A, and the Mothers Against Toddler Drownings would have had to show up, along with the Secret Service, to caution him to put a sock in it.
There are no reports of murdering pigf*cker Ted Nugent, him with the shortened life, appearing on stage with his band or on a right-wing talk show while wielding a residential fuse box, a Jeep, or a large container of water and threatening to murder Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
I spose if he did the local home building code inspectors, Triple-A, and the Mothers Against Toddler Drownings would have had to show up, along with the Secret Service, to caution him to put a sock in it.
There are no reports of murdering pigf*cker Ted Nugent, him with the shortened life, appearing on stage with his band or on a right-wing talk show while wielding a residential fuse box, a Jeep, or a large container of water and threatening to murder Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
I spose if he did the local home building code inspectors, Triple-A, and the Mothers Against Toddler Drownings would have had to show up, along with the Secret Service, to caution him to put a sock in it.
As I understand it, the most likely candidate for death by firearm is a rural white middle-aged male, who shoots himself to death.
Which leads me to think that the issue of the extraordinarily high rate of death or harm by firearm in the US is a fairly complicated one, and not solely a function of the availability of firearms, in and of itself.
Personally, I’m not sure what the 2nd A means anymore, because the institutions and practices that motivated it no longer exist, and haven’t for a damned long time. It seems kind of like the 3rd A, to me.
I also have pretty much no interest whatsoever in guns. If I think about them at all, they sort of make me nervous, because they’re inherently dangerous, but basically I really just don’t think about them all that much. Other than as carried by a cop, I can’t think of the last time I even saw a gun in real life.
Just not part of my world.
All of that said, if people want to own firearms for hunting, or personal self-defense, or to shoot target, or just because they like guns, it’s basically fine with me. More than that, it doesn’t really matter if it’s fine with me or not, it’s kind of none of my business.
The place where it becomes an issue, in my mind, is when it impinges on other people’s safety. So, if you want to carry a firearm in public, in my mind you should have to demonstrate an extremely high level of competence in the handling and use of the firearm. If you have some kind of history of anger management problems or violence, maybe you don’t get to have a gun. If you can’t remember if the gun is loaded and it goes off while you’re cleaning it and puts a hole in your neighbor’s wall, maybe you don’t get to have a gun. If you handle a firearm in any kind of unsafe way and you actually, or even potentially, cause harm to property or persons, you should probably not have a gun.
Stuff like that.
But if you’re not a palpable knucklehead, and you understand how to properly handle and use the firearm, and you don’t do stuff like leave it on the toilet tank in a public restroom or drop it in a movie theater and shoot somebody in the back, I’m not sure that it’s my business to tell you you can’t have a gun.
My old man kept a shotgun in the house when I was a kid. Members of my family have guns, some of them have pretty good collections. Some of them either live in rural areas, or frequently camp and hike in remote areas, where they not infrequently are within shouting distance of large predators. They have guns, and if they didn’t they ought to go get some.
Everybody doesn’t live the kind of Pleasant Valley Sunday suburban idyll that I do.
The presence of privately owned firearms, especially the number of them that we have in the US, certainly does create certain risks. But there are actually a lot of things that bring risks, that we all live with every day.
It just seems to me that there has to be some reasonable way to address gun ownership and use that addresses the safety concerns without preventing people who are interested in owning firearms from doing so.
In any case, there are something like 300 million of them in private hands now. They aren’t going away. For good or ill.
As I understand it, the most likely candidate for death by firearm is a rural white middle-aged male, who shoots himself to death.
Which leads me to think that the issue of the extraordinarily high rate of death or harm by firearm in the US is a fairly complicated one, and not solely a function of the availability of firearms, in and of itself.
Personally, I’m not sure what the 2nd A means anymore, because the institutions and practices that motivated it no longer exist, and haven’t for a damned long time. It seems kind of like the 3rd A, to me.
I also have pretty much no interest whatsoever in guns. If I think about them at all, they sort of make me nervous, because they’re inherently dangerous, but basically I really just don’t think about them all that much. Other than as carried by a cop, I can’t think of the last time I even saw a gun in real life.
Just not part of my world.
All of that said, if people want to own firearms for hunting, or personal self-defense, or to shoot target, or just because they like guns, it’s basically fine with me. More than that, it doesn’t really matter if it’s fine with me or not, it’s kind of none of my business.
The place where it becomes an issue, in my mind, is when it impinges on other people’s safety. So, if you want to carry a firearm in public, in my mind you should have to demonstrate an extremely high level of competence in the handling and use of the firearm. If you have some kind of history of anger management problems or violence, maybe you don’t get to have a gun. If you can’t remember if the gun is loaded and it goes off while you’re cleaning it and puts a hole in your neighbor’s wall, maybe you don’t get to have a gun. If you handle a firearm in any kind of unsafe way and you actually, or even potentially, cause harm to property or persons, you should probably not have a gun.
Stuff like that.
But if you’re not a palpable knucklehead, and you understand how to properly handle and use the firearm, and you don’t do stuff like leave it on the toilet tank in a public restroom or drop it in a movie theater and shoot somebody in the back, I’m not sure that it’s my business to tell you you can’t have a gun.
My old man kept a shotgun in the house when I was a kid. Members of my family have guns, some of them have pretty good collections. Some of them either live in rural areas, or frequently camp and hike in remote areas, where they not infrequently are within shouting distance of large predators. They have guns, and if they didn’t they ought to go get some.
Everybody doesn’t live the kind of Pleasant Valley Sunday suburban idyll that I do.
The presence of privately owned firearms, especially the number of them that we have in the US, certainly does create certain risks. But there are actually a lot of things that bring risks, that we all live with every day.
It just seems to me that there has to be some reasonable way to address gun ownership and use that addresses the safety concerns without preventing people who are interested in owning firearms from doing so.
In any case, there are something like 300 million of them in private hands now. They aren’t going away. For good or ill.
As I understand it, the most likely candidate for death by firearm is a rural white middle-aged male, who shoots himself to death.
Which leads me to think that the issue of the extraordinarily high rate of death or harm by firearm in the US is a fairly complicated one, and not solely a function of the availability of firearms, in and of itself.
Personally, I’m not sure what the 2nd A means anymore, because the institutions and practices that motivated it no longer exist, and haven’t for a damned long time. It seems kind of like the 3rd A, to me.
I also have pretty much no interest whatsoever in guns. If I think about them at all, they sort of make me nervous, because they’re inherently dangerous, but basically I really just don’t think about them all that much. Other than as carried by a cop, I can’t think of the last time I even saw a gun in real life.
Just not part of my world.
All of that said, if people want to own firearms for hunting, or personal self-defense, or to shoot target, or just because they like guns, it’s basically fine with me. More than that, it doesn’t really matter if it’s fine with me or not, it’s kind of none of my business.
The place where it becomes an issue, in my mind, is when it impinges on other people’s safety. So, if you want to carry a firearm in public, in my mind you should have to demonstrate an extremely high level of competence in the handling and use of the firearm. If you have some kind of history of anger management problems or violence, maybe you don’t get to have a gun. If you can’t remember if the gun is loaded and it goes off while you’re cleaning it and puts a hole in your neighbor’s wall, maybe you don’t get to have a gun. If you handle a firearm in any kind of unsafe way and you actually, or even potentially, cause harm to property or persons, you should probably not have a gun.
Stuff like that.
But if you’re not a palpable knucklehead, and you understand how to properly handle and use the firearm, and you don’t do stuff like leave it on the toilet tank in a public restroom or drop it in a movie theater and shoot somebody in the back, I’m not sure that it’s my business to tell you you can’t have a gun.
My old man kept a shotgun in the house when I was a kid. Members of my family have guns, some of them have pretty good collections. Some of them either live in rural areas, or frequently camp and hike in remote areas, where they not infrequently are within shouting distance of large predators. They have guns, and if they didn’t they ought to go get some.
Everybody doesn’t live the kind of Pleasant Valley Sunday suburban idyll that I do.
The presence of privately owned firearms, especially the number of them that we have in the US, certainly does create certain risks. But there are actually a lot of things that bring risks, that we all live with every day.
It just seems to me that there has to be some reasonable way to address gun ownership and use that addresses the safety concerns without preventing people who are interested in owning firearms from doing so.
In any case, there are something like 300 million of them in private hands now. They aren’t going away. For good or ill.
I guess the only other thing I have to say about the whole gun thing is that I wish folks like the NRA would quit interfering with the CDC’s (and others’) efforts to actually do basic research in firearm death and injury, so that we could have good answers to questions like the ones about the CT study.
A lot of people actually do get shot here, it would be good to find ways to reduce those numbers.
I guess the only other thing I have to say about the whole gun thing is that I wish folks like the NRA would quit interfering with the CDC’s (and others’) efforts to actually do basic research in firearm death and injury, so that we could have good answers to questions like the ones about the CT study.
A lot of people actually do get shot here, it would be good to find ways to reduce those numbers.
I guess the only other thing I have to say about the whole gun thing is that I wish folks like the NRA would quit interfering with the CDC’s (and others’) efforts to actually do basic research in firearm death and injury, so that we could have good answers to questions like the ones about the CT study.
A lot of people actually do get shot here, it would be good to find ways to reduce those numbers.
In any case, there are something like 300 million of them in private hands now. They aren’t going away. For good or ill.
Yes, this seems about right. Gun deaths are down, gun ownership is up. Cause and effect are unlikely.
As for what qualifies someone to carry, openly or concealed, I can speak only for TX, which requires a 6 hour class and demonstrated proficiency. I did both over the Christmas holidays but have yet to get my license. I have no intention of carrying, concealed or otherwise. I just don’t want to have a pistol in the trunk of my car and expose my law license.
A couple of points of possible interest. The percentage of crime of any kind committed by licensed carriers in TX is less than 1%. A wide variety of non-criminal mistakes result in license revocation–getting and keeping a license are two separate things. There is a fair amount of pressure to avoid ever using a pistol outside of a shooting range or a hunting trip (yes, people can and do hunt with pistols–I used to do it all the time). Open carry in TX is limited to licensed carriers. That is, only people who pass the written and proficiency tests can carry openly. I’ve yet to see anyone do so. It is likely that I will only see that in rural areas. One unforeseen consequence of the open carry law is that nearly every establishment that previously allowed concealed carry has now disallowed any kind of carry. Also, walking around strapped just invites the wrong kind of people to try to steal your pistol, usually inflicting a lot of harm in the process.
In any case, there are something like 300 million of them in private hands now. They aren’t going away. For good or ill.
Yes, this seems about right. Gun deaths are down, gun ownership is up. Cause and effect are unlikely.
As for what qualifies someone to carry, openly or concealed, I can speak only for TX, which requires a 6 hour class and demonstrated proficiency. I did both over the Christmas holidays but have yet to get my license. I have no intention of carrying, concealed or otherwise. I just don’t want to have a pistol in the trunk of my car and expose my law license.
A couple of points of possible interest. The percentage of crime of any kind committed by licensed carriers in TX is less than 1%. A wide variety of non-criminal mistakes result in license revocation–getting and keeping a license are two separate things. There is a fair amount of pressure to avoid ever using a pistol outside of a shooting range or a hunting trip (yes, people can and do hunt with pistols–I used to do it all the time). Open carry in TX is limited to licensed carriers. That is, only people who pass the written and proficiency tests can carry openly. I’ve yet to see anyone do so. It is likely that I will only see that in rural areas. One unforeseen consequence of the open carry law is that nearly every establishment that previously allowed concealed carry has now disallowed any kind of carry. Also, walking around strapped just invites the wrong kind of people to try to steal your pistol, usually inflicting a lot of harm in the process.
In any case, there are something like 300 million of them in private hands now. They aren’t going away. For good or ill.
Yes, this seems about right. Gun deaths are down, gun ownership is up. Cause and effect are unlikely.
As for what qualifies someone to carry, openly or concealed, I can speak only for TX, which requires a 6 hour class and demonstrated proficiency. I did both over the Christmas holidays but have yet to get my license. I have no intention of carrying, concealed or otherwise. I just don’t want to have a pistol in the trunk of my car and expose my law license.
A couple of points of possible interest. The percentage of crime of any kind committed by licensed carriers in TX is less than 1%. A wide variety of non-criminal mistakes result in license revocation–getting and keeping a license are two separate things. There is a fair amount of pressure to avoid ever using a pistol outside of a shooting range or a hunting trip (yes, people can and do hunt with pistols–I used to do it all the time). Open carry in TX is limited to licensed carriers. That is, only people who pass the written and proficiency tests can carry openly. I’ve yet to see anyone do so. It is likely that I will only see that in rural areas. One unforeseen consequence of the open carry law is that nearly every establishment that previously allowed concealed carry has now disallowed any kind of carry. Also, walking around strapped just invites the wrong kind of people to try to steal your pistol, usually inflicting a lot of harm in the process.
But still no licensing requirements for enterprising kids inserting enterprising bobby pins into electrical outlets.
Or kid sticking broomsticks having metal hangers on the end of them into vacant basement light fixtures.
Both of which I have, apparently, done.
If only I had been properly trained.
Unfortunately people allow their vehicles to age beyond safety, and that people drive their vehicles while intoxicated.
Or while texting. Which might be worse.
But still no licensing requirements for enterprising kids inserting enterprising bobby pins into electrical outlets.
Or kid sticking broomsticks having metal hangers on the end of them into vacant basement light fixtures.
Both of which I have, apparently, done.
If only I had been properly trained.
Unfortunately people allow their vehicles to age beyond safety, and that people drive their vehicles while intoxicated.
Or while texting. Which might be worse.
But still no licensing requirements for enterprising kids inserting enterprising bobby pins into electrical outlets.
Or kid sticking broomsticks having metal hangers on the end of them into vacant basement light fixtures.
Both of which I have, apparently, done.
If only I had been properly trained.
Unfortunately people allow their vehicles to age beyond safety, and that people drive their vehicles while intoxicated.
Or while texting. Which might be worse.
But still no licensing requirements for enterprising kids inserting enterprising bobby pins into electrical outlets.
I had a high school buddy who used to like to plug capacitors into wall sockets, which would make them blow up in a puff of oily smoke.
Big fun!
Maybe firearms for teenage boys should be limited to nerf guns. 🙂
But still no licensing requirements for enterprising kids inserting enterprising bobby pins into electrical outlets.
I had a high school buddy who used to like to plug capacitors into wall sockets, which would make them blow up in a puff of oily smoke.
Big fun!
Maybe firearms for teenage boys should be limited to nerf guns. 🙂
But still no licensing requirements for enterprising kids inserting enterprising bobby pins into electrical outlets.
I had a high school buddy who used to like to plug capacitors into wall sockets, which would make them blow up in a puff of oily smoke.
Big fun!
Maybe firearms for teenage boys should be limited to nerf guns. 🙂
McKT, that’s all pretty reasonable.
“Also, walking around strapped just invites the wrong kind of people to try to steal your pistol, usually inflicting a lot of harm in the process.”
True, the wrong kind of people should just stick to stealing the wallets of guys who carry weapons strapped openly.
Is there a possibility that if the wrong kind of person knows another person stores weapons in his home, that this too could invite break-ins for the purpose of stealing the weapons?
This seems directly counter-intuitive to what we are told about how owning a weapon is expected to ward off the wrong kind of people.
“One unforeseen consequence of the open carry law is that nearly every establishment that previously allowed concealed carry has now disallowed any kind of carry.”
This is an unforeseen consequence I can live with.
McKT, that’s all pretty reasonable.
“Also, walking around strapped just invites the wrong kind of people to try to steal your pistol, usually inflicting a lot of harm in the process.”
True, the wrong kind of people should just stick to stealing the wallets of guys who carry weapons strapped openly.
Is there a possibility that if the wrong kind of person knows another person stores weapons in his home, that this too could invite break-ins for the purpose of stealing the weapons?
This seems directly counter-intuitive to what we are told about how owning a weapon is expected to ward off the wrong kind of people.
“One unforeseen consequence of the open carry law is that nearly every establishment that previously allowed concealed carry has now disallowed any kind of carry.”
This is an unforeseen consequence I can live with.
McKT, that’s all pretty reasonable.
“Also, walking around strapped just invites the wrong kind of people to try to steal your pistol, usually inflicting a lot of harm in the process.”
True, the wrong kind of people should just stick to stealing the wallets of guys who carry weapons strapped openly.
Is there a possibility that if the wrong kind of person knows another person stores weapons in his home, that this too could invite break-ins for the purpose of stealing the weapons?
This seems directly counter-intuitive to what we are told about how owning a weapon is expected to ward off the wrong kind of people.
“One unforeseen consequence of the open carry law is that nearly every establishment that previously allowed concealed carry has now disallowed any kind of carry.”
This is an unforeseen consequence I can live with.
If only I had been properly trained.
Indeed. Fortunately most of us can also withstand incredible levels of snark.
Thank goodness, most of us have been subjected to some training in that regard.
If only I had been properly trained.
Indeed. Fortunately most of us can also withstand incredible levels of snark.
Thank goodness, most of us have been subjected to some training in that regard.
If only I had been properly trained.
Indeed. Fortunately most of us can also withstand incredible levels of snark.
Thank goodness, most of us have been subjected to some training in that regard.
Ok, then.
Since the invention of the tractor, my dog has been run over by a tractor.
No, I am not making this up.
Ok, then.
Since the invention of the tractor, my dog has been run over by a tractor.
No, I am not making this up.
Ok, then.
Since the invention of the tractor, my dog has been run over by a tractor.
No, I am not making this up.
I’m thinking Slart’s childhood home should have had GFCIs on every circuit, but GFCIs weren’t commonly in household use back then.
I’m thinking Slart’s childhood home should have had GFCIs on every circuit, but GFCIs weren’t commonly in household use back then.
I’m thinking Slart’s childhood home should have had GFCIs on every circuit, but GFCIs weren’t commonly in household use back then.
I wish folks like the NRA would quit interfering with the CDC’s (and others’) efforts to actually do basic research in firearm death and injury, so that we could have good answers to questions like the ones about the CT study.
As a pretty reliable rule of thumb, if people are fanatical about opposing studies like this, it is because they have a good idea what the study will show. And they definitely don’t want those findings established.
Some will suggest that they are merely afraid that the study would be biased. But that is pretty easily addressed by insisting on involvement in the design of the study. And to access to the raw data afterwards. But if they know that wouldn’t avoid finding something that they don’t want to see (or, wosre, want others to see)…
I wish folks like the NRA would quit interfering with the CDC’s (and others’) efforts to actually do basic research in firearm death and injury, so that we could have good answers to questions like the ones about the CT study.
As a pretty reliable rule of thumb, if people are fanatical about opposing studies like this, it is because they have a good idea what the study will show. And they definitely don’t want those findings established.
Some will suggest that they are merely afraid that the study would be biased. But that is pretty easily addressed by insisting on involvement in the design of the study. And to access to the raw data afterwards. But if they know that wouldn’t avoid finding something that they don’t want to see (or, wosre, want others to see)…
I wish folks like the NRA would quit interfering with the CDC’s (and others’) efforts to actually do basic research in firearm death and injury, so that we could have good answers to questions like the ones about the CT study.
As a pretty reliable rule of thumb, if people are fanatical about opposing studies like this, it is because they have a good idea what the study will show. And they definitely don’t want those findings established.
Some will suggest that they are merely afraid that the study would be biased. But that is pretty easily addressed by insisting on involvement in the design of the study. And to access to the raw data afterwards. But if they know that wouldn’t avoid finding something that they don’t want to see (or, wosre, want others to see)…
I was just going into public schools in the mid-1960s, which was just about a decade and a half in advance of nationwide GFCI requirements.
On the other hand: if the study is showing what the conductors of said study are by default inclined to show: quelle surprise.
I was just going into public schools in the mid-1960s, which was just about a decade and a half in advance of nationwide GFCI requirements.
On the other hand: if the study is showing what the conductors of said study are by default inclined to show: quelle surprise.
I was just going into public schools in the mid-1960s, which was just about a decade and a half in advance of nationwide GFCI requirements.
On the other hand: if the study is showing what the conductors of said study are by default inclined to show: quelle surprise.
unskew those studies
unskew those studies
unskew those studies
quelle surprise.
I’m pretty sure the gun industry could come up with a study to demonstrate this. Why they have not is simply beyond me.
I blame fluoridation.
quelle surprise.
I’m pretty sure the gun industry could come up with a study to demonstrate this. Why they have not is simply beyond me.
I blame fluoridation.
quelle surprise.
I’m pretty sure the gun industry could come up with a study to demonstrate this. Why they have not is simply beyond me.
I blame fluoridation.
“On the other hand: if the study is showing what the conductors of said study are by default inclined to show: quelle surprise”
May we take a look at the study of the study conductors from which you reached that conclusion.
It’s not like the CDC is conducting their studies at gunpoint with an ultimatum that they lie down a certain way to reach a conclusion.
Unless …. you count cessation of funding by the pro-NRA congressional committees as bullets.
Or NRA threats against perceived government tyranny by study conclusion.
All of the mice the CDC shot dead in their studies stayed dead.
“On the other hand: if the study is showing what the conductors of said study are by default inclined to show: quelle surprise”
May we take a look at the study of the study conductors from which you reached that conclusion.
It’s not like the CDC is conducting their studies at gunpoint with an ultimatum that they lie down a certain way to reach a conclusion.
Unless …. you count cessation of funding by the pro-NRA congressional committees as bullets.
Or NRA threats against perceived government tyranny by study conclusion.
All of the mice the CDC shot dead in their studies stayed dead.
“On the other hand: if the study is showing what the conductors of said study are by default inclined to show: quelle surprise”
May we take a look at the study of the study conductors from which you reached that conclusion.
It’s not like the CDC is conducting their studies at gunpoint with an ultimatum that they lie down a certain way to reach a conclusion.
Unless …. you count cessation of funding by the pro-NRA congressional committees as bullets.
Or NRA threats against perceived government tyranny by study conclusion.
All of the mice the CDC shot dead in their studies stayed dead.
“Since the invention of the tractor, my dog has been run over by a tractor.”
It’s lucky your dog wasn’t shot down by a missile launcher mounted on a tractor, because then we would have had to ban the missile launcher for the sake of public safety and let the tractors be on their way.
Sorry about your dog.
Could we reach agreement somehow on two things: a firearm is not a fuse box, a bread box, or a tractor, or a swimming pool and vice versa. It’s not even a knife, though you would use a knife to slice bread.
You would NOT shoot a loaf a bread, though if Slart said he did that too as a kid, I’d believe it, but I don’t want to hear about what happened to the pie your mother baked.
Further, the government is not a family is not a business. Each of them sits a different type of table with different stakes/steaks and stakeholders, sometimes mutual.
These two stipulations will hold all of us in good stead until Brett Bellmore thaws.
“Since the invention of the tractor, my dog has been run over by a tractor.”
It’s lucky your dog wasn’t shot down by a missile launcher mounted on a tractor, because then we would have had to ban the missile launcher for the sake of public safety and let the tractors be on their way.
Sorry about your dog.
Could we reach agreement somehow on two things: a firearm is not a fuse box, a bread box, or a tractor, or a swimming pool and vice versa. It’s not even a knife, though you would use a knife to slice bread.
You would NOT shoot a loaf a bread, though if Slart said he did that too as a kid, I’d believe it, but I don’t want to hear about what happened to the pie your mother baked.
Further, the government is not a family is not a business. Each of them sits a different type of table with different stakes/steaks and stakeholders, sometimes mutual.
These two stipulations will hold all of us in good stead until Brett Bellmore thaws.
“Since the invention of the tractor, my dog has been run over by a tractor.”
It’s lucky your dog wasn’t shot down by a missile launcher mounted on a tractor, because then we would have had to ban the missile launcher for the sake of public safety and let the tractors be on their way.
Sorry about your dog.
Could we reach agreement somehow on two things: a firearm is not a fuse box, a bread box, or a tractor, or a swimming pool and vice versa. It’s not even a knife, though you would use a knife to slice bread.
You would NOT shoot a loaf a bread, though if Slart said he did that too as a kid, I’d believe it, but I don’t want to hear about what happened to the pie your mother baked.
Further, the government is not a family is not a business. Each of them sits a different type of table with different stakes/steaks and stakeholders, sometimes mutual.
These two stipulations will hold all of us in good stead until Brett Bellmore thaws.
On the other hand: if the study is showing what the conductors of said study are by default inclined to show: quelle surprise.
Um, Slarti, I trust you did notice the line I put in about “that is pretty easily addressed by insisting on involvement in the design of the study.”
Is there any reason NOT to at least try designing a neutral study? Is it not possible to design a study where the results are not a foregone conclusion?
The only reason I can see to refuse to even consider trying is that those refusing are already aware of that a neutral study would find. If you can see another reason, I’d love to hear it.
On the other hand: if the study is showing what the conductors of said study are by default inclined to show: quelle surprise.
Um, Slarti, I trust you did notice the line I put in about “that is pretty easily addressed by insisting on involvement in the design of the study.”
Is there any reason NOT to at least try designing a neutral study? Is it not possible to design a study where the results are not a foregone conclusion?
The only reason I can see to refuse to even consider trying is that those refusing are already aware of that a neutral study would find. If you can see another reason, I’d love to hear it.
On the other hand: if the study is showing what the conductors of said study are by default inclined to show: quelle surprise.
Um, Slarti, I trust you did notice the line I put in about “that is pretty easily addressed by insisting on involvement in the design of the study.”
Is there any reason NOT to at least try designing a neutral study? Is it not possible to design a study where the results are not a foregone conclusion?
The only reason I can see to refuse to even consider trying is that those refusing are already aware of that a neutral study would find. If you can see another reason, I’d love to hear it.
slarti,
I think just about any of those is a better guess than making a synthetic Connecticut out of Rhode Island, Maryland, New Hampshire and California and deciding that’s what Connecticut would have looked like. Why New Hampshire and not New York? Why California and not Massachusetts?
I’m not sure, but I have no doubt they have reasons. I suspect they are in the paper.
Anyway, my choice would be to pick 30%, but that, like everything else, is guesswork. It’d need a lot more research, like whether the state elected to take any additional measures to enacting firearm laws.
These kinds of things are necessarily not that precise, but bear in mind that it’s a mistake to think the error can only be in one direction. Just as there could be other factors that produced the reduction, so too could there be other factors that reduced the reduction due to to the law. (One obvious one is that CT cannot easily control the flow of guns from other states, for example.) Saying these numbers are approximations is one thing. Saying the error is biased one way or another is something else.
In conclusion: my thinking is that the truth in this case is much less simple than triumphalist articles touting the advantages of firearms laws would have us think.
I agree that the truth is more complex than one study can possibly reveal.
slarti,
I think just about any of those is a better guess than making a synthetic Connecticut out of Rhode Island, Maryland, New Hampshire and California and deciding that’s what Connecticut would have looked like. Why New Hampshire and not New York? Why California and not Massachusetts?
I’m not sure, but I have no doubt they have reasons. I suspect they are in the paper.
Anyway, my choice would be to pick 30%, but that, like everything else, is guesswork. It’d need a lot more research, like whether the state elected to take any additional measures to enacting firearm laws.
These kinds of things are necessarily not that precise, but bear in mind that it’s a mistake to think the error can only be in one direction. Just as there could be other factors that produced the reduction, so too could there be other factors that reduced the reduction due to to the law. (One obvious one is that CT cannot easily control the flow of guns from other states, for example.) Saying these numbers are approximations is one thing. Saying the error is biased one way or another is something else.
In conclusion: my thinking is that the truth in this case is much less simple than triumphalist articles touting the advantages of firearms laws would have us think.
I agree that the truth is more complex than one study can possibly reveal.
slarti,
I think just about any of those is a better guess than making a synthetic Connecticut out of Rhode Island, Maryland, New Hampshire and California and deciding that’s what Connecticut would have looked like. Why New Hampshire and not New York? Why California and not Massachusetts?
I’m not sure, but I have no doubt they have reasons. I suspect they are in the paper.
Anyway, my choice would be to pick 30%, but that, like everything else, is guesswork. It’d need a lot more research, like whether the state elected to take any additional measures to enacting firearm laws.
These kinds of things are necessarily not that precise, but bear in mind that it’s a mistake to think the error can only be in one direction. Just as there could be other factors that produced the reduction, so too could there be other factors that reduced the reduction due to to the law. (One obvious one is that CT cannot easily control the flow of guns from other states, for example.) Saying these numbers are approximations is one thing. Saying the error is biased one way or another is something else.
In conclusion: my thinking is that the truth in this case is much less simple than triumphalist articles touting the advantages of firearms laws would have us think.
I agree that the truth is more complex than one study can possibly reveal.
I agree that the truth is more complex than one study can possibly reveal.
but not so complex that more than one wouldn’t get us there.
I agree that the truth is more complex than one study can possibly reveal.
but not so complex that more than one wouldn’t get us there.
I agree that the truth is more complex than one study can possibly reveal.
but not so complex that more than one wouldn’t get us there.
Gotta love the invocation of pools and outlets to explain why a gun isn’t dangerous. When was the last time someone carjacked you with an electrical outlet? You people are idiots.
Gotta love the invocation of pools and outlets to explain why a gun isn’t dangerous. When was the last time someone carjacked you with an electrical outlet? You people are idiots.
Gotta love the invocation of pools and outlets to explain why a gun isn’t dangerous. When was the last time someone carjacked you with an electrical outlet? You people are idiots.
When was the last time someone bicyclejacked you? Wait, no one has ever carjacked me. Even with a pool. Someone did take my car keys once with a pool cue. But they didn’t actually take my car. Just the title until I paid. You know, a chip and a chair.
But I’ve been told the gun death toll in my family is unbelievable anyway,so maybe a few were electrocuted. One did OD, so does that count? They had a gun, my alcoholic cousin died young of liver disease, another complications from Hep C. I guess those are similar.
People die, lifes a risk, or not really because it always ends the same. We should really just make sure its against the law for bad guys to have guns. Oh, wait. So we can’t find 11 million illegal aliens but we should collect 300 million guns?
Not really a point here except it does seem a lot of hype about a definite non activity.
When was the last time someone bicyclejacked you? Wait, no one has ever carjacked me. Even with a pool. Someone did take my car keys once with a pool cue. But they didn’t actually take my car. Just the title until I paid. You know, a chip and a chair.
But I’ve been told the gun death toll in my family is unbelievable anyway,so maybe a few were electrocuted. One did OD, so does that count? They had a gun, my alcoholic cousin died young of liver disease, another complications from Hep C. I guess those are similar.
People die, lifes a risk, or not really because it always ends the same. We should really just make sure its against the law for bad guys to have guns. Oh, wait. So we can’t find 11 million illegal aliens but we should collect 300 million guns?
Not really a point here except it does seem a lot of hype about a definite non activity.
When was the last time someone bicyclejacked you? Wait, no one has ever carjacked me. Even with a pool. Someone did take my car keys once with a pool cue. But they didn’t actually take my car. Just the title until I paid. You know, a chip and a chair.
But I’ve been told the gun death toll in my family is unbelievable anyway,so maybe a few were electrocuted. One did OD, so does that count? They had a gun, my alcoholic cousin died young of liver disease, another complications from Hep C. I guess those are similar.
People die, lifes a risk, or not really because it always ends the same. We should really just make sure its against the law for bad guys to have guns. Oh, wait. So we can’t find 11 million illegal aliens but we should collect 300 million guns?
Not really a point here except it does seem a lot of hype about a definite non activity.
I wish folks like the NRA would quit interfering with the CDC’s (and others’) efforts to actually do basic research in firearm death and injury, so that we could have good answers to questions like the ones about the CT study.
We don’t know how many people are killed and wounded by guns each year? The CDC has been muzzled (get it? muzzled!)?
Here’s a different view:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/
The quote above implies the NRA is politicizing objective scientific research. Unless the Federalist author is an outright liar, it seems as if the shoe is on the other foot. Not that any part of the executive branch would ever politicize anything.
I wish folks like the NRA would quit interfering with the CDC’s (and others’) efforts to actually do basic research in firearm death and injury, so that we could have good answers to questions like the ones about the CT study.
We don’t know how many people are killed and wounded by guns each year? The CDC has been muzzled (get it? muzzled!)?
Here’s a different view:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/
The quote above implies the NRA is politicizing objective scientific research. Unless the Federalist author is an outright liar, it seems as if the shoe is on the other foot. Not that any part of the executive branch would ever politicize anything.
I wish folks like the NRA would quit interfering with the CDC’s (and others’) efforts to actually do basic research in firearm death and injury, so that we could have good answers to questions like the ones about the CT study.
We don’t know how many people are killed and wounded by guns each year? The CDC has been muzzled (get it? muzzled!)?
Here’s a different view:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/
The quote above implies the NRA is politicizing objective scientific research. Unless the Federalist author is an outright liar, it seems as if the shoe is on the other foot. Not that any part of the executive branch would ever politicize anything.
from McK’s link:
from McK’s link:
from McK’s link:
This has nothing to do with McTX, but in reference to his personal experiences with open carry in Texas:
“Open carry in TX is limited to licensed carriers. That is, only people who pass the written and proficiency tests can carry openly. I’ve yet to see anyone do so.”
On the other hand, they ARE seen by plenty of people and when these characters show up in public with weaponry of any kind to threaten and intimidate human beings, then they must have lied on their written tests, specifically answering the question “Are you now or have you ever been in your sorry life a pigf*cking piece of anti-American, subhuman slime?” incorrectly.
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2015/11/23/breaking-americans-with-ar-15s-and-ak-47s-surround-texas-mosque-send-brutal-message-to-muslims/
That municipal/state taxpayers have to pay SWAT teams to be on the ready at these fetes, just in case, seems …. a misallocation of precious, limited public resources.
Better that the Mosque members themselves and the refugees also be heavily armed to even up the odds and keep the dreaded, stinking government out of it.
Or better yet, human citizens of our better natures should line up on the other side of the street and assume sniper positions to protect the innocent.
It’s unfortunate amid the current national insanity, which is only going to intensify, that the human citizens of our better natures aren’t equally and/or better armed than the conservative right-wing.
However, it may be that our surly mouths alone might be enough to get the gunfire started.
Marty asked:
“So we can’t find 11 million illegal aliens but we should collect 300 million guns?”
That “should” must have been stated on an imaginary blog not affiliated with this one, where the denizens favor the confiscation of all firearms, residential electricity, swimming pools, and automobiles in the country.
But Marty’s a little like me, he’s not really talking to anyone here. 😉
The CDC had been shown to be biased against tobacco, drunk driving, AIDs, Ebola, and now … will it never stop …. the Zika Virus.
This has nothing to do with McTX, but in reference to his personal experiences with open carry in Texas:
“Open carry in TX is limited to licensed carriers. That is, only people who pass the written and proficiency tests can carry openly. I’ve yet to see anyone do so.”
On the other hand, they ARE seen by plenty of people and when these characters show up in public with weaponry of any kind to threaten and intimidate human beings, then they must have lied on their written tests, specifically answering the question “Are you now or have you ever been in your sorry life a pigf*cking piece of anti-American, subhuman slime?” incorrectly.
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2015/11/23/breaking-americans-with-ar-15s-and-ak-47s-surround-texas-mosque-send-brutal-message-to-muslims/
That municipal/state taxpayers have to pay SWAT teams to be on the ready at these fetes, just in case, seems …. a misallocation of precious, limited public resources.
Better that the Mosque members themselves and the refugees also be heavily armed to even up the odds and keep the dreaded, stinking government out of it.
Or better yet, human citizens of our better natures should line up on the other side of the street and assume sniper positions to protect the innocent.
It’s unfortunate amid the current national insanity, which is only going to intensify, that the human citizens of our better natures aren’t equally and/or better armed than the conservative right-wing.
However, it may be that our surly mouths alone might be enough to get the gunfire started.
Marty asked:
“So we can’t find 11 million illegal aliens but we should collect 300 million guns?”
That “should” must have been stated on an imaginary blog not affiliated with this one, where the denizens favor the confiscation of all firearms, residential electricity, swimming pools, and automobiles in the country.
But Marty’s a little like me, he’s not really talking to anyone here. 😉
The CDC had been shown to be biased against tobacco, drunk driving, AIDs, Ebola, and now … will it never stop …. the Zika Virus.
This has nothing to do with McTX, but in reference to his personal experiences with open carry in Texas:
“Open carry in TX is limited to licensed carriers. That is, only people who pass the written and proficiency tests can carry openly. I’ve yet to see anyone do so.”
On the other hand, they ARE seen by plenty of people and when these characters show up in public with weaponry of any kind to threaten and intimidate human beings, then they must have lied on their written tests, specifically answering the question “Are you now or have you ever been in your sorry life a pigf*cking piece of anti-American, subhuman slime?” incorrectly.
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2015/11/23/breaking-americans-with-ar-15s-and-ak-47s-surround-texas-mosque-send-brutal-message-to-muslims/
That municipal/state taxpayers have to pay SWAT teams to be on the ready at these fetes, just in case, seems …. a misallocation of precious, limited public resources.
Better that the Mosque members themselves and the refugees also be heavily armed to even up the odds and keep the dreaded, stinking government out of it.
Or better yet, human citizens of our better natures should line up on the other side of the street and assume sniper positions to protect the innocent.
It’s unfortunate amid the current national insanity, which is only going to intensify, that the human citizens of our better natures aren’t equally and/or better armed than the conservative right-wing.
However, it may be that our surly mouths alone might be enough to get the gunfire started.
Marty asked:
“So we can’t find 11 million illegal aliens but we should collect 300 million guns?”
That “should” must have been stated on an imaginary blog not affiliated with this one, where the denizens favor the confiscation of all firearms, residential electricity, swimming pools, and automobiles in the country.
But Marty’s a little like me, he’s not really talking to anyone here. 😉
The CDC had been shown to be biased against tobacco, drunk driving, AIDs, Ebola, and now … will it never stop …. the Zika Virus.
in other words:
doctors decided to do something about something that kills tens of thousands of people in this country, every fking year. the NRA, being wholly opposed to anything that might affect their sponsors’ bottom lines, pulled its puppets’ strings and got those doctors to stop it.
“politicizing” = doctors being doctors. the NRA “prompt Congress to take action” is something else entirely.
freedom!
in other words:
doctors decided to do something about something that kills tens of thousands of people in this country, every fking year. the NRA, being wholly opposed to anything that might affect their sponsors’ bottom lines, pulled its puppets’ strings and got those doctors to stop it.
“politicizing” = doctors being doctors. the NRA “prompt Congress to take action” is something else entirely.
freedom!
in other words:
doctors decided to do something about something that kills tens of thousands of people in this country, every fking year. the NRA, being wholly opposed to anything that might affect their sponsors’ bottom lines, pulled its puppets’ strings and got those doctors to stop it.
“politicizing” = doctors being doctors. the NRA “prompt Congress to take action” is something else entirely.
freedom!
doctors being doctors, trying to reduce the tens of thousands of deaths and injuries guns cause every year in this stupid country = politicization. the NRA “prompting Congress to take action” is not.
because words only mean what “conservatives” want them to mean.
doctors being doctors, trying to reduce the tens of thousands of deaths and injuries guns cause every year in this stupid country = politicization. the NRA “prompting Congress to take action” is not.
because words only mean what “conservatives” want them to mean.
doctors being doctors, trying to reduce the tens of thousands of deaths and injuries guns cause every year in this stupid country = politicization. the NRA “prompting Congress to take action” is not.
because words only mean what “conservatives” want them to mean.
That “should” must have been stated on an imaginary blog not affiliated with this one, where the denizens favor the confiscation of all firearms, residential electricity, swimming pools, and automobiles in the country.
Actually, Count, I think Ugh, Cleek and others here would confiscate guns in a heartbeat. They are, to differing degrees, to the left what the Tea Party is to the right. Blinded by their own light, as it were.
As for open carry in TX, I should have been more clear. Anyone can openly carry a long gun in most public places. Only handguns are regulated. It is true that a very small group of loonies showed up at a mosque. There are 27 million or so Texans. We have our share of idiots and they come in every hue. Local African American activists have done the same thing over the years (Quannel X and his posse carried, and probably continue to carry, shotguns and rifles routinely–they weren’t shot, arrested or anything else, BTW). It if vanishingly rare and therefore newsworthy for a small group to do something like this.
That “should” must have been stated on an imaginary blog not affiliated with this one, where the denizens favor the confiscation of all firearms, residential electricity, swimming pools, and automobiles in the country.
Actually, Count, I think Ugh, Cleek and others here would confiscate guns in a heartbeat. They are, to differing degrees, to the left what the Tea Party is to the right. Blinded by their own light, as it were.
As for open carry in TX, I should have been more clear. Anyone can openly carry a long gun in most public places. Only handguns are regulated. It is true that a very small group of loonies showed up at a mosque. There are 27 million or so Texans. We have our share of idiots and they come in every hue. Local African American activists have done the same thing over the years (Quannel X and his posse carried, and probably continue to carry, shotguns and rifles routinely–they weren’t shot, arrested or anything else, BTW). It if vanishingly rare and therefore newsworthy for a small group to do something like this.
That “should” must have been stated on an imaginary blog not affiliated with this one, where the denizens favor the confiscation of all firearms, residential electricity, swimming pools, and automobiles in the country.
Actually, Count, I think Ugh, Cleek and others here would confiscate guns in a heartbeat. They are, to differing degrees, to the left what the Tea Party is to the right. Blinded by their own light, as it were.
As for open carry in TX, I should have been more clear. Anyone can openly carry a long gun in most public places. Only handguns are regulated. It is true that a very small group of loonies showed up at a mosque. There are 27 million or so Texans. We have our share of idiots and they come in every hue. Local African American activists have done the same thing over the years (Quannel X and his posse carried, and probably continue to carry, shotguns and rifles routinely–they weren’t shot, arrested or anything else, BTW). It if vanishingly rare and therefore newsworthy for a small group to do something like this.
From the Federalist Society link:
He summarized, “it’s like comparing 100 people who went to a hospital in a given year with 100 similar people who did not, finding that more of the hospital patients died, and then announcing that hospitals increase the risk of death.”
Actually, being admitted to the hospital does increase the risk of death for many subsets of the population.
Folks, including the hospitals in recent years, who are biased against the causes of these fatalities, have ruled out gunfire, electrocution, automobiles racing through the hallways, and drowning as the culprits, focusing instead on whether proper hygiene is practiced by staff and patient.
Unfortunately, the Americans For The Freedom To Not Wash Our Hands After Going To The Bathroom lobby have blocked amelioration of the identified problem.
Frankly, I think these grimy-fingered miscreants should be shot, which, among other things, reveals my ambivalence regarding leading gun proponent John Lott, inevitably cited in the Federalist link, who may have a point:
https://www.google.com/#q=does+John+Lott+lie
From the Federalist Society link:
He summarized, “it’s like comparing 100 people who went to a hospital in a given year with 100 similar people who did not, finding that more of the hospital patients died, and then announcing that hospitals increase the risk of death.”
Actually, being admitted to the hospital does increase the risk of death for many subsets of the population.
Folks, including the hospitals in recent years, who are biased against the causes of these fatalities, have ruled out gunfire, electrocution, automobiles racing through the hallways, and drowning as the culprits, focusing instead on whether proper hygiene is practiced by staff and patient.
Unfortunately, the Americans For The Freedom To Not Wash Our Hands After Going To The Bathroom lobby have blocked amelioration of the identified problem.
Frankly, I think these grimy-fingered miscreants should be shot, which, among other things, reveals my ambivalence regarding leading gun proponent John Lott, inevitably cited in the Federalist link, who may have a point:
https://www.google.com/#q=does+John+Lott+lie
From the Federalist Society link:
He summarized, “it’s like comparing 100 people who went to a hospital in a given year with 100 similar people who did not, finding that more of the hospital patients died, and then announcing that hospitals increase the risk of death.”
Actually, being admitted to the hospital does increase the risk of death for many subsets of the population.
Folks, including the hospitals in recent years, who are biased against the causes of these fatalities, have ruled out gunfire, electrocution, automobiles racing through the hallways, and drowning as the culprits, focusing instead on whether proper hygiene is practiced by staff and patient.
Unfortunately, the Americans For The Freedom To Not Wash Our Hands After Going To The Bathroom lobby have blocked amelioration of the identified problem.
Frankly, I think these grimy-fingered miscreants should be shot, which, among other things, reveals my ambivalence regarding leading gun proponent John Lott, inevitably cited in the Federalist link, who may have a point:
https://www.google.com/#q=does+John+Lott+lie
Blinded by their own light
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
inscribed in each one of those dots is the name of someone who will die from a gun, in the US, this month.
take a good long look.
Blinded by their own light
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
inscribed in each one of those dots is the name of someone who will die from a gun, in the US, this month.
take a good long look.
Blinded by their own light
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
inscribed in each one of those dots is the name of someone who will die from a gun, in the US, this month.
take a good long look.
Blinded by their own light
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
inscribed in each one of those dots is the name of someone who will die from a gun, in the US, this month.
take a good long look.
Blinded by their own light
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
inscribed in each one of those dots is the name of someone who will die from a gun, in the US, this month.
take a good long look.
Blinded by their own light
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ………. ……….
inscribed in each one of those dots is the name of someone who will die from a gun, in the US, this month.
take a good long look.
So we can’t find 11 million illegal aliens but we should collect 300 million guns?
Straw is never in short supply.
So we can’t find 11 million illegal aliens but we should collect 300 million guns?
Straw is never in short supply.
So we can’t find 11 million illegal aliens but we should collect 300 million guns?
Straw is never in short supply.
Thanks for the reply, MCTX:
“A gun will not give you cancer, nor cause you to contract AIDS. Guns do not carry viruses like mosquitos.”
Well, that would be overkill, wouldn’t it?
Donald Trump, leading gun carry proponent, favors dipping bullets in pig blood (in other words, his own blood), which I suppose could contribute to septicemia.
Guns don’t electrocute, run you over, or drown you either, which by the way, CDC officials get up in the morning full of bias against, which should be looked into.
Can someone refresh my memory regarding what they are designed to do, because it’s been lost in the shuffle.
Thanks for the reply, MCTX:
“A gun will not give you cancer, nor cause you to contract AIDS. Guns do not carry viruses like mosquitos.”
Well, that would be overkill, wouldn’t it?
Donald Trump, leading gun carry proponent, favors dipping bullets in pig blood (in other words, his own blood), which I suppose could contribute to septicemia.
Guns don’t electrocute, run you over, or drown you either, which by the way, CDC officials get up in the morning full of bias against, which should be looked into.
Can someone refresh my memory regarding what they are designed to do, because it’s been lost in the shuffle.
Thanks for the reply, MCTX:
“A gun will not give you cancer, nor cause you to contract AIDS. Guns do not carry viruses like mosquitos.”
Well, that would be overkill, wouldn’t it?
Donald Trump, leading gun carry proponent, favors dipping bullets in pig blood (in other words, his own blood), which I suppose could contribute to septicemia.
Guns don’t electrocute, run you over, or drown you either, which by the way, CDC officials get up in the morning full of bias against, which should be looked into.
Can someone refresh my memory regarding what they are designed to do, because it’s been lost in the shuffle.
That quote at 10:07am was from the Federalist article, not McTX.
cleek, I see my dot was not up for this month, so what’s it to me? The Ides of March are right around the corner, however.
.
That dot is the number of dogs which will be run over by tractors this month in the U.S., and I’d like to know where the outrage is.
.
That dot is me smiling, but with a head of steam up.
That quote at 10:07am was from the Federalist article, not McTX.
cleek, I see my dot was not up for this month, so what’s it to me? The Ides of March are right around the corner, however.
.
That dot is the number of dogs which will be run over by tractors this month in the U.S., and I’d like to know where the outrage is.
.
That dot is me smiling, but with a head of steam up.
That quote at 10:07am was from the Federalist article, not McTX.
cleek, I see my dot was not up for this month, so what’s it to me? The Ides of March are right around the corner, however.
.
That dot is the number of dogs which will be run over by tractors this month in the U.S., and I’d like to know where the outrage is.
.
That dot is me smiling, but with a head of steam up.
Can someone refresh my memory regarding what they are designed to do, because it’s been lost in the shuffle.
They are used for hunting, target practice and, very rarely, self defense. In the hands of criminals, they are used to commit crimes up to and including murder. Ditto in the hands of mentally unbalanced people under stress or the influence of drugs/alcohol. They are a preferred method of suicide for those suffering from depression and other debilitating conditions. In the hands of idiots, accidents can and do happen.
For as long as I can remember, death by gunshot has unhinged some parts of our society in a way that other deaths do not. Even as death and crime by firearm subside, and as gun ownership increases, the compulsion to ban and to control intensifies. I cannot explain it.
Reason is jettisoned in favor of emotion. Fake facts drive fake policies. For those like Cleek, there is no conversation to be had other than their own.
Can someone refresh my memory regarding what they are designed to do, because it’s been lost in the shuffle.
They are used for hunting, target practice and, very rarely, self defense. In the hands of criminals, they are used to commit crimes up to and including murder. Ditto in the hands of mentally unbalanced people under stress or the influence of drugs/alcohol. They are a preferred method of suicide for those suffering from depression and other debilitating conditions. In the hands of idiots, accidents can and do happen.
For as long as I can remember, death by gunshot has unhinged some parts of our society in a way that other deaths do not. Even as death and crime by firearm subside, and as gun ownership increases, the compulsion to ban and to control intensifies. I cannot explain it.
Reason is jettisoned in favor of emotion. Fake facts drive fake policies. For those like Cleek, there is no conversation to be had other than their own.
Can someone refresh my memory regarding what they are designed to do, because it’s been lost in the shuffle.
They are used for hunting, target practice and, very rarely, self defense. In the hands of criminals, they are used to commit crimes up to and including murder. Ditto in the hands of mentally unbalanced people under stress or the influence of drugs/alcohol. They are a preferred method of suicide for those suffering from depression and other debilitating conditions. In the hands of idiots, accidents can and do happen.
For as long as I can remember, death by gunshot has unhinged some parts of our society in a way that other deaths do not. Even as death and crime by firearm subside, and as gun ownership increases, the compulsion to ban and to control intensifies. I cannot explain it.
Reason is jettisoned in favor of emotion. Fake facts drive fake policies. For those like Cleek, there is no conversation to be had other than their own.
Even as death and crime by firearm subside, and as gun ownership increases, the compulsion to ban and to control intensifies. I cannot explain it.
I don’t know if it has intensified or simply continued, but I’d guess some people look at other comparably developed countries where far, far fewer people die by firearm and wonder why we’re still killing each other in such greater numbers, whether those numbers are declining or not.
Certainly there’s an emotional component to it, but I don’t know why it’s hard to explain, especially after, say, a bunch of first-graders are shot to death at school.
I’m personally in the defeatist camp on the issue, but even if were the King of the United States of American, I wouldn’t ban or confiscate all firearms.
Even as death and crime by firearm subside, and as gun ownership increases, the compulsion to ban and to control intensifies. I cannot explain it.
I don’t know if it has intensified or simply continued, but I’d guess some people look at other comparably developed countries where far, far fewer people die by firearm and wonder why we’re still killing each other in such greater numbers, whether those numbers are declining or not.
Certainly there’s an emotional component to it, but I don’t know why it’s hard to explain, especially after, say, a bunch of first-graders are shot to death at school.
I’m personally in the defeatist camp on the issue, but even if were the King of the United States of American, I wouldn’t ban or confiscate all firearms.
Even as death and crime by firearm subside, and as gun ownership increases, the compulsion to ban and to control intensifies. I cannot explain it.
I don’t know if it has intensified or simply continued, but I’d guess some people look at other comparably developed countries where far, far fewer people die by firearm and wonder why we’re still killing each other in such greater numbers, whether those numbers are declining or not.
Certainly there’s an emotional component to it, but I don’t know why it’s hard to explain, especially after, say, a bunch of first-graders are shot to death at school.
I’m personally in the defeatist camp on the issue, but even if were the King of the United States of American, I wouldn’t ban or confiscate all firearms.
For those like Cleek, there is no conversation to be had other than their own.
^ this coming from the most predictably pro-gun person who comments here. from the guy who always can be counted on to invent a reason to discount any data, to always rationalize in favor of doing nothing, and of course to always pretend his and his thoughts only are the only rational and unbiased thoughts to be had on any subject whatsoever. that guy.
L.O.L.
For those like Cleek, there is no conversation to be had other than their own.
^ this coming from the most predictably pro-gun person who comments here. from the guy who always can be counted on to invent a reason to discount any data, to always rationalize in favor of doing nothing, and of course to always pretend his and his thoughts only are the only rational and unbiased thoughts to be had on any subject whatsoever. that guy.
L.O.L.
For those like Cleek, there is no conversation to be had other than their own.
^ this coming from the most predictably pro-gun person who comments here. from the guy who always can be counted on to invent a reason to discount any data, to always rationalize in favor of doing nothing, and of course to always pretend his and his thoughts only are the only rational and unbiased thoughts to be had on any subject whatsoever. that guy.
L.O.L.
in the US, two children will die this week from guns.
can’t do nothin about it!
2/3s of all those children killed by guns are killed in their own home or in their parents’ vehicle.
no reason to believe guns in the home increase the odds of gun injuries!
all data is suspect because true “conservatives” know guns are A.O.K. and any suggestion otherwise is purely political.
in the US, two children will die this week from guns.
can’t do nothin about it!
2/3s of all those children killed by guns are killed in their own home or in their parents’ vehicle.
no reason to believe guns in the home increase the odds of gun injuries!
all data is suspect because true “conservatives” know guns are A.O.K. and any suggestion otherwise is purely political.
in the US, two children will die this week from guns.
can’t do nothin about it!
2/3s of all those children killed by guns are killed in their own home or in their parents’ vehicle.
no reason to believe guns in the home increase the odds of gun injuries!
all data is suspect because true “conservatives” know guns are A.O.K. and any suggestion otherwise is purely political.
“For as long as I can remember, death by gunshot has unhinged some parts of our society in a way that other deaths do not. Even as death and crime by firearm subside, and as gun ownership increases, the compulsion to ban and to control intensifies. I cannot explain it.”
and
“Fake facts drive fake policies.”
These trends you cite?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764212.html
http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf
Maybe it’s like taxes. No matter that high marginal tax rates have declined precipitously from the low 90 percentile since the early 1960s to today’s low 40% percentile, with more recent slight variations up and down, the outrage meters stay pegged in the red zone.
Grover Norquist actually carries as a warning sign of his constant outrage at taxes of any nature.
Local cop standing over a recent gunshot fatality, a six-year old in his family home:
“Sarge, should we call in the CDC as well?”
Sergeant: “That’s Captain, Officer Noogie. Nah, aside from the bullet holes, the kid looks perfectly healthy to me.”
“For as long as I can remember, death by gunshot has unhinged some parts of our society in a way that other deaths do not. Even as death and crime by firearm subside, and as gun ownership increases, the compulsion to ban and to control intensifies. I cannot explain it.”
and
“Fake facts drive fake policies.”
These trends you cite?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764212.html
http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf
Maybe it’s like taxes. No matter that high marginal tax rates have declined precipitously from the low 90 percentile since the early 1960s to today’s low 40% percentile, with more recent slight variations up and down, the outrage meters stay pegged in the red zone.
Grover Norquist actually carries as a warning sign of his constant outrage at taxes of any nature.
Local cop standing over a recent gunshot fatality, a six-year old in his family home:
“Sarge, should we call in the CDC as well?”
Sergeant: “That’s Captain, Officer Noogie. Nah, aside from the bullet holes, the kid looks perfectly healthy to me.”
“For as long as I can remember, death by gunshot has unhinged some parts of our society in a way that other deaths do not. Even as death and crime by firearm subside, and as gun ownership increases, the compulsion to ban and to control intensifies. I cannot explain it.”
and
“Fake facts drive fake policies.”
These trends you cite?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764212.html
http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf
Maybe it’s like taxes. No matter that high marginal tax rates have declined precipitously from the low 90 percentile since the early 1960s to today’s low 40% percentile, with more recent slight variations up and down, the outrage meters stay pegged in the red zone.
Grover Norquist actually carries as a warning sign of his constant outrage at taxes of any nature.
Local cop standing over a recent gunshot fatality, a six-year old in his family home:
“Sarge, should we call in the CDC as well?”
Sergeant: “That’s Captain, Officer Noogie. Nah, aside from the bullet holes, the kid looks perfectly healthy to me.”
McKT,
The “lack of reason”, even in the face of declining rates also applies to many other stats. Without gang/drug deaths the rate of firearms death in the US becomes much closer to other places for example. So maybe the war on drugs is the cause, not the guns. And so on.
However, the reaction to death by gunshot, all types, is simply fueled by the belief that almost every death by gunshot is preventable. Much in the way that every death from smoking is preventable.
People who don’t ever use a gun for any purpose just see them as unnecessary, thus ANY risk is not justified. Any death is one more than was necessary. Even bacon has a better reason to exist.
That is not an unreasonable view, it just isn’t what the vast majority believe.
McKT,
The “lack of reason”, even in the face of declining rates also applies to many other stats. Without gang/drug deaths the rate of firearms death in the US becomes much closer to other places for example. So maybe the war on drugs is the cause, not the guns. And so on.
However, the reaction to death by gunshot, all types, is simply fueled by the belief that almost every death by gunshot is preventable. Much in the way that every death from smoking is preventable.
People who don’t ever use a gun for any purpose just see them as unnecessary, thus ANY risk is not justified. Any death is one more than was necessary. Even bacon has a better reason to exist.
That is not an unreasonable view, it just isn’t what the vast majority believe.
McKT,
The “lack of reason”, even in the face of declining rates also applies to many other stats. Without gang/drug deaths the rate of firearms death in the US becomes much closer to other places for example. So maybe the war on drugs is the cause, not the guns. And so on.
However, the reaction to death by gunshot, all types, is simply fueled by the belief that almost every death by gunshot is preventable. Much in the way that every death from smoking is preventable.
People who don’t ever use a gun for any purpose just see them as unnecessary, thus ANY risk is not justified. Any death is one more than was necessary. Even bacon has a better reason to exist.
That is not an unreasonable view, it just isn’t what the vast majority believe.
I’m personally in the defeatist camp on the issue, but even if were the King of the United States of American, I wouldn’t ban or confiscate all firearms.
I would be interested to know, if you were King, what you would do differently and why you think doing so would make a difference.
Were it up to me, I would couple the right to own with the duty to do so reasonably and with sanctions attached to not doing so reasonably. I would make the use/presence of a gun during a crime an aggravating factor. I would attach civil liability, to the extent it doesn’t already exist (which it does), to negligent failure to secure guns, to allowing guns to fall in the hands of children or others not known to the owner to be competent gun handlers. I would do a number of things along those lines. I would maintain the ban on fully automatic weapons, on explosive devices and other currently banned items. I would not obsess over cosmetics.
I try to be honest about what guns do and what they are used for. I try not to shy away from the fact that guns are used to commit horrible crimes, crimes that likely could not be committed in that fashion without guns. A man blew up a federal building using fertilizer. We still use fertilizer. People flew airplanes into buildings. Others released poisonous gas on a subway. These are not non sequiturs. It’s a very, very hard world out there. Absolutists with absolute solutions don’t make it less hard.
I’m personally in the defeatist camp on the issue, but even if were the King of the United States of American, I wouldn’t ban or confiscate all firearms.
I would be interested to know, if you were King, what you would do differently and why you think doing so would make a difference.
Were it up to me, I would couple the right to own with the duty to do so reasonably and with sanctions attached to not doing so reasonably. I would make the use/presence of a gun during a crime an aggravating factor. I would attach civil liability, to the extent it doesn’t already exist (which it does), to negligent failure to secure guns, to allowing guns to fall in the hands of children or others not known to the owner to be competent gun handlers. I would do a number of things along those lines. I would maintain the ban on fully automatic weapons, on explosive devices and other currently banned items. I would not obsess over cosmetics.
I try to be honest about what guns do and what they are used for. I try not to shy away from the fact that guns are used to commit horrible crimes, crimes that likely could not be committed in that fashion without guns. A man blew up a federal building using fertilizer. We still use fertilizer. People flew airplanes into buildings. Others released poisonous gas on a subway. These are not non sequiturs. It’s a very, very hard world out there. Absolutists with absolute solutions don’t make it less hard.
I’m personally in the defeatist camp on the issue, but even if were the King of the United States of American, I wouldn’t ban or confiscate all firearms.
I would be interested to know, if you were King, what you would do differently and why you think doing so would make a difference.
Were it up to me, I would couple the right to own with the duty to do so reasonably and with sanctions attached to not doing so reasonably. I would make the use/presence of a gun during a crime an aggravating factor. I would attach civil liability, to the extent it doesn’t already exist (which it does), to negligent failure to secure guns, to allowing guns to fall in the hands of children or others not known to the owner to be competent gun handlers. I would do a number of things along those lines. I would maintain the ban on fully automatic weapons, on explosive devices and other currently banned items. I would not obsess over cosmetics.
I try to be honest about what guns do and what they are used for. I try not to shy away from the fact that guns are used to commit horrible crimes, crimes that likely could not be committed in that fashion without guns. A man blew up a federal building using fertilizer. We still use fertilizer. People flew airplanes into buildings. Others released poisonous gas on a subway. These are not non sequiturs. It’s a very, very hard world out there. Absolutists with absolute solutions don’t make it less hard.
People who don’t ever use a gun for any purpose just see them as unnecessary,
not just them.
i’ve owned guns. i’ve purchased guns. i’ve assembled and disassembled guns. i’ve upgraded and modified guns. i’ve hung them on my wall and admired their lines and curves and the engineering that makes them work. i’ve killed things with guns. and yet i know they are unnecessary in daily life. and not just my life, but everybody’s life.
would i take away people’s guns if i were King? in a second, faster than you can say “hypothetical”.
People who don’t ever use a gun for any purpose just see them as unnecessary,
not just them.
i’ve owned guns. i’ve purchased guns. i’ve assembled and disassembled guns. i’ve upgraded and modified guns. i’ve hung them on my wall and admired their lines and curves and the engineering that makes them work. i’ve killed things with guns. and yet i know they are unnecessary in daily life. and not just my life, but everybody’s life.
would i take away people’s guns if i were King? in a second, faster than you can say “hypothetical”.
People who don’t ever use a gun for any purpose just see them as unnecessary,
not just them.
i’ve owned guns. i’ve purchased guns. i’ve assembled and disassembled guns. i’ve upgraded and modified guns. i’ve hung them on my wall and admired their lines and curves and the engineering that makes them work. i’ve killed things with guns. and yet i know they are unnecessary in daily life. and not just my life, but everybody’s life.
would i take away people’s guns if i were King? in a second, faster than you can say “hypothetical”.
“People die, lifes a risk, or not really because it always ends the same. We should really just make sure its against the law for bad guys to have guns. Oh, wait. So we can’t find 11 million illegal aliens but we should collect 300 million guns?”
Humans respond to costs. Increasing the availability (and decreasing the cost) of guns makes it easier for criminals to have guns. The argument I have seen–that if criminals are determined to get a gun, they will–is deeply and perhaps deliberately ignorant of how actual humans behave. It is also offered inconsistently; notice how no conservative ever says that if Iran is determined to develop a nuclear weapon it will, so we might as well stop trying.
“People die, lifes a risk, or not really because it always ends the same. We should really just make sure its against the law for bad guys to have guns. Oh, wait. So we can’t find 11 million illegal aliens but we should collect 300 million guns?”
Humans respond to costs. Increasing the availability (and decreasing the cost) of guns makes it easier for criminals to have guns. The argument I have seen–that if criminals are determined to get a gun, they will–is deeply and perhaps deliberately ignorant of how actual humans behave. It is also offered inconsistently; notice how no conservative ever says that if Iran is determined to develop a nuclear weapon it will, so we might as well stop trying.
“People die, lifes a risk, or not really because it always ends the same. We should really just make sure its against the law for bad guys to have guns. Oh, wait. So we can’t find 11 million illegal aliens but we should collect 300 million guns?”
Humans respond to costs. Increasing the availability (and decreasing the cost) of guns makes it easier for criminals to have guns. The argument I have seen–that if criminals are determined to get a gun, they will–is deeply and perhaps deliberately ignorant of how actual humans behave. It is also offered inconsistently; notice how no conservative ever says that if Iran is determined to develop a nuclear weapon it will, so we might as well stop trying.
People who don’t ever use a gun for any purpose just see them as unnecessary
Yes. Similarly, rich people overwhelmingly believe that public assistance to poor people is unnecessary. Who could have known?
thus ANY risk is not justified. Any death is one more than was necessary.
Take that up with the bed wetters on the right wrt “terrorism”. No price is too much to pay to reduce an already small risk. How is that?
People who don’t ever use a gun for any purpose just see them as unnecessary
Yes. Similarly, rich people overwhelmingly believe that public assistance to poor people is unnecessary. Who could have known?
thus ANY risk is not justified. Any death is one more than was necessary.
Take that up with the bed wetters on the right wrt “terrorism”. No price is too much to pay to reduce an already small risk. How is that?
People who don’t ever use a gun for any purpose just see them as unnecessary
Yes. Similarly, rich people overwhelmingly believe that public assistance to poor people is unnecessary. Who could have known?
thus ANY risk is not justified. Any death is one more than was necessary.
Take that up with the bed wetters on the right wrt “terrorism”. No price is too much to pay to reduce an already small risk. How is that?
A man blew up a federal building using fertilizer. We still use fertilizer. People flew airplanes into buildings. Others released poisonous gas on a subway. These are not non sequiturs.
no, they are non sequiturs.
again, as has been pointed out already, guns are designed to kill things. that’s their purpose. they are weapons. their convenient lethality is their entire reason for being. the only other legitimate use of a gun is something called “practice”, in which you practice your ability to use a gun to kill things because killable things are scarce (though not scarce enough). it’s a misuse of a gun to use it for anything but killing or to practice killing.
most everything can be turned into a weapon or can be a cause of death or injury. only lethal weapons exist in order to kill.
A man blew up a federal building using fertilizer. We still use fertilizer. People flew airplanes into buildings. Others released poisonous gas on a subway. These are not non sequiturs.
no, they are non sequiturs.
again, as has been pointed out already, guns are designed to kill things. that’s their purpose. they are weapons. their convenient lethality is their entire reason for being. the only other legitimate use of a gun is something called “practice”, in which you practice your ability to use a gun to kill things because killable things are scarce (though not scarce enough). it’s a misuse of a gun to use it for anything but killing or to practice killing.
most everything can be turned into a weapon or can be a cause of death or injury. only lethal weapons exist in order to kill.
A man blew up a federal building using fertilizer. We still use fertilizer. People flew airplanes into buildings. Others released poisonous gas on a subway. These are not non sequiturs.
no, they are non sequiturs.
again, as has been pointed out already, guns are designed to kill things. that’s their purpose. they are weapons. their convenient lethality is their entire reason for being. the only other legitimate use of a gun is something called “practice”, in which you practice your ability to use a gun to kill things because killable things are scarce (though not scarce enough). it’s a misuse of a gun to use it for anything but killing or to practice killing.
most everything can be turned into a weapon or can be a cause of death or injury. only lethal weapons exist in order to kill.
“A man blew up a federal building using fertilizer. We still use fertilizer. People flew airplanes into buildings. Others released poisonous gas on a subway. These are not non sequiturs. It’s a very, very hard world out there.”
Fertilizer: we track fertilizer purchases. See
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/02/nation/la-na-ammonium-nitrate-20110803
“People flew airplanes into buildings.”
We increased airplane security significantly, hardened cockpits. We created a no-fly list. We adapted to meet a threat (compared to the complete nonresponse to gun violence).
“Others released poisonous gas on a subway.”
I’m not sure what point you’re making here. Is it “duh, just because some people released sarin gas on a subway, now you want to outlaw it”? Because I’m pretty sure sarin gas is in fact prohibited.
If your point is that some things are dangerous, but we don’t completely outlaw all incidentally dangerous things, chew on this:
1. Many dangerous things offer compensating utility.
2. The specific utility/risk profile of each thing is what matters. Pontificating about how risk can never be reduced to zero is beside the point.
3. For the dangerous things you listed, we have actually restricted access or changed our security approach. Not so for guns.
As for what utility guns offer, sporting use is one. Self defense is another. But I’d like to see some quantitative argument that those uses justify the mortality and injury risk guns present. My personal experience with being mugged and assaulted is that having a gun is nearly useless because you are almost always going to be caught off-guard unless you live a life of ceaseless paranoia.
“A man blew up a federal building using fertilizer. We still use fertilizer. People flew airplanes into buildings. Others released poisonous gas on a subway. These are not non sequiturs. It’s a very, very hard world out there.”
Fertilizer: we track fertilizer purchases. See
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/02/nation/la-na-ammonium-nitrate-20110803
“People flew airplanes into buildings.”
We increased airplane security significantly, hardened cockpits. We created a no-fly list. We adapted to meet a threat (compared to the complete nonresponse to gun violence).
“Others released poisonous gas on a subway.”
I’m not sure what point you’re making here. Is it “duh, just because some people released sarin gas on a subway, now you want to outlaw it”? Because I’m pretty sure sarin gas is in fact prohibited.
If your point is that some things are dangerous, but we don’t completely outlaw all incidentally dangerous things, chew on this:
1. Many dangerous things offer compensating utility.
2. The specific utility/risk profile of each thing is what matters. Pontificating about how risk can never be reduced to zero is beside the point.
3. For the dangerous things you listed, we have actually restricted access or changed our security approach. Not so for guns.
As for what utility guns offer, sporting use is one. Self defense is another. But I’d like to see some quantitative argument that those uses justify the mortality and injury risk guns present. My personal experience with being mugged and assaulted is that having a gun is nearly useless because you are almost always going to be caught off-guard unless you live a life of ceaseless paranoia.
“A man blew up a federal building using fertilizer. We still use fertilizer. People flew airplanes into buildings. Others released poisonous gas on a subway. These are not non sequiturs. It’s a very, very hard world out there.”
Fertilizer: we track fertilizer purchases. See
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/02/nation/la-na-ammonium-nitrate-20110803
“People flew airplanes into buildings.”
We increased airplane security significantly, hardened cockpits. We created a no-fly list. We adapted to meet a threat (compared to the complete nonresponse to gun violence).
“Others released poisonous gas on a subway.”
I’m not sure what point you’re making here. Is it “duh, just because some people released sarin gas on a subway, now you want to outlaw it”? Because I’m pretty sure sarin gas is in fact prohibited.
If your point is that some things are dangerous, but we don’t completely outlaw all incidentally dangerous things, chew on this:
1. Many dangerous things offer compensating utility.
2. The specific utility/risk profile of each thing is what matters. Pontificating about how risk can never be reduced to zero is beside the point.
3. For the dangerous things you listed, we have actually restricted access or changed our security approach. Not so for guns.
As for what utility guns offer, sporting use is one. Self defense is another. But I’d like to see some quantitative argument that those uses justify the mortality and injury risk guns present. My personal experience with being mugged and assaulted is that having a gun is nearly useless because you are almost always going to be caught off-guard unless you live a life of ceaseless paranoia.
To my knowledge the access to the type of fertilizer used in bombs has been made more difficult after Oklahoma City and some other failed attempts by the spiritual kin of McVeigh. And over here it was regulated even before that (not out of fear of terrorists but due to some nasty accidents).
To my knowledge the access to the type of fertilizer used in bombs has been made more difficult after Oklahoma City and some other failed attempts by the spiritual kin of McVeigh. And over here it was regulated even before that (not out of fear of terrorists but due to some nasty accidents).
To my knowledge the access to the type of fertilizer used in bombs has been made more difficult after Oklahoma City and some other failed attempts by the spiritual kin of McVeigh. And over here it was regulated even before that (not out of fear of terrorists but due to some nasty accidents).
I would be interested to know, if you were King, what you would do differently and why you think doing so would make a difference.
Probably not much differently from what you described. I’d probably add universal background checks as a means of enforcing what you described.
My problem is with what I see as bad arguments made generally against gun control (of no specified particulars). Life is full or risk, yes, but we do take measures in many areas to mitigate those risks, so the real argument is over what do we actually do, not whether or not to do anything at all.
If you were on another blog of a different persuasion than this one arguing for the gun-control measures you described (an that is what they are), you’d be the commie-pinko.
As it stands, once we get through the highly generalized justifications for our own positions (at least as we perceive them to be relative to those of others) on which we seem to disagree greatly, and we get down to an actual discussion of policy, even if not terribly specific, we’re pretty close on the practicalities.
So what is it we’re arguing about, really?
I would be interested to know, if you were King, what you would do differently and why you think doing so would make a difference.
Probably not much differently from what you described. I’d probably add universal background checks as a means of enforcing what you described.
My problem is with what I see as bad arguments made generally against gun control (of no specified particulars). Life is full or risk, yes, but we do take measures in many areas to mitigate those risks, so the real argument is over what do we actually do, not whether or not to do anything at all.
If you were on another blog of a different persuasion than this one arguing for the gun-control measures you described (an that is what they are), you’d be the commie-pinko.
As it stands, once we get through the highly generalized justifications for our own positions (at least as we perceive them to be relative to those of others) on which we seem to disagree greatly, and we get down to an actual discussion of policy, even if not terribly specific, we’re pretty close on the practicalities.
So what is it we’re arguing about, really?
I would be interested to know, if you were King, what you would do differently and why you think doing so would make a difference.
Probably not much differently from what you described. I’d probably add universal background checks as a means of enforcing what you described.
My problem is with what I see as bad arguments made generally against gun control (of no specified particulars). Life is full or risk, yes, but we do take measures in many areas to mitigate those risks, so the real argument is over what do we actually do, not whether or not to do anything at all.
If you were on another blog of a different persuasion than this one arguing for the gun-control measures you described (an that is what they are), you’d be the commie-pinko.
As it stands, once we get through the highly generalized justifications for our own positions (at least as we perceive them to be relative to those of others) on which we seem to disagree greatly, and we get down to an actual discussion of policy, even if not terribly specific, we’re pretty close on the practicalities.
So what is it we’re arguing about, really?
“Were it up to me, I would couple the right to own with the duty to do so reasonably and with sanctions attached to not doing so reasonably. I would make the use/presence of a gun during a crime an aggravating factor. I would attach civil liability, to the extent it doesn’t already exist (which it does), to negligent failure to secure guns, to allowing guns to fall in the hands of children or others not known to the owner to be competent gun handlers. I would do a number of things along those lines. I would maintain the ban on fully automatic weapons, on explosive devices and other currently banned items. I would not obsess over cosmetics.”
You’ve also come out on these pages against open carry in public.
I could quibble with a few things, and I would go farther than you have, but the details you have provided look like a realistic compromise given the impossibilities in today’s world which hairshirt references.
“A man blew up a federal building using fertilizer. We still use fertilizer”
Measures have been taken by government agencies biased against such behavior. Try loading up, as an individual, in bulk. If there was a Third Amendment protecting the right to possess and bear fertilizer, where would we be?
“People flew airplanes into buildings” Measures were taken by government agencies biased against such behavior, including allowing law enforcement to conceal carry on flights, locking cockpit doors, and checking out my underwear. Also banning weapons carried on the person in flight. No Third Amendment protecting the right to possess and bear airplanes as weapons among the citizenry.
“Others released poisonous gas on a subway.”
Etc.
If I were King of America, an American would shoot me dead, probably a conservative now beating up folks at Trump rallies or declaring Cruz the second coming, so I hereby relinquish the throne and appoint my Fool as a stand-in.
“Were it up to me, I would couple the right to own with the duty to do so reasonably and with sanctions attached to not doing so reasonably. I would make the use/presence of a gun during a crime an aggravating factor. I would attach civil liability, to the extent it doesn’t already exist (which it does), to negligent failure to secure guns, to allowing guns to fall in the hands of children or others not known to the owner to be competent gun handlers. I would do a number of things along those lines. I would maintain the ban on fully automatic weapons, on explosive devices and other currently banned items. I would not obsess over cosmetics.”
You’ve also come out on these pages against open carry in public.
I could quibble with a few things, and I would go farther than you have, but the details you have provided look like a realistic compromise given the impossibilities in today’s world which hairshirt references.
“A man blew up a federal building using fertilizer. We still use fertilizer”
Measures have been taken by government agencies biased against such behavior. Try loading up, as an individual, in bulk. If there was a Third Amendment protecting the right to possess and bear fertilizer, where would we be?
“People flew airplanes into buildings” Measures were taken by government agencies biased against such behavior, including allowing law enforcement to conceal carry on flights, locking cockpit doors, and checking out my underwear. Also banning weapons carried on the person in flight. No Third Amendment protecting the right to possess and bear airplanes as weapons among the citizenry.
“Others released poisonous gas on a subway.”
Etc.
If I were King of America, an American would shoot me dead, probably a conservative now beating up folks at Trump rallies or declaring Cruz the second coming, so I hereby relinquish the throne and appoint my Fool as a stand-in.
“Were it up to me, I would couple the right to own with the duty to do so reasonably and with sanctions attached to not doing so reasonably. I would make the use/presence of a gun during a crime an aggravating factor. I would attach civil liability, to the extent it doesn’t already exist (which it does), to negligent failure to secure guns, to allowing guns to fall in the hands of children or others not known to the owner to be competent gun handlers. I would do a number of things along those lines. I would maintain the ban on fully automatic weapons, on explosive devices and other currently banned items. I would not obsess over cosmetics.”
You’ve also come out on these pages against open carry in public.
I could quibble with a few things, and I would go farther than you have, but the details you have provided look like a realistic compromise given the impossibilities in today’s world which hairshirt references.
“A man blew up a federal building using fertilizer. We still use fertilizer”
Measures have been taken by government agencies biased against such behavior. Try loading up, as an individual, in bulk. If there was a Third Amendment protecting the right to possess and bear fertilizer, where would we be?
“People flew airplanes into buildings” Measures were taken by government agencies biased against such behavior, including allowing law enforcement to conceal carry on flights, locking cockpit doors, and checking out my underwear. Also banning weapons carried on the person in flight. No Third Amendment protecting the right to possess and bear airplanes as weapons among the citizenry.
“Others released poisonous gas on a subway.”
Etc.
If I were King of America, an American would shoot me dead, probably a conservative now beating up folks at Trump rallies or declaring Cruz the second coming, so I hereby relinquish the throne and appoint my Fool as a stand-in.
But I repeat what others have written, which is not, I repeat (again), not a sign of conspiracy.
Rest of the day is devoted to being unoriginal in my non-blogging life.
But I repeat what others have written, which is not, I repeat (again), not a sign of conspiracy.
Rest of the day is devoted to being unoriginal in my non-blogging life.
But I repeat what others have written, which is not, I repeat (again), not a sign of conspiracy.
Rest of the day is devoted to being unoriginal in my non-blogging life.
Increasing the availability (and decreasing the cost) of guns makes it easier for criminals to have guns.
If this were true, then gun deaths and gun violence generally would be on the rise. Guns are cheaper and far more prevalent than ever before. Yet, the crime numbers are down.
Similarly, rich people overwhelmingly believe that public assistance to poor people is unnecessary. Who could have known?
BP, this is a bit of mind reading. More accurately, traditional (now out of date and out of style) conservatives, generally speaking, question whether prolonged public assistance does more harm than good.
you’d be the commie-pinko.
I am the commie-pinko among my closest friends.
You’ve also come out on these pages against open carry in public.
Yep, and I still feel that way.
we’re pretty close on the practicalities.
This raises a whole different topic, one that I’ve been pondering for the last several months. How many of us gravitate toward our traditional, respective poles only to wonder if our poles are the home they once were?
Increasing the availability (and decreasing the cost) of guns makes it easier for criminals to have guns.
If this were true, then gun deaths and gun violence generally would be on the rise. Guns are cheaper and far more prevalent than ever before. Yet, the crime numbers are down.
Similarly, rich people overwhelmingly believe that public assistance to poor people is unnecessary. Who could have known?
BP, this is a bit of mind reading. More accurately, traditional (now out of date and out of style) conservatives, generally speaking, question whether prolonged public assistance does more harm than good.
you’d be the commie-pinko.
I am the commie-pinko among my closest friends.
You’ve also come out on these pages against open carry in public.
Yep, and I still feel that way.
we’re pretty close on the practicalities.
This raises a whole different topic, one that I’ve been pondering for the last several months. How many of us gravitate toward our traditional, respective poles only to wonder if our poles are the home they once were?
Increasing the availability (and decreasing the cost) of guns makes it easier for criminals to have guns.
If this were true, then gun deaths and gun violence generally would be on the rise. Guns are cheaper and far more prevalent than ever before. Yet, the crime numbers are down.
Similarly, rich people overwhelmingly believe that public assistance to poor people is unnecessary. Who could have known?
BP, this is a bit of mind reading. More accurately, traditional (now out of date and out of style) conservatives, generally speaking, question whether prolonged public assistance does more harm than good.
you’d be the commie-pinko.
I am the commie-pinko among my closest friends.
You’ve also come out on these pages against open carry in public.
Yep, and I still feel that way.
we’re pretty close on the practicalities.
This raises a whole different topic, one that I’ve been pondering for the last several months. How many of us gravitate toward our traditional, respective poles only to wonder if our poles are the home they once were?
McT,
I looked at the article you linked to, and the NEJM summary as well. I’m not impressed.
First, I don’t even understand Lott’s criticism of the study, and I very much doubt Morse does either. And John “The dog ate my data” Lott is hardly a “leading scholar” of criminology.
Second, Morse’s criticism makes little sense.The study looked at high-crime areas. Well, so what? The deaths were a result of various disputes. Yes. That’s when people get angry and maybe start shooting if there is a gun around.
Weak stuff.
McT,
I looked at the article you linked to, and the NEJM summary as well. I’m not impressed.
First, I don’t even understand Lott’s criticism of the study, and I very much doubt Morse does either. And John “The dog ate my data” Lott is hardly a “leading scholar” of criminology.
Second, Morse’s criticism makes little sense.The study looked at high-crime areas. Well, so what? The deaths were a result of various disputes. Yes. That’s when people get angry and maybe start shooting if there is a gun around.
Weak stuff.
McT,
I looked at the article you linked to, and the NEJM summary as well. I’m not impressed.
First, I don’t even understand Lott’s criticism of the study, and I very much doubt Morse does either. And John “The dog ate my data” Lott is hardly a “leading scholar” of criminology.
Second, Morse’s criticism makes little sense.The study looked at high-crime areas. Well, so what? The deaths were a result of various disputes. Yes. That’s when people get angry and maybe start shooting if there is a gun around.
Weak stuff.
See, I vacillate.
As of this moment, I am four-square in favor of a citizenry armed with the most lethal, large-clip military weaponry money can buy, or that can be stolen.
Because it is necessary to carry out what needs to be done to save the country from right-wing vermin:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kris-kobach-aclu-communists
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/orrin-hatch-jeff-sessions-obama-scotus-nom
See, I vacillate.
As of this moment, I am four-square in favor of a citizenry armed with the most lethal, large-clip military weaponry money can buy, or that can be stolen.
Because it is necessary to carry out what needs to be done to save the country from right-wing vermin:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kris-kobach-aclu-communists
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/orrin-hatch-jeff-sessions-obama-scotus-nom
See, I vacillate.
As of this moment, I am four-square in favor of a citizenry armed with the most lethal, large-clip military weaponry money can buy, or that can be stolen.
Because it is necessary to carry out what needs to be done to save the country from right-wing vermin:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kris-kobach-aclu-communists
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/orrin-hatch-jeff-sessions-obama-scotus-nom
The quote above implies the NRA is politicizing objective scientific research.
You mis-read me. There was no implication, there was a plain statement.
Yes, we know, as a matter of raw data, the number of people who are killed or injured by firearms in a given year.
Non-fatal injuries are about 84K, fatalaties about 33K. About 2/3 of the fatalities are suicides.
There is a very broad range of things we do not know. How does the likelihood of death or injury by firearm relate to age, use of alcohol or other substances, level of training with firearms. Do the various regimes of firearms regulation that do exist have any effect on the rate of firearm injury or death.
Etc etc etc.
It would be really helpful if we could discuss the issue in the context of actual information, rather than everybody’s anecdotal stories and/or knee-jerk reactions.
The NRA gets in the way of that.
The quote above implies the NRA is politicizing objective scientific research.
You mis-read me. There was no implication, there was a plain statement.
Yes, we know, as a matter of raw data, the number of people who are killed or injured by firearms in a given year.
Non-fatal injuries are about 84K, fatalaties about 33K. About 2/3 of the fatalities are suicides.
There is a very broad range of things we do not know. How does the likelihood of death or injury by firearm relate to age, use of alcohol or other substances, level of training with firearms. Do the various regimes of firearms regulation that do exist have any effect on the rate of firearm injury or death.
Etc etc etc.
It would be really helpful if we could discuss the issue in the context of actual information, rather than everybody’s anecdotal stories and/or knee-jerk reactions.
The NRA gets in the way of that.
The quote above implies the NRA is politicizing objective scientific research.
You mis-read me. There was no implication, there was a plain statement.
Yes, we know, as a matter of raw data, the number of people who are killed or injured by firearms in a given year.
Non-fatal injuries are about 84K, fatalaties about 33K. About 2/3 of the fatalities are suicides.
There is a very broad range of things we do not know. How does the likelihood of death or injury by firearm relate to age, use of alcohol or other substances, level of training with firearms. Do the various regimes of firearms regulation that do exist have any effect on the rate of firearm injury or death.
Etc etc etc.
It would be really helpful if we could discuss the issue in the context of actual information, rather than everybody’s anecdotal stories and/or knee-jerk reactions.
The NRA gets in the way of that.
And just to clarify my own position, I don’t care if people have guns or not.
Something over 100K people are shot in this country a year, which seems like a hell of a lot.
I don’t think it’s a number we all just have to learn to live with, and I’d like it to be lower.
That is my position on firearms.
And just to clarify my own position, I don’t care if people have guns or not.
Something over 100K people are shot in this country a year, which seems like a hell of a lot.
I don’t think it’s a number we all just have to learn to live with, and I’d like it to be lower.
That is my position on firearms.
And just to clarify my own position, I don’t care if people have guns or not.
Something over 100K people are shot in this country a year, which seems like a hell of a lot.
I don’t think it’s a number we all just have to learn to live with, and I’d like it to be lower.
That is my position on firearms.
me: “Increasing the availability (and decreasing the cost) of guns makes it easier for criminals to have guns.”
russell: “If this were true, then gun deaths and gun violence generally would be on the rise. Guns are cheaper and far more prevalent than ever before. Yet, the crime numbers are down.”
You’ve got to be kidding. Are you seriously disputing that increasing the cost of something reduces demand for it? Perhaps crime is complex enough that other factors like changes to penal policy, the economy, and the welfare state have intruded to reduce crime nationwide in ways no one fully understands. Because another explanation (besides “making guns cheaper does not make it easier for criminals to get them”) is that the fall in gun violence would have been greater but for the relaxing of gun laws. Why is that interpretation less plausible than yours (to be honest, I don’t know what your interpretation is)?
me: “Increasing the availability (and decreasing the cost) of guns makes it easier for criminals to have guns.”
russell: “If this were true, then gun deaths and gun violence generally would be on the rise. Guns are cheaper and far more prevalent than ever before. Yet, the crime numbers are down.”
You’ve got to be kidding. Are you seriously disputing that increasing the cost of something reduces demand for it? Perhaps crime is complex enough that other factors like changes to penal policy, the economy, and the welfare state have intruded to reduce crime nationwide in ways no one fully understands. Because another explanation (besides “making guns cheaper does not make it easier for criminals to get them”) is that the fall in gun violence would have been greater but for the relaxing of gun laws. Why is that interpretation less plausible than yours (to be honest, I don’t know what your interpretation is)?
me: “Increasing the availability (and decreasing the cost) of guns makes it easier for criminals to have guns.”
russell: “If this were true, then gun deaths and gun violence generally would be on the rise. Guns are cheaper and far more prevalent than ever before. Yet, the crime numbers are down.”
You’ve got to be kidding. Are you seriously disputing that increasing the cost of something reduces demand for it? Perhaps crime is complex enough that other factors like changes to penal policy, the economy, and the welfare state have intruded to reduce crime nationwide in ways no one fully understands. Because another explanation (besides “making guns cheaper does not make it easier for criminals to get them”) is that the fall in gun violence would have been greater but for the relaxing of gun laws. Why is that interpretation less plausible than yours (to be honest, I don’t know what your interpretation is)?
Not Russell, Grumpy.
Not Russell, Grumpy.
Not Russell, Grumpy.
Grumpy, in addition to possibly being confused on the point I was making, I’m not Russell.
The study looked at high-crime areas. Well, so what? The deaths were a result of various disputes. Yes. That’s when people get angry and maybe start shooting if there is a gun around.
You don’t look at high crime areas and extrapolate to high gun ownership/low crime areas for incidence of gun-related injury.
As Marty pointed out, if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, we have two separate and not equal outcomes on gun violence.
I’m not saying the Federalist has it all right either, BTW. The CDC was stacking the deck in favor of heavy gun control, the NRA would stack in the opposite direction. My beef is taking either side seriously.
Grumpy, in addition to possibly being confused on the point I was making, I’m not Russell.
The study looked at high-crime areas. Well, so what? The deaths were a result of various disputes. Yes. That’s when people get angry and maybe start shooting if there is a gun around.
You don’t look at high crime areas and extrapolate to high gun ownership/low crime areas for incidence of gun-related injury.
As Marty pointed out, if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, we have two separate and not equal outcomes on gun violence.
I’m not saying the Federalist has it all right either, BTW. The CDC was stacking the deck in favor of heavy gun control, the NRA would stack in the opposite direction. My beef is taking either side seriously.
Grumpy, in addition to possibly being confused on the point I was making, I’m not Russell.
The study looked at high-crime areas. Well, so what? The deaths were a result of various disputes. Yes. That’s when people get angry and maybe start shooting if there is a gun around.
You don’t look at high crime areas and extrapolate to high gun ownership/low crime areas for incidence of gun-related injury.
As Marty pointed out, if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, we have two separate and not equal outcomes on gun violence.
I’m not saying the Federalist has it all right either, BTW. The CDC was stacking the deck in favor of heavy gun control, the NRA would stack in the opposite direction. My beef is taking either side seriously.
Sorry about that.
To elaborate, the exceptions to the rule that cost reduces demand that I can think of off the top of my head is veblen goods, where people want the same item more when it is more expensive because they use price to infer that the item is better/fancier. I don’t really think that applies to the “cost increases” we usually want to impose on guns, namely background checks and licensing restrictions.
Sorry about that.
To elaborate, the exceptions to the rule that cost reduces demand that I can think of off the top of my head is veblen goods, where people want the same item more when it is more expensive because they use price to infer that the item is better/fancier. I don’t really think that applies to the “cost increases” we usually want to impose on guns, namely background checks and licensing restrictions.
Sorry about that.
To elaborate, the exceptions to the rule that cost reduces demand that I can think of off the top of my head is veblen goods, where people want the same item more when it is more expensive because they use price to infer that the item is better/fancier. I don’t really think that applies to the “cost increases” we usually want to impose on guns, namely background checks and licensing restrictions.
“Grumpy, in addition to possibly being confused on the point I was making, I’m not Russell.”
I breathlessly await your explanation.
“Grumpy, in addition to possibly being confused on the point I was making, I’m not Russell.”
I breathlessly await your explanation.
“Grumpy, in addition to possibly being confused on the point I was making, I’m not Russell.”
I breathlessly await your explanation.
this doesn’t happen in houses without guns.
this doesn’t happen in houses without guns.
this doesn’t happen in houses without guns.
You don’t look at high crime areas and extrapolate to high gun ownership/low crime areas for incidence of gun-related injury.
The comparison being done was between gun-owning households and non-gun-owning households in high-crime areas. I don’t see what’s wrong with that in itself. Does it extrapolate to low-crime areas.I don’t know. Maybe the CDC could find out.
Marty argues,
Without gang/drug deaths the rate of firearms death in the US becomes much closer to other places for example. So maybe the war on drugs is the cause, not the guns. And so on.
If you are going to exclude one set of firearm deaths from the US total, you need to exclude the same set from the places you are comparing to. Otherwise the comparison is useless. That seems pretty basic to me.
You don’t look at high crime areas and extrapolate to high gun ownership/low crime areas for incidence of gun-related injury.
The comparison being done was between gun-owning households and non-gun-owning households in high-crime areas. I don’t see what’s wrong with that in itself. Does it extrapolate to low-crime areas.I don’t know. Maybe the CDC could find out.
Marty argues,
Without gang/drug deaths the rate of firearms death in the US becomes much closer to other places for example. So maybe the war on drugs is the cause, not the guns. And so on.
If you are going to exclude one set of firearm deaths from the US total, you need to exclude the same set from the places you are comparing to. Otherwise the comparison is useless. That seems pretty basic to me.
You don’t look at high crime areas and extrapolate to high gun ownership/low crime areas for incidence of gun-related injury.
The comparison being done was between gun-owning households and non-gun-owning households in high-crime areas. I don’t see what’s wrong with that in itself. Does it extrapolate to low-crime areas.I don’t know. Maybe the CDC could find out.
Marty argues,
Without gang/drug deaths the rate of firearms death in the US becomes much closer to other places for example. So maybe the war on drugs is the cause, not the guns. And so on.
If you are going to exclude one set of firearm deaths from the US total, you need to exclude the same set from the places you are comparing to. Otherwise the comparison is useless. That seems pretty basic to me.
if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, you have no effect whatsoever on the 2/3 of deaths by firearm that are suicides.
there are other ways to kill yourself, but if you make the attempt with a gun, you’re much more likely to get the job done.
most of those folks are mostly rural middle aged or older white men.
slice and dice it any way you like, 100K plus folks in the US get shot every year. that’s a hell of a lot of folks.
if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, you have no effect whatsoever on the 2/3 of deaths by firearm that are suicides.
there are other ways to kill yourself, but if you make the attempt with a gun, you’re much more likely to get the job done.
most of those folks are mostly rural middle aged or older white men.
slice and dice it any way you like, 100K plus folks in the US get shot every year. that’s a hell of a lot of folks.
if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, you have no effect whatsoever on the 2/3 of deaths by firearm that are suicides.
there are other ways to kill yourself, but if you make the attempt with a gun, you’re much more likely to get the job done.
most of those folks are mostly rural middle aged or older white men.
slice and dice it any way you like, 100K plus folks in the US get shot every year. that’s a hell of a lot of folks.
if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, you have no effect whatsoever on the 2/3 of deaths by firearm that are suicides.
there are other ways to kill yourself, but if you make the attempt with a gun, you’re much more likely to get the job done.
most of those folks are mostly rural middle aged or older white men.
slice and dice it any way you like, 100K plus folks in the US get shot every year. that’s a hell of a lot of folks.
if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, you have no effect whatsoever on the 2/3 of deaths by firearm that are suicides.
there are other ways to kill yourself, but if you make the attempt with a gun, you’re much more likely to get the job done.
most of those folks are mostly rural middle aged or older white men.
slice and dice it any way you like, 100K plus folks in the US get shot every year. that’s a hell of a lot of folks.
if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, you have no effect whatsoever on the 2/3 of deaths by firearm that are suicides.
there are other ways to kill yourself, but if you make the attempt with a gun, you’re much more likely to get the job done.
most of those folks are mostly rural middle aged or older white men.
slice and dice it any way you like, 100K plus folks in the US get shot every year. that’s a hell of a lot of folks.
if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, you have no effect whatsoever on the 2/3 of deaths by firearm that are suicides.
there are other ways to kill yourself, but if you make the attempt with a gun, you’re much more likely to get the job done.
most of those folks are mostly rural middle aged or older white men.
slice and dice it any way you like, 100K plus folks in the US get shot every year. that’s a hell of a lot of folks.
if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, you have no effect whatsoever on the 2/3 of deaths by firearm that are suicides.
there are other ways to kill yourself, but if you make the attempt with a gun, you’re much more likely to get the job done.
most of those folks are mostly rural middle aged or older white men.
slice and dice it any way you like, 100K plus folks in the US get shot every year. that’s a hell of a lot of folks.
if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, you have no effect whatsoever on the 2/3 of deaths by firearm that are suicides.
there are other ways to kill yourself, but if you make the attempt with a gun, you’re much more likely to get the job done.
most of those folks are mostly rural middle aged or older white men.
slice and dice it any way you like, 100K plus folks in the US get shot every year. that’s a hell of a lot of folks.
meanwhile, since we’re on the topic (among others) of obstruction, it’s just another day in the loony bin.
note that no nominee has even been named yet. if it’s Obama’s nominee, they are agin it.
meanwhile, since we’re on the topic (among others) of obstruction, it’s just another day in the loony bin.
note that no nominee has even been named yet. if it’s Obama’s nominee, they are agin it.
meanwhile, since we’re on the topic (among others) of obstruction, it’s just another day in the loony bin.
note that no nominee has even been named yet. if it’s Obama’s nominee, they are agin it.
I’ll take collision, life, and the bullet wound rider with that, thank you:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lance-toland-employee-gun-mandate
I’ll take collision, life, and the bullet wound rider with that, thank you:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lance-toland-employee-gun-mandate
I’ll take collision, life, and the bullet wound rider with that, thank you:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lance-toland-employee-gun-mandate
No, the debate has been cut off at the knees. I have no voice in this democracy. I am not represented under this ratfucking government with the representatives and President.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/judiciary-committee-letter-no-scotus-hearing
Fuck off, Republicans. FUCK YOU!
You’re now at war.
No, the debate has been cut off at the knees. I have no voice in this democracy. I am not represented under this ratfucking government with the representatives and President.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/judiciary-committee-letter-no-scotus-hearing
Fuck off, Republicans. FUCK YOU!
You’re now at war.
No, the debate has been cut off at the knees. I have no voice in this democracy. I am not represented under this ratfucking government with the representatives and President.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/judiciary-committee-letter-no-scotus-hearing
Fuck off, Republicans. FUCK YOU!
You’re now at war.
Actually, Count, I think Ugh, Cleek and others here would confiscate guns in a heartbeat.
I can’t speak for them, of course. But some of us have zero interest in confiscating the guns of people who hunt, or who have other real uses for their weapons. (“Home security” would be a very hard sell. At least in most of the country.) Confiscating guns whose only purpose is as weapons of war might be a different story.
Actually, Count, I think Ugh, Cleek and others here would confiscate guns in a heartbeat.
I can’t speak for them, of course. But some of us have zero interest in confiscating the guns of people who hunt, or who have other real uses for their weapons. (“Home security” would be a very hard sell. At least in most of the country.) Confiscating guns whose only purpose is as weapons of war might be a different story.
Actually, Count, I think Ugh, Cleek and others here would confiscate guns in a heartbeat.
I can’t speak for them, of course. But some of us have zero interest in confiscating the guns of people who hunt, or who have other real uses for their weapons. (“Home security” would be a very hard sell. At least in most of the country.) Confiscating guns whose only purpose is as weapons of war might be a different story.
If you confiscate our guns, how are we going to shoot up the NRA?1??
See? Valuable tools. Need more of them, and more powerful also, too.
If you confiscate our guns, how are we going to shoot up the NRA?1??
See? Valuable tools. Need more of them, and more powerful also, too.
If you confiscate our guns, how are we going to shoot up the NRA?1??
See? Valuable tools. Need more of them, and more powerful also, too.
Humans respond to costs. Increasing the availability (and decreasing the cost) of guns makes it easier for criminals to have guns. The argument I have seen–that if criminals are determined to get a gun, they will–is deeply and perhaps deliberately ignorant of how actual humans behave.
Grumpy, I was responding to this statement you made. You posit that more guns at less cost makes it easier for criminals to get guns. You make several other points I don’t agree with, but this is the one I was addressing. My response, which I am essentially repeating, is that if your statement were true, then we would expect violent crime to be increasing because we have more guns today and we have them at less cost. However, gun crime, at least, is going down. That was and remains my point.
if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, you have no effect whatsoever on the 2/3 of deaths by firearm that are suicides.
Agreed. We have three separate cohorts of gun injury/death: violent crime, suicide and accident.
Violent crime is on the decline and is statistically predictable based on societal factors above. Outside of that cohort, violent gun crime co-relates with Western European countries with heavy gun control.
Suicide by gun in the US far exceeds suicide by gun in comparable Western European, gun-scarce countries. However, comparing suicide *rates*, regardless of mechanism, with other culturally similar countries yields a far more mixed result.
The question of why a person intending to take his/her own life chooses a gun over a bottle of pills is worth looking at, the problem is, must of the subjects are dead.
The last class is accident. Cleek cited another ridiculously avoidable horrific event in which a dumb ass father put a loaded pistol in reach of a six year old kid. Accidental death/injury by gunshot annually? Here are the numbers: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/tolls/2014
For comparison purposes, here are highway deaths in 2013: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview
Basically, in 2014, 51,000 all up gun deaths/injuries, of which less than 2000 were accidental.
For more context, from 2005-2009, annual deaths by drowing were in the 4,000 range, more than twice gun accidents. http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
I’ve done maybe 20 firearms cases, mostly fatalities, mostly accidents, over the years. One suicide, as I recall. I just settled a case this week for a man who shot a female friend in the ankle at a cook out. I’ve seen a lot of stupid stuff in 36 years of doing personal injury and wrongful death cases. Accidental injury or death by gunshot is a very small subset of a very large universe.
As a formerly avid hunter, I’ve handled several hundred different makes and models of rifles, pistols and shotguns. Once and only once, while clearing a jammed shotgun, did I have a gun fire unintentionally. It was pointed at the ground, away from me and I was alone. Scared the shit out of me.
My personal and professional experience leads to having zero tolerance for gun stupidity, and we seem to have a lot of it. Avoiding an unintentional discharge of a firearm is ridiculously simple, which accounts for most accidents. A subset of accidental shootings are hunting accidents like the one Cheney had. That is specific to quail hunting in heavy brush country, which is something only very seasoned hunters should do. Other hunting accidents involve too many people crowded together on dove or waterfowl hunts and hunters shooting people thinking they were deer. All of it is stupid and unforgivable which is why I would put a much higher price on it than we currently do (a check from an insurance company doesn’t teach much of a lesson).
All of this leads me to the CDC: disease control is not crime control. Death by suicide is a medical issue, regardless of the mechanism employed. Accidental gunshot deaths are statistically insignificant except for the victims. I don’t see any value in funding a study by people with an admitted bias that isn’t going to tell us anything we don’t pretty much already know. It isn’t as if we don’t have a whole body of medicine devoted to the underlying causes of suicide.
Humans respond to costs. Increasing the availability (and decreasing the cost) of guns makes it easier for criminals to have guns. The argument I have seen–that if criminals are determined to get a gun, they will–is deeply and perhaps deliberately ignorant of how actual humans behave.
Grumpy, I was responding to this statement you made. You posit that more guns at less cost makes it easier for criminals to get guns. You make several other points I don’t agree with, but this is the one I was addressing. My response, which I am essentially repeating, is that if your statement were true, then we would expect violent crime to be increasing because we have more guns today and we have them at less cost. However, gun crime, at least, is going down. That was and remains my point.
if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, you have no effect whatsoever on the 2/3 of deaths by firearm that are suicides.
Agreed. We have three separate cohorts of gun injury/death: violent crime, suicide and accident.
Violent crime is on the decline and is statistically predictable based on societal factors above. Outside of that cohort, violent gun crime co-relates with Western European countries with heavy gun control.
Suicide by gun in the US far exceeds suicide by gun in comparable Western European, gun-scarce countries. However, comparing suicide *rates*, regardless of mechanism, with other culturally similar countries yields a far more mixed result.
The question of why a person intending to take his/her own life chooses a gun over a bottle of pills is worth looking at, the problem is, must of the subjects are dead.
The last class is accident. Cleek cited another ridiculously avoidable horrific event in which a dumb ass father put a loaded pistol in reach of a six year old kid. Accidental death/injury by gunshot annually? Here are the numbers: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/tolls/2014
For comparison purposes, here are highway deaths in 2013: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview
Basically, in 2014, 51,000 all up gun deaths/injuries, of which less than 2000 were accidental.
For more context, from 2005-2009, annual deaths by drowing were in the 4,000 range, more than twice gun accidents. http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
I’ve done maybe 20 firearms cases, mostly fatalities, mostly accidents, over the years. One suicide, as I recall. I just settled a case this week for a man who shot a female friend in the ankle at a cook out. I’ve seen a lot of stupid stuff in 36 years of doing personal injury and wrongful death cases. Accidental injury or death by gunshot is a very small subset of a very large universe.
As a formerly avid hunter, I’ve handled several hundred different makes and models of rifles, pistols and shotguns. Once and only once, while clearing a jammed shotgun, did I have a gun fire unintentionally. It was pointed at the ground, away from me and I was alone. Scared the shit out of me.
My personal and professional experience leads to having zero tolerance for gun stupidity, and we seem to have a lot of it. Avoiding an unintentional discharge of a firearm is ridiculously simple, which accounts for most accidents. A subset of accidental shootings are hunting accidents like the one Cheney had. That is specific to quail hunting in heavy brush country, which is something only very seasoned hunters should do. Other hunting accidents involve too many people crowded together on dove or waterfowl hunts and hunters shooting people thinking they were deer. All of it is stupid and unforgivable which is why I would put a much higher price on it than we currently do (a check from an insurance company doesn’t teach much of a lesson).
All of this leads me to the CDC: disease control is not crime control. Death by suicide is a medical issue, regardless of the mechanism employed. Accidental gunshot deaths are statistically insignificant except for the victims. I don’t see any value in funding a study by people with an admitted bias that isn’t going to tell us anything we don’t pretty much already know. It isn’t as if we don’t have a whole body of medicine devoted to the underlying causes of suicide.
Humans respond to costs. Increasing the availability (and decreasing the cost) of guns makes it easier for criminals to have guns. The argument I have seen–that if criminals are determined to get a gun, they will–is deeply and perhaps deliberately ignorant of how actual humans behave.
Grumpy, I was responding to this statement you made. You posit that more guns at less cost makes it easier for criminals to get guns. You make several other points I don’t agree with, but this is the one I was addressing. My response, which I am essentially repeating, is that if your statement were true, then we would expect violent crime to be increasing because we have more guns today and we have them at less cost. However, gun crime, at least, is going down. That was and remains my point.
if you control for age/drug/gang/inner city, you have no effect whatsoever on the 2/3 of deaths by firearm that are suicides.
Agreed. We have three separate cohorts of gun injury/death: violent crime, suicide and accident.
Violent crime is on the decline and is statistically predictable based on societal factors above. Outside of that cohort, violent gun crime co-relates with Western European countries with heavy gun control.
Suicide by gun in the US far exceeds suicide by gun in comparable Western European, gun-scarce countries. However, comparing suicide *rates*, regardless of mechanism, with other culturally similar countries yields a far more mixed result.
The question of why a person intending to take his/her own life chooses a gun over a bottle of pills is worth looking at, the problem is, must of the subjects are dead.
The last class is accident. Cleek cited another ridiculously avoidable horrific event in which a dumb ass father put a loaded pistol in reach of a six year old kid. Accidental death/injury by gunshot annually? Here are the numbers: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/tolls/2014
For comparison purposes, here are highway deaths in 2013: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview
Basically, in 2014, 51,000 all up gun deaths/injuries, of which less than 2000 were accidental.
For more context, from 2005-2009, annual deaths by drowing were in the 4,000 range, more than twice gun accidents. http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
I’ve done maybe 20 firearms cases, mostly fatalities, mostly accidents, over the years. One suicide, as I recall. I just settled a case this week for a man who shot a female friend in the ankle at a cook out. I’ve seen a lot of stupid stuff in 36 years of doing personal injury and wrongful death cases. Accidental injury or death by gunshot is a very small subset of a very large universe.
As a formerly avid hunter, I’ve handled several hundred different makes and models of rifles, pistols and shotguns. Once and only once, while clearing a jammed shotgun, did I have a gun fire unintentionally. It was pointed at the ground, away from me and I was alone. Scared the shit out of me.
My personal and professional experience leads to having zero tolerance for gun stupidity, and we seem to have a lot of it. Avoiding an unintentional discharge of a firearm is ridiculously simple, which accounts for most accidents. A subset of accidental shootings are hunting accidents like the one Cheney had. That is specific to quail hunting in heavy brush country, which is something only very seasoned hunters should do. Other hunting accidents involve too many people crowded together on dove or waterfowl hunts and hunters shooting people thinking they were deer. All of it is stupid and unforgivable which is why I would put a much higher price on it than we currently do (a check from an insurance company doesn’t teach much of a lesson).
All of this leads me to the CDC: disease control is not crime control. Death by suicide is a medical issue, regardless of the mechanism employed. Accidental gunshot deaths are statistically insignificant except for the victims. I don’t see any value in funding a study by people with an admitted bias that isn’t going to tell us anything we don’t pretty much already know. It isn’t as if we don’t have a whole body of medicine devoted to the underlying causes of suicide.
I can’t speak for them, of course. But some of us have zero interest in confiscating the guns of people who hunt, or who have other real uses for their weapons. (“Home security” would be a very hard sell. At least in most of the country.) Confiscating guns whose only purpose is as weapons of war might be a different story.
My quibble here is that it really isn’t your call or mine whether someone owns a gun for a reason you or I approve of. For example, a person might own a rifle fully intending to use it only as a weapon of war, but that person’s intent would be to defend the United States from a foreign invasion. You and I might think that a bit of an odd reason; however, it isn’t so odd that at least one Western European country drafts every able bodied male and requires that he keep his military issue rifle at home. Our hypothetical person may be of the unreasonable view that an invasion in the next 20 to 40 years is possible and he/she wants to put up a fight. Weird, unrealistic, whatever, but so what. I’m making this point to illustrate that one of the things that makes Americans a free people is that we don’t, normally, ask our government to restrict our freedom prior to committing a bad act based on whether our thoughts meet approved government standards.
No one should be allowed to buy a gun if the stated purpose is to go out and shoot someone. But that is true for a lot of things. Take bowling balls: if the stated purpose is to drop one on someone’s head from a third story balcony, in a perfect world, that sale would not be allowed.
In real world America, we assume a lawful intended purpose behind pretty much what any person does until it appears they are acting unlawfully. It is the unlawful act that triggers government intervention, not pre-act suspicion or mind reading.
I can’t speak for them, of course. But some of us have zero interest in confiscating the guns of people who hunt, or who have other real uses for their weapons. (“Home security” would be a very hard sell. At least in most of the country.) Confiscating guns whose only purpose is as weapons of war might be a different story.
My quibble here is that it really isn’t your call or mine whether someone owns a gun for a reason you or I approve of. For example, a person might own a rifle fully intending to use it only as a weapon of war, but that person’s intent would be to defend the United States from a foreign invasion. You and I might think that a bit of an odd reason; however, it isn’t so odd that at least one Western European country drafts every able bodied male and requires that he keep his military issue rifle at home. Our hypothetical person may be of the unreasonable view that an invasion in the next 20 to 40 years is possible and he/she wants to put up a fight. Weird, unrealistic, whatever, but so what. I’m making this point to illustrate that one of the things that makes Americans a free people is that we don’t, normally, ask our government to restrict our freedom prior to committing a bad act based on whether our thoughts meet approved government standards.
No one should be allowed to buy a gun if the stated purpose is to go out and shoot someone. But that is true for a lot of things. Take bowling balls: if the stated purpose is to drop one on someone’s head from a third story balcony, in a perfect world, that sale would not be allowed.
In real world America, we assume a lawful intended purpose behind pretty much what any person does until it appears they are acting unlawfully. It is the unlawful act that triggers government intervention, not pre-act suspicion or mind reading.
I can’t speak for them, of course. But some of us have zero interest in confiscating the guns of people who hunt, or who have other real uses for their weapons. (“Home security” would be a very hard sell. At least in most of the country.) Confiscating guns whose only purpose is as weapons of war might be a different story.
My quibble here is that it really isn’t your call or mine whether someone owns a gun for a reason you or I approve of. For example, a person might own a rifle fully intending to use it only as a weapon of war, but that person’s intent would be to defend the United States from a foreign invasion. You and I might think that a bit of an odd reason; however, it isn’t so odd that at least one Western European country drafts every able bodied male and requires that he keep his military issue rifle at home. Our hypothetical person may be of the unreasonable view that an invasion in the next 20 to 40 years is possible and he/she wants to put up a fight. Weird, unrealistic, whatever, but so what. I’m making this point to illustrate that one of the things that makes Americans a free people is that we don’t, normally, ask our government to restrict our freedom prior to committing a bad act based on whether our thoughts meet approved government standards.
No one should be allowed to buy a gun if the stated purpose is to go out and shoot someone. But that is true for a lot of things. Take bowling balls: if the stated purpose is to drop one on someone’s head from a third story balcony, in a perfect world, that sale would not be allowed.
In real world America, we assume a lawful intended purpose behind pretty much what any person does until it appears they are acting unlawfully. It is the unlawful act that triggers government intervention, not pre-act suspicion or mind reading.
Grumpy, I was responding to this statement you made. You posit that more guns at less cost makes it easier for criminals to get guns. You make several other points I don’t agree with, but this is the one I was addressing. My response, which I am essentially repeating, is that if your statement were true, then we would expect violent crime to be increasing because we have more guns today and we have them at less cost. However, gun crime, at least, is going down. That was and remains my point.
I already responded to your response. I will repeat it here in the hope that this time you’ll read it:
You’ve got to be kidding. Are you seriously disputing that increasing the cost of something reduces demand for it? It seems more likely to me that crime, including gun violence, is complex enough that other factors like changes to penal policy, the economy, and the welfare state have intruded to reduce it nationwide in ways no one fully understands. Because another explanation (besides “making guns cheaper does not make it easier for criminals to get them”) is that the fall in gun violence would have been greater but for the relaxing of gun laws. Why is that interpretation less plausible than yours (to be honest, I don’t know what your interpretation is)?
The fact that crime in general is down nationwide (even when not involving guns) strongly suggests that something besides gun control has led to an across-the-board reduction in crime. The fact that this coincides with loose gun laws and cheaply available guns does not prove that loose gun laws and cheaply available guns cause nationwide across-the-board reductions in crime. You are mistaking correlation and causation–as I said above, and previously, it could well be true (and seems likely) that the easy availability of guns has PREVENTED gun violence from dropping as much as it could have.
if you seriously think that increasing the costs (“cost” here meaning any impediment, including background checks and including a reduction in supply) of obtaining a gun does not make it harder for criminals to get guns, I’d like to know why you don’t apply that logic to other similar situations.
For example, did sanctions on Iran (cost increases) for pursuing nuclear weapons encourage or discourage the pursuit of nuclear weapons?
Do criminal sentences for murder (a cost increase) deter or encourage murder?
Your proposal that increased cost of guns fails to reduce gun availability to criminals is a truly remarkable one that I’d love to see you back up with evidence.
Grumpy, I was responding to this statement you made. You posit that more guns at less cost makes it easier for criminals to get guns. You make several other points I don’t agree with, but this is the one I was addressing. My response, which I am essentially repeating, is that if your statement were true, then we would expect violent crime to be increasing because we have more guns today and we have them at less cost. However, gun crime, at least, is going down. That was and remains my point.
I already responded to your response. I will repeat it here in the hope that this time you’ll read it:
You’ve got to be kidding. Are you seriously disputing that increasing the cost of something reduces demand for it? It seems more likely to me that crime, including gun violence, is complex enough that other factors like changes to penal policy, the economy, and the welfare state have intruded to reduce it nationwide in ways no one fully understands. Because another explanation (besides “making guns cheaper does not make it easier for criminals to get them”) is that the fall in gun violence would have been greater but for the relaxing of gun laws. Why is that interpretation less plausible than yours (to be honest, I don’t know what your interpretation is)?
The fact that crime in general is down nationwide (even when not involving guns) strongly suggests that something besides gun control has led to an across-the-board reduction in crime. The fact that this coincides with loose gun laws and cheaply available guns does not prove that loose gun laws and cheaply available guns cause nationwide across-the-board reductions in crime. You are mistaking correlation and causation–as I said above, and previously, it could well be true (and seems likely) that the easy availability of guns has PREVENTED gun violence from dropping as much as it could have.
if you seriously think that increasing the costs (“cost” here meaning any impediment, including background checks and including a reduction in supply) of obtaining a gun does not make it harder for criminals to get guns, I’d like to know why you don’t apply that logic to other similar situations.
For example, did sanctions on Iran (cost increases) for pursuing nuclear weapons encourage or discourage the pursuit of nuclear weapons?
Do criminal sentences for murder (a cost increase) deter or encourage murder?
Your proposal that increased cost of guns fails to reduce gun availability to criminals is a truly remarkable one that I’d love to see you back up with evidence.
Grumpy, I was responding to this statement you made. You posit that more guns at less cost makes it easier for criminals to get guns. You make several other points I don’t agree with, but this is the one I was addressing. My response, which I am essentially repeating, is that if your statement were true, then we would expect violent crime to be increasing because we have more guns today and we have them at less cost. However, gun crime, at least, is going down. That was and remains my point.
I already responded to your response. I will repeat it here in the hope that this time you’ll read it:
You’ve got to be kidding. Are you seriously disputing that increasing the cost of something reduces demand for it? It seems more likely to me that crime, including gun violence, is complex enough that other factors like changes to penal policy, the economy, and the welfare state have intruded to reduce it nationwide in ways no one fully understands. Because another explanation (besides “making guns cheaper does not make it easier for criminals to get them”) is that the fall in gun violence would have been greater but for the relaxing of gun laws. Why is that interpretation less plausible than yours (to be honest, I don’t know what your interpretation is)?
The fact that crime in general is down nationwide (even when not involving guns) strongly suggests that something besides gun control has led to an across-the-board reduction in crime. The fact that this coincides with loose gun laws and cheaply available guns does not prove that loose gun laws and cheaply available guns cause nationwide across-the-board reductions in crime. You are mistaking correlation and causation–as I said above, and previously, it could well be true (and seems likely) that the easy availability of guns has PREVENTED gun violence from dropping as much as it could have.
if you seriously think that increasing the costs (“cost” here meaning any impediment, including background checks and including a reduction in supply) of obtaining a gun does not make it harder for criminals to get guns, I’d like to know why you don’t apply that logic to other similar situations.
For example, did sanctions on Iran (cost increases) for pursuing nuclear weapons encourage or discourage the pursuit of nuclear weapons?
Do criminal sentences for murder (a cost increase) deter or encourage murder?
Your proposal that increased cost of guns fails to reduce gun availability to criminals is a truly remarkable one that I’d love to see you back up with evidence.
See, separate corners are being chosen by all parties to get ready for the overwhelming, shattering violence on a national scale that is coming and is a direct, intended result of the right’s paramilitary rhetoric over the past 40 years.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cnn-boots-roger-stone
To the Republican Party and all of its operatives in elective office at all levels of government, in appointed positions in government, in the media, and those who campaign for and elect all of these ilk.
No more meetings, no more hearings, no more votes, no more talk, no more town halls, no more interviews, no more elections, no more split screens, no more questions, no more answers.
No more peace. No more rules.
You’re not my brothers or sisters, you’re not my fellow Americans, you’re not my esteemed colleagues, you’re not my friends on the other side of the aisle.
There is no aisle. There is just a lake of fire now. And may it burn hot forever.
You are not my government.
You are my enemy. Just as ISIS is my enemy, except you are in my face.
No more meetings with our “representatives”, because we have none.
None of that matters any longer.
Build you f*cking walls. Lots of em, you’re going to need em. Get as armed as you please because you are going to f*cking need it. Get whatever target practice done before the troubles start and then stay on your side of that wall.
And shut your f*cking mouths.
There is no middle. No DMZ. Pick a side or get the f*ck out of the way.
Whomever ends up among the survivors, wins.
Winner takes all.
Just like the rules Republicans force us to live under now, even when they lose.
See, separate corners are being chosen by all parties to get ready for the overwhelming, shattering violence on a national scale that is coming and is a direct, intended result of the right’s paramilitary rhetoric over the past 40 years.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cnn-boots-roger-stone
To the Republican Party and all of its operatives in elective office at all levels of government, in appointed positions in government, in the media, and those who campaign for and elect all of these ilk.
No more meetings, no more hearings, no more votes, no more talk, no more town halls, no more interviews, no more elections, no more split screens, no more questions, no more answers.
No more peace. No more rules.
You’re not my brothers or sisters, you’re not my fellow Americans, you’re not my esteemed colleagues, you’re not my friends on the other side of the aisle.
There is no aisle. There is just a lake of fire now. And may it burn hot forever.
You are not my government.
You are my enemy. Just as ISIS is my enemy, except you are in my face.
No more meetings with our “representatives”, because we have none.
None of that matters any longer.
Build you f*cking walls. Lots of em, you’re going to need em. Get as armed as you please because you are going to f*cking need it. Get whatever target practice done before the troubles start and then stay on your side of that wall.
And shut your f*cking mouths.
There is no middle. No DMZ. Pick a side or get the f*ck out of the way.
Whomever ends up among the survivors, wins.
Winner takes all.
Just like the rules Republicans force us to live under now, even when they lose.
See, separate corners are being chosen by all parties to get ready for the overwhelming, shattering violence on a national scale that is coming and is a direct, intended result of the right’s paramilitary rhetoric over the past 40 years.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cnn-boots-roger-stone
To the Republican Party and all of its operatives in elective office at all levels of government, in appointed positions in government, in the media, and those who campaign for and elect all of these ilk.
No more meetings, no more hearings, no more votes, no more talk, no more town halls, no more interviews, no more elections, no more split screens, no more questions, no more answers.
No more peace. No more rules.
You’re not my brothers or sisters, you’re not my fellow Americans, you’re not my esteemed colleagues, you’re not my friends on the other side of the aisle.
There is no aisle. There is just a lake of fire now. And may it burn hot forever.
You are not my government.
You are my enemy. Just as ISIS is my enemy, except you are in my face.
No more meetings with our “representatives”, because we have none.
None of that matters any longer.
Build you f*cking walls. Lots of em, you’re going to need em. Get as armed as you please because you are going to f*cking need it. Get whatever target practice done before the troubles start and then stay on your side of that wall.
And shut your f*cking mouths.
There is no middle. No DMZ. Pick a side or get the f*ck out of the way.
Whomever ends up among the survivors, wins.
Winner takes all.
Just like the rules Republicans force us to live under now, even when they lose.
Grumpy, that needs to be a slash i at the end of your quotes.
Fixed for you.
Grumpy, that needs to be a slash i at the end of your quotes.
Fixed for you.
Grumpy, that needs to be a slash i at the end of your quotes.
Fixed for you.
G–we are talking past each other. If it helps, I surrender unconditionally.
G–we are talking past each other. If it helps, I surrender unconditionally.
G–we are talking past each other. If it helps, I surrender unconditionally.
I don’t think we’re talking past each other at all–rather, I think you’re laughably wrong and understandably reluctant to explore why.
I don’t think we’re talking past each other at all–rather, I think you’re laughably wrong and understandably reluctant to explore why.
I don’t think we’re talking past each other at all–rather, I think you’re laughably wrong and understandably reluctant to explore why.
Count, the right wing noise machine is alleging that the current Vice President and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee made the following statements in 1992:
“It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”
“It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
I do not recall a conservative or Republican call to arms at that time (further historical context: George HW Bush was president at the time).
Count, the right wing noise machine is alleging that the current Vice President and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee made the following statements in 1992:
“It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”
“It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
I do not recall a conservative or Republican call to arms at that time (further historical context: George HW Bush was president at the time).
Count, the right wing noise machine is alleging that the current Vice President and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee made the following statements in 1992:
“It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”
“It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
I do not recall a conservative or Republican call to arms at that time (further historical context: George HW Bush was president at the time).
left wing noise machine says no, not quite.
who’s right? we report, you decide.
left wing noise machine says no, not quite.
who’s right? we report, you decide.
left wing noise machine says no, not quite.
who’s right? we report, you decide.
left wing noise machine says no, not quite.
who’s right? we report, you decide.
left wing noise machine says no, not quite.
who’s right? we report, you decide.
left wing noise machine says no, not quite.
who’s right? we report, you decide.
Came here to post the same link.
Came here to post the same link.
Came here to post the same link.
The question of why a person intending to take his/her own life chooses a gun over a bottle of pills is worth looking at, the problem is, must of the subjects are dead.
But it has been looked at, because not all those who use a gun die, and one can also ask those who don’t use a gun and don’t die. And it tends to come down to it being hard to stop once you start – if you take pills or cut yourself, you can change your mind, more easily botch the attempt, or be found before you die. You cannot, as a rule, unpull a trigger.
There’s also the matter of it being fast and decisive, and requiring essentially no preparation if you already have a gun. You can quickly act on an impulse, and your actions are more likely to succeed than with pretty much any other common method.
It’s not as mysterious and esoteric as you’re portraying it. Guns are specifically designed to kill things – generally human-sized or larger – so they make killing yourself comparatively quick and easy if you suddenly decide that’s what you want to do.
The question of why a person intending to take his/her own life chooses a gun over a bottle of pills is worth looking at, the problem is, must of the subjects are dead.
But it has been looked at, because not all those who use a gun die, and one can also ask those who don’t use a gun and don’t die. And it tends to come down to it being hard to stop once you start – if you take pills or cut yourself, you can change your mind, more easily botch the attempt, or be found before you die. You cannot, as a rule, unpull a trigger.
There’s also the matter of it being fast and decisive, and requiring essentially no preparation if you already have a gun. You can quickly act on an impulse, and your actions are more likely to succeed than with pretty much any other common method.
It’s not as mysterious and esoteric as you’re portraying it. Guns are specifically designed to kill things – generally human-sized or larger – so they make killing yourself comparatively quick and easy if you suddenly decide that’s what you want to do.
The question of why a person intending to take his/her own life chooses a gun over a bottle of pills is worth looking at, the problem is, must of the subjects are dead.
But it has been looked at, because not all those who use a gun die, and one can also ask those who don’t use a gun and don’t die. And it tends to come down to it being hard to stop once you start – if you take pills or cut yourself, you can change your mind, more easily botch the attempt, or be found before you die. You cannot, as a rule, unpull a trigger.
There’s also the matter of it being fast and decisive, and requiring essentially no preparation if you already have a gun. You can quickly act on an impulse, and your actions are more likely to succeed than with pretty much any other common method.
It’s not as mysterious and esoteric as you’re portraying it. Guns are specifically designed to kill things – generally human-sized or larger – so they make killing yourself comparatively quick and easy if you suddenly decide that’s what you want to do.
I don’t think we’re talking past each other at all–rather, I think you’re laughably wrong and understandably reluctant to explore why.
You’re probably right about that too.
who’s right? we report, you decide.
Some years back, I proposed that hypocrisy is the Vaseline of political intercourse. I stand by that. I am confident that if the situation was reversed, the respective parties would be repeating their opponents’ lines. Partisans on both sides will disagree. That is what they do. That’s why they are called partisans.
I don’t think we’re talking past each other at all–rather, I think you’re laughably wrong and understandably reluctant to explore why.
You’re probably right about that too.
who’s right? we report, you decide.
Some years back, I proposed that hypocrisy is the Vaseline of political intercourse. I stand by that. I am confident that if the situation was reversed, the respective parties would be repeating their opponents’ lines. Partisans on both sides will disagree. That is what they do. That’s why they are called partisans.
I don’t think we’re talking past each other at all–rather, I think you’re laughably wrong and understandably reluctant to explore why.
You’re probably right about that too.
who’s right? we report, you decide.
Some years back, I proposed that hypocrisy is the Vaseline of political intercourse. I stand by that. I am confident that if the situation was reversed, the respective parties would be repeating their opponents’ lines. Partisans on both sides will disagree. That is what they do. That’s why they are called partisans.
I am confident that if the situation was reversed, the respective parties would be repeating their opponents’ lines.
I’m trying to remember the last time that the Senate (under Democrats or Republicans) refused to even hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee. Not refused to confirm, but refused to even hold hearings.
I’m not coming up with anything. Someone help me out here?
I am confident that if the situation was reversed, the respective parties would be repeating their opponents’ lines.
I’m trying to remember the last time that the Senate (under Democrats or Republicans) refused to even hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee. Not refused to confirm, but refused to even hold hearings.
I’m not coming up with anything. Someone help me out here?
I am confident that if the situation was reversed, the respective parties would be repeating their opponents’ lines.
I’m trying to remember the last time that the Senate (under Democrats or Republicans) refused to even hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee. Not refused to confirm, but refused to even hold hearings.
I’m not coming up with anything. Someone help me out here?
Of course, waiting until the election is over is not the same thing as waiting until the next president takes office.
Of course, waiting until the election is over is not the same thing as waiting until the next president takes office.
Of course, waiting until the election is over is not the same thing as waiting until the next president takes office.
I am confident that if the situation was reversed, the respective parties would be repeating their opponents’ lines.
As a rule, we all do seem to have them down pat. But Vaseline beats civil war.
I am confident that if the situation was reversed, the respective parties would be repeating their opponents’ lines.
As a rule, we all do seem to have them down pat. But Vaseline beats civil war.
I am confident that if the situation was reversed, the respective parties would be repeating their opponents’ lines.
As a rule, we all do seem to have them down pat. But Vaseline beats civil war.
A gun is clearly easier to handle than a partisan, in particular in enclosed spaces.
A gun is clearly easier to handle than a partisan, in particular in enclosed spaces.
A gun is clearly easier to handle than a partisan, in particular in enclosed spaces.
McT,
Violent crime is on the decline and is statistically predictable based on societal factors above. Outside of that cohort, violent gun crime co-relates with Western European countries with heavy gun control.
As I pointed out in response to a similar statement by Marty,
If you are going to exclude one set of firearm deaths from the US total, you need to exclude the same set from the places you are comparing to. Otherwise the comparison is useless. That seems pretty basic to me.
In other words, before you can make the claim about how US violent gun crime rates compare with those of countries where guns are heavily regulated, you have to take the same violent cohort out of those other countries’ numbers as well. If you don’t do that the comparison is not just meaningless, but utterly deceptive.
Let me add something else on the “gun prevalence – crime level” dispute. Slarti questions the CT study I cited because there are possibly other factors at work which the investigators overlooked.
OK. But now here you come and say, “Hey, there are more guns and less crime, so can gun prevalence have anything to with violent crime?” Well, I’d say that overlooks a heck of a lot more than the CT study does.
There are lots of theories about why crime has dropped so much. The issue of lead in the environment seems important to me. But whatever the causes are, let’s not object to one model because it ignores some factors, and buy another one that ignores them all.
McT,
Violent crime is on the decline and is statistically predictable based on societal factors above. Outside of that cohort, violent gun crime co-relates with Western European countries with heavy gun control.
As I pointed out in response to a similar statement by Marty,
If you are going to exclude one set of firearm deaths from the US total, you need to exclude the same set from the places you are comparing to. Otherwise the comparison is useless. That seems pretty basic to me.
In other words, before you can make the claim about how US violent gun crime rates compare with those of countries where guns are heavily regulated, you have to take the same violent cohort out of those other countries’ numbers as well. If you don’t do that the comparison is not just meaningless, but utterly deceptive.
Let me add something else on the “gun prevalence – crime level” dispute. Slarti questions the CT study I cited because there are possibly other factors at work which the investigators overlooked.
OK. But now here you come and say, “Hey, there are more guns and less crime, so can gun prevalence have anything to with violent crime?” Well, I’d say that overlooks a heck of a lot more than the CT study does.
There are lots of theories about why crime has dropped so much. The issue of lead in the environment seems important to me. But whatever the causes are, let’s not object to one model because it ignores some factors, and buy another one that ignores them all.
McT,
Violent crime is on the decline and is statistically predictable based on societal factors above. Outside of that cohort, violent gun crime co-relates with Western European countries with heavy gun control.
As I pointed out in response to a similar statement by Marty,
If you are going to exclude one set of firearm deaths from the US total, you need to exclude the same set from the places you are comparing to. Otherwise the comparison is useless. That seems pretty basic to me.
In other words, before you can make the claim about how US violent gun crime rates compare with those of countries where guns are heavily regulated, you have to take the same violent cohort out of those other countries’ numbers as well. If you don’t do that the comparison is not just meaningless, but utterly deceptive.
Let me add something else on the “gun prevalence – crime level” dispute. Slarti questions the CT study I cited because there are possibly other factors at work which the investigators overlooked.
OK. But now here you come and say, “Hey, there are more guns and less crime, so can gun prevalence have anything to with violent crime?” Well, I’d say that overlooks a heck of a lot more than the CT study does.
There are lots of theories about why crime has dropped so much. The issue of lead in the environment seems important to me. But whatever the causes are, let’s not object to one model because it ignores some factors, and buy another one that ignores them all.
This Republican Party today in Congress, had they the opportunity for a do-over during Bush I Administration, would have refused to hold hearings or a vote for either Souter or Kennedy, let alone confirm both, who were vetted under the advice and consent of the committee headed by Biden and the full Democratically-controlled Senate at the time.
The political season for Presidential elections started half-way through last year, which must mean now under McConnell and company’s radical, completely pulled-out-of-their-butts principles, that all nominations must cease for the Court after only two and half years of a President’s (be very clear it IS because THIS President is President) term and THIS Republican Party, should they have the votes in the future, will hold hearings and a vote, all in the 24 hours of the final day, if they get the chance, during the next Republican President’s term, should there be one, God help us all, their current bullsh*t notwithstanding.
As the political seasons lengthen, and they will, given how things are going, (there are only two years between midterms and Presidential, why should any nominations ever be considered under this crap reasoning) there will no nominating process whatsoever.
If the Democrat wins the Presidency in Fall 2016, and this Republican Party retains Congress, Presidential appointees across the board will be left to lanquish, just as they have in record numbers during this Administration.
No Cabinet, no replacements for Supreme Court vacancies from day One of the next Democratic Administration, because we must wait yet another four years on account of the fact that the American people, which no longer includes me or Russell, or anyone to the left of Richard Nixon, for example, according to the radical right wing vermin running the Republican Party and media today … now …. must be given ANOTHER chance to decide, Hillary Clinton or whomever being somehow and in every way illegitimate, despite a f*cking election, which I no longer care about either.
No call to arms? What did you think the Gingrich Revolution was? An intermediate step to the ruin of this monstrosity we have today, perhaps? All right.
All of the Republicans members of Congress in 1990 would have been primaried out of office by the current right-wing scourge, if it existed then.
I don’t why I keep using the words Republican Party.
Donald Trump? Ted Cruz? That’s your party?
That’s not what it is, anymore than George Wallace, Lyndon LaRouche, or whatever racist piece of crap who ran as one would have allowed me to call the Democratic Party the Democratic Party any longer, had they been anywhere close to being elected.
It makes no sense, anymore than the term Democratic Party made any sense as a referent to John Calhoun and the Confederate Party in the 1850s.
They want Civil War. They have it.
Spare me the words “hypocrisy”, “goose for the gander” etc.
That train, engineered by the current suspects, left that station long ago.
And they blew up that station, purposefully, so there is no going back to the niceties of human civilized political hypocrisy and one upmanship we grew up with.
This Republican Party today in Congress, had they the opportunity for a do-over during Bush I Administration, would have refused to hold hearings or a vote for either Souter or Kennedy, let alone confirm both, who were vetted under the advice and consent of the committee headed by Biden and the full Democratically-controlled Senate at the time.
The political season for Presidential elections started half-way through last year, which must mean now under McConnell and company’s radical, completely pulled-out-of-their-butts principles, that all nominations must cease for the Court after only two and half years of a President’s (be very clear it IS because THIS President is President) term and THIS Republican Party, should they have the votes in the future, will hold hearings and a vote, all in the 24 hours of the final day, if they get the chance, during the next Republican President’s term, should there be one, God help us all, their current bullsh*t notwithstanding.
As the political seasons lengthen, and they will, given how things are going, (there are only two years between midterms and Presidential, why should any nominations ever be considered under this crap reasoning) there will no nominating process whatsoever.
If the Democrat wins the Presidency in Fall 2016, and this Republican Party retains Congress, Presidential appointees across the board will be left to lanquish, just as they have in record numbers during this Administration.
No Cabinet, no replacements for Supreme Court vacancies from day One of the next Democratic Administration, because we must wait yet another four years on account of the fact that the American people, which no longer includes me or Russell, or anyone to the left of Richard Nixon, for example, according to the radical right wing vermin running the Republican Party and media today … now …. must be given ANOTHER chance to decide, Hillary Clinton or whomever being somehow and in every way illegitimate, despite a f*cking election, which I no longer care about either.
No call to arms? What did you think the Gingrich Revolution was? An intermediate step to the ruin of this monstrosity we have today, perhaps? All right.
All of the Republicans members of Congress in 1990 would have been primaried out of office by the current right-wing scourge, if it existed then.
I don’t why I keep using the words Republican Party.
Donald Trump? Ted Cruz? That’s your party?
That’s not what it is, anymore than George Wallace, Lyndon LaRouche, or whatever racist piece of crap who ran as one would have allowed me to call the Democratic Party the Democratic Party any longer, had they been anywhere close to being elected.
It makes no sense, anymore than the term Democratic Party made any sense as a referent to John Calhoun and the Confederate Party in the 1850s.
They want Civil War. They have it.
Spare me the words “hypocrisy”, “goose for the gander” etc.
That train, engineered by the current suspects, left that station long ago.
And they blew up that station, purposefully, so there is no going back to the niceties of human civilized political hypocrisy and one upmanship we grew up with.
This Republican Party today in Congress, had they the opportunity for a do-over during Bush I Administration, would have refused to hold hearings or a vote for either Souter or Kennedy, let alone confirm both, who were vetted under the advice and consent of the committee headed by Biden and the full Democratically-controlled Senate at the time.
The political season for Presidential elections started half-way through last year, which must mean now under McConnell and company’s radical, completely pulled-out-of-their-butts principles, that all nominations must cease for the Court after only two and half years of a President’s (be very clear it IS because THIS President is President) term and THIS Republican Party, should they have the votes in the future, will hold hearings and a vote, all in the 24 hours of the final day, if they get the chance, during the next Republican President’s term, should there be one, God help us all, their current bullsh*t notwithstanding.
As the political seasons lengthen, and they will, given how things are going, (there are only two years between midterms and Presidential, why should any nominations ever be considered under this crap reasoning) there will no nominating process whatsoever.
If the Democrat wins the Presidency in Fall 2016, and this Republican Party retains Congress, Presidential appointees across the board will be left to lanquish, just as they have in record numbers during this Administration.
No Cabinet, no replacements for Supreme Court vacancies from day One of the next Democratic Administration, because we must wait yet another four years on account of the fact that the American people, which no longer includes me or Russell, or anyone to the left of Richard Nixon, for example, according to the radical right wing vermin running the Republican Party and media today … now …. must be given ANOTHER chance to decide, Hillary Clinton or whomever being somehow and in every way illegitimate, despite a f*cking election, which I no longer care about either.
No call to arms? What did you think the Gingrich Revolution was? An intermediate step to the ruin of this monstrosity we have today, perhaps? All right.
All of the Republicans members of Congress in 1990 would have been primaried out of office by the current right-wing scourge, if it existed then.
I don’t why I keep using the words Republican Party.
Donald Trump? Ted Cruz? That’s your party?
That’s not what it is, anymore than George Wallace, Lyndon LaRouche, or whatever racist piece of crap who ran as one would have allowed me to call the Democratic Party the Democratic Party any longer, had they been anywhere close to being elected.
It makes no sense, anymore than the term Democratic Party made any sense as a referent to John Calhoun and the Confederate Party in the 1850s.
They want Civil War. They have it.
Spare me the words “hypocrisy”, “goose for the gander” etc.
That train, engineered by the current suspects, left that station long ago.
And they blew up that station, purposefully, so there is no going back to the niceties of human civilized political hypocrisy and one upmanship we grew up with.
“Some years back, I proposed that hypocrisy is the Vaseline of political intercourse. I stand by that. I am confident that if the situation was reversed, the respective parties would be repeating their opponents’ lines. Partisans on both sides will disagree. That is what they do. That’s why they are called partisans.”
But russell’s link shows that the very evidence you cited in favor of this theory in fact only tends to disprove your theory–did that not make a dent?
“Some years back, I proposed that hypocrisy is the Vaseline of political intercourse. I stand by that. I am confident that if the situation was reversed, the respective parties would be repeating their opponents’ lines. Partisans on both sides will disagree. That is what they do. That’s why they are called partisans.”
But russell’s link shows that the very evidence you cited in favor of this theory in fact only tends to disprove your theory–did that not make a dent?
“Some years back, I proposed that hypocrisy is the Vaseline of political intercourse. I stand by that. I am confident that if the situation was reversed, the respective parties would be repeating their opponents’ lines. Partisans on both sides will disagree. That is what they do. That’s why they are called partisans.”
But russell’s link shows that the very evidence you cited in favor of this theory in fact only tends to disprove your theory–did that not make a dent?
Of course, waiting until the election is over is not the same thing as waiting until the next president takes office.
Isn’t it? Mitch McConnell won’t promise hearings even after the election, it seems.
So there!
Of course, waiting until the election is over is not the same thing as waiting until the next president takes office.
Isn’t it? Mitch McConnell won’t promise hearings even after the election, it seems.
So there!
Of course, waiting until the election is over is not the same thing as waiting until the next president takes office.
Isn’t it? Mitch McConnell won’t promise hearings even after the election, it seems.
So there!
you have to take the same violent cohort out of those other countries’ numbers as well.
I see your point and here’s why I disagree:
A = US violent crime cohort gun death per 100K
B = Other US gun death per 100K
C = Comparable country violent crime gun death/100K
D = Other comparable gun death/100K
If I follow you, you compare A + B to C + D to get an apples-to-apples comparison.
I agree that is a first step, but it is not my point.
My point is that the US “other” gun death per 100K (B) is equal to C + D, not just D. B would be less than D if B = C + D.
To get the out-sized disparity between the US and Europe (using Europe as a shorthand reference not some kind of exclusionary, racial thing)you have to have A. Take A away,and the US compares favorably to most other comparable societies. Take away A and C and the US compares even more favorably, even with the much larger gun population.
you have to take the same violent cohort out of those other countries’ numbers as well.
I see your point and here’s why I disagree:
A = US violent crime cohort gun death per 100K
B = Other US gun death per 100K
C = Comparable country violent crime gun death/100K
D = Other comparable gun death/100K
If I follow you, you compare A + B to C + D to get an apples-to-apples comparison.
I agree that is a first step, but it is not my point.
My point is that the US “other” gun death per 100K (B) is equal to C + D, not just D. B would be less than D if B = C + D.
To get the out-sized disparity between the US and Europe (using Europe as a shorthand reference not some kind of exclusionary, racial thing)you have to have A. Take A away,and the US compares favorably to most other comparable societies. Take away A and C and the US compares even more favorably, even with the much larger gun population.
you have to take the same violent cohort out of those other countries’ numbers as well.
I see your point and here’s why I disagree:
A = US violent crime cohort gun death per 100K
B = Other US gun death per 100K
C = Comparable country violent crime gun death/100K
D = Other comparable gun death/100K
If I follow you, you compare A + B to C + D to get an apples-to-apples comparison.
I agree that is a first step, but it is not my point.
My point is that the US “other” gun death per 100K (B) is equal to C + D, not just D. B would be less than D if B = C + D.
To get the out-sized disparity between the US and Europe (using Europe as a shorthand reference not some kind of exclusionary, racial thing)you have to have A. Take A away,and the US compares favorably to most other comparable societies. Take away A and C and the US compares even more favorably, even with the much larger gun population.
B would be less than D if B = C + D
Is this a typo, or is C supposed to be negative? Are they bringing the dead back to life with guns in Europe?
B would be less than D if B = C + D
Is this a typo, or is C supposed to be negative? Are they bringing the dead back to life with guns in Europe?
B would be less than D if B = C + D
Is this a typo, or is C supposed to be negative? Are they bringing the dead back to life with guns in Europe?
“Mitch McConnell won’t promise hearings even after the election, it seems.”
Pass the Vaseline.
“Mitch McConnell won’t promise hearings even after the election, it seems.”
Pass the Vaseline.
“Mitch McConnell won’t promise hearings even after the election, it seems.”
Pass the Vaseline.
Worse yet, not even after the next president takes office.
Did anyone happen to read the link from several days ago about the scenario of Obama nominating a justice after the new senate is seated but before the next president takes office?
Worse yet, not even after the next president takes office.
Did anyone happen to read the link from several days ago about the scenario of Obama nominating a justice after the new senate is seated but before the next president takes office?
Worse yet, not even after the next president takes office.
Did anyone happen to read the link from several days ago about the scenario of Obama nominating a justice after the new senate is seated but before the next president takes office?
I’m trying to remember the last time that the Senate (under Democrats or Republicans) refused to even hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee.
never. never in the history of the Senate Judiciary Committee has the Senate refused to at least make a show of considering a nominee.
Mitch McConnell has just written himself in to the history books.
fuck the GOP.
I’m trying to remember the last time that the Senate (under Democrats or Republicans) refused to even hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee.
never. never in the history of the Senate Judiciary Committee has the Senate refused to at least make a show of considering a nominee.
Mitch McConnell has just written himself in to the history books.
fuck the GOP.
I’m trying to remember the last time that the Senate (under Democrats or Republicans) refused to even hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee.
never. never in the history of the Senate Judiciary Committee has the Senate refused to at least make a show of considering a nominee.
Mitch McConnell has just written himself in to the history books.
fuck the GOP.
Take A away,and the US compares favorably to most other comparable societies.
it’s true! cherry-picking statistics and ignoring inconvenient data is a great way to get the result you want.
Take A away,and the US compares favorably to most other comparable societies.
it’s true! cherry-picking statistics and ignoring inconvenient data is a great way to get the result you want.
Take A away,and the US compares favorably to most other comparable societies.
it’s true! cherry-picking statistics and ignoring inconvenient data is a great way to get the result you want.
I will say I think Marty has a point about Prohibition 2.0. It definitely contributes to McKinney’s “A.”
I will say I think Marty has a point about Prohibition 2.0. It definitely contributes to McKinney’s “A.”
I will say I think Marty has a point about Prohibition 2.0. It definitely contributes to McKinney’s “A.”
Pretty sure you’re reading that correctly, hsh. Consider the last line as well:
Take away A and C and the US compares even more favorably, even with the much larger gun population.
So B/(C+D) > B/D.
C has to be negative. The US needs to import violent criminals from Europe to staff our ERs.
Pretty sure you’re reading that correctly, hsh. Consider the last line as well:
Take away A and C and the US compares even more favorably, even with the much larger gun population.
So B/(C+D) > B/D.
C has to be negative. The US needs to import violent criminals from Europe to staff our ERs.
Pretty sure you’re reading that correctly, hsh. Consider the last line as well:
Take away A and C and the US compares even more favorably, even with the much larger gun population.
So B/(C+D) > B/D.
C has to be negative. The US needs to import violent criminals from Europe to staff our ERs.
Math is hard.
Math is hard.
Math is hard.
My point is that the US “other” gun death per 100K (B) is equal to C + D, not just D.
Well, that may be true, but it doesn’t mean anything at all. To get to a fair comparison you have to compare B and D. Leaving C in is just distorting the numbers.
My point is that the US “other” gun death per 100K (B) is equal to C + D, not just D.
Well, that may be true, but it doesn’t mean anything at all. To get to a fair comparison you have to compare B and D. Leaving C in is just distorting the numbers.
My point is that the US “other” gun death per 100K (B) is equal to C + D, not just D.
Well, that may be true, but it doesn’t mean anything at all. To get to a fair comparison you have to compare B and D. Leaving C in is just distorting the numbers.
Let me try it another way. In the US we have a particularly violent subset of the population, called “males.”
If we don’t count gun homicides in the US committed by males then the US gun homicide rate compares very favorably with those of countries where there is strict gun regulation.
That’s the argument you are making. Does it sound sensible?
Let me try it another way. In the US we have a particularly violent subset of the population, called “males.”
If we don’t count gun homicides in the US committed by males then the US gun homicide rate compares very favorably with those of countries where there is strict gun regulation.
That’s the argument you are making. Does it sound sensible?
Let me try it another way. In the US we have a particularly violent subset of the population, called “males.”
If we don’t count gun homicides in the US committed by males then the US gun homicide rate compares very favorably with those of countries where there is strict gun regulation.
That’s the argument you are making. Does it sound sensible?
John Cole, former Redstater:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/02/23/its-who-they-are/
John Cole, former Redstater:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/02/23/its-who-they-are/
John Cole, former Redstater:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/02/23/its-who-they-are/
The counterfactual isn’t “what would happen if Dems controlled the Senate and there was a GOP president,” the counterfactual is “what would happen if there was a GOP president NOW.” And the answer is the GOP Senate would have a nominee confirmed by the end of March, if not sooner.
So, all this nonsense about who said what when is bloviating – there is no kind of principle at work here (In an “I don’t see any method at all, sir.” kind of way) nor any historical precedent, real or imagined (mostly the latter). It is simply the GOP senate refusing because they think they can get away with it. And they probably can.
The counterfactual isn’t “what would happen if Dems controlled the Senate and there was a GOP president,” the counterfactual is “what would happen if there was a GOP president NOW.” And the answer is the GOP Senate would have a nominee confirmed by the end of March, if not sooner.
So, all this nonsense about who said what when is bloviating – there is no kind of principle at work here (In an “I don’t see any method at all, sir.” kind of way) nor any historical precedent, real or imagined (mostly the latter). It is simply the GOP senate refusing because they think they can get away with it. And they probably can.
The counterfactual isn’t “what would happen if Dems controlled the Senate and there was a GOP president,” the counterfactual is “what would happen if there was a GOP president NOW.” And the answer is the GOP Senate would have a nominee confirmed by the end of March, if not sooner.
So, all this nonsense about who said what when is bloviating – there is no kind of principle at work here (In an “I don’t see any method at all, sir.” kind of way) nor any historical precedent, real or imagined (mostly the latter). It is simply the GOP senate refusing because they think they can get away with it. And they probably can.
So, went to the doctor the other day for my single decade colonoscopy and the doctor, Dr Rector, I kid you not (hey look, my ex-wife had a chiropractor named Doctor Doctor, again, I kid you not, seriously (tell me the news, he had a bad case of lovin yous), and when I came out of it he peered down into my face and said:
“We found a single small polyp (one of my least favorite words in any language) and we’ll get back to you. See you in five years.”
And I mumbled, “You found a small Republican in there? What!!!”
And he chuckled and said “It could have been worse, it could have been a large Putin.”
So, I went home and did the stupid and looked up this stuff on the internet and it (Mayo, John Hopkins, Nurse Nutcase’s House of Hot Dreadful Medical Could Be’s) said “polyps are rarely cancerous, but be on the lookout for mestastizing Republicans and malignant Putins all up in there”, so I was …. on the lookout.
Today, my doctor emailed me and said the polyp was benign, nothing to worry about, see you in five years. The rest of the news regarding the other two today was indeed worse and I have nine months to live.
And so do you.
So, went to the doctor the other day for my single decade colonoscopy and the doctor, Dr Rector, I kid you not (hey look, my ex-wife had a chiropractor named Doctor Doctor, again, I kid you not, seriously (tell me the news, he had a bad case of lovin yous), and when I came out of it he peered down into my face and said:
“We found a single small polyp (one of my least favorite words in any language) and we’ll get back to you. See you in five years.”
And I mumbled, “You found a small Republican in there? What!!!”
And he chuckled and said “It could have been worse, it could have been a large Putin.”
So, I went home and did the stupid and looked up this stuff on the internet and it (Mayo, John Hopkins, Nurse Nutcase’s House of Hot Dreadful Medical Could Be’s) said “polyps are rarely cancerous, but be on the lookout for mestastizing Republicans and malignant Putins all up in there”, so I was …. on the lookout.
Today, my doctor emailed me and said the polyp was benign, nothing to worry about, see you in five years. The rest of the news regarding the other two today was indeed worse and I have nine months to live.
And so do you.
So, went to the doctor the other day for my single decade colonoscopy and the doctor, Dr Rector, I kid you not (hey look, my ex-wife had a chiropractor named Doctor Doctor, again, I kid you not, seriously (tell me the news, he had a bad case of lovin yous), and when I came out of it he peered down into my face and said:
“We found a single small polyp (one of my least favorite words in any language) and we’ll get back to you. See you in five years.”
And I mumbled, “You found a small Republican in there? What!!!”
And he chuckled and said “It could have been worse, it could have been a large Putin.”
So, I went home and did the stupid and looked up this stuff on the internet and it (Mayo, John Hopkins, Nurse Nutcase’s House of Hot Dreadful Medical Could Be’s) said “polyps are rarely cancerous, but be on the lookout for mestastizing Republicans and malignant Putins all up in there”, so I was …. on the lookout.
Today, my doctor emailed me and said the polyp was benign, nothing to worry about, see you in five years. The rest of the news regarding the other two today was indeed worse and I have nine months to live.
And so do you.
Well, if it’s going to be a 4-4 court until there’s a Democratic congress, maybe that’s not so bad a thing.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2016/02/in_the_oral_arguments_for_utah_v_strieff_the_supreme_court_s_liberals_spoke.2.html
“This dispute leads to the most searing and uncomfortable moment of the morning. Alito attempts to ridicule Watt’s deterrence arguments by asking, “Do you think the judges in traffic courts are going to start issuing lots of warrants because they want to provide a basis for randomly stopping people?”
Watt starts to answer, but Sotomayor cuts in with a brutal joust.
“I’m very surprised,” she says acidly, “that Justice Alito doesn’t know that most of these warrants are automatic. If you don’t pay your fine within a certain amount of days, they’re issued virtually automatically.”
It is one of those knockout moments so ruthless that you aren’t sure whether to cringe or cheer. Sotomayor is essentially calling out Alito’s privilege—why would he know about corrupt, scammy, racist policing?—and Alito doesn’t even attempt to respond. Instead, he wears an embarrassed smirk throughout the remainder of arguments, appearing appropriately shamed…”
Well, if it’s going to be a 4-4 court until there’s a Democratic congress, maybe that’s not so bad a thing.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2016/02/in_the_oral_arguments_for_utah_v_strieff_the_supreme_court_s_liberals_spoke.2.html
“This dispute leads to the most searing and uncomfortable moment of the morning. Alito attempts to ridicule Watt’s deterrence arguments by asking, “Do you think the judges in traffic courts are going to start issuing lots of warrants because they want to provide a basis for randomly stopping people?”
Watt starts to answer, but Sotomayor cuts in with a brutal joust.
“I’m very surprised,” she says acidly, “that Justice Alito doesn’t know that most of these warrants are automatic. If you don’t pay your fine within a certain amount of days, they’re issued virtually automatically.”
It is one of those knockout moments so ruthless that you aren’t sure whether to cringe or cheer. Sotomayor is essentially calling out Alito’s privilege—why would he know about corrupt, scammy, racist policing?—and Alito doesn’t even attempt to respond. Instead, he wears an embarrassed smirk throughout the remainder of arguments, appearing appropriately shamed…”
Well, if it’s going to be a 4-4 court until there’s a Democratic congress, maybe that’s not so bad a thing.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2016/02/in_the_oral_arguments_for_utah_v_strieff_the_supreme_court_s_liberals_spoke.2.html
“This dispute leads to the most searing and uncomfortable moment of the morning. Alito attempts to ridicule Watt’s deterrence arguments by asking, “Do you think the judges in traffic courts are going to start issuing lots of warrants because they want to provide a basis for randomly stopping people?”
Watt starts to answer, but Sotomayor cuts in with a brutal joust.
“I’m very surprised,” she says acidly, “that Justice Alito doesn’t know that most of these warrants are automatic. If you don’t pay your fine within a certain amount of days, they’re issued virtually automatically.”
It is one of those knockout moments so ruthless that you aren’t sure whether to cringe or cheer. Sotomayor is essentially calling out Alito’s privilege—why would he know about corrupt, scammy, racist policing?—and Alito doesn’t even attempt to respond. Instead, he wears an embarrassed smirk throughout the remainder of arguments, appearing appropriately shamed…”
Before returning to my day job, I have to concede that Bernard, HSH, NV and the others are correct about my math. This isn’t my first major math error at ObWi. Going forward, should I ever be foolish enough to attempt math again, it will be with the express proviso that my arithmetic is subject to review and approval by the resident engineers and others with math backgrounds.
Later.
Before returning to my day job, I have to concede that Bernard, HSH, NV and the others are correct about my math. This isn’t my first major math error at ObWi. Going forward, should I ever be foolish enough to attempt math again, it will be with the express proviso that my arithmetic is subject to review and approval by the resident engineers and others with math backgrounds.
Later.
Before returning to my day job, I have to concede that Bernard, HSH, NV and the others are correct about my math. This isn’t my first major math error at ObWi. Going forward, should I ever be foolish enough to attempt math again, it will be with the express proviso that my arithmetic is subject to review and approval by the resident engineers and others with math backgrounds.
Later.
I still like the implicit-consent angle, but that’s not going to happen. That’s how I move things along at work sometimes. “Unless someone raises a specific objection to the proposed plan by [insert date], I’m moving forward according to the proposed plan.”
I still like the implicit-consent angle, but that’s not going to happen. That’s how I move things along at work sometimes. “Unless someone raises a specific objection to the proposed plan by [insert date], I’m moving forward according to the proposed plan.”
I still like the implicit-consent angle, but that’s not going to happen. That’s how I move things along at work sometimes. “Unless someone raises a specific objection to the proposed plan by [insert date], I’m moving forward according to the proposed plan.”
Later.
Good to hear from you McK. Don’t work too hard!
See you on the flip side.
Later.
Good to hear from you McK. Don’t work too hard!
See you on the flip side.
Later.
Good to hear from you McK. Don’t work too hard!
See you on the flip side.
I agree with the sentiment, but good luck finding people who are neutral on this issue.
And if you can find someone to save me from the well-intentioned folks who want to save me from myself, that would be a bonus.
And, lastly, a pony.
I agree with the sentiment, but good luck finding people who are neutral on this issue.
And if you can find someone to save me from the well-intentioned folks who want to save me from myself, that would be a bonus.
And, lastly, a pony.
I agree with the sentiment, but good luck finding people who are neutral on this issue.
And if you can find someone to save me from the well-intentioned folks who want to save me from myself, that would be a bonus.
And, lastly, a pony.
Keep the pony away from the tractor.
Keep the pony away from the tractor.
Keep the pony away from the tractor.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/heritage-fellow-scalias-vote-should-still-count-beyond-grave
In other news, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan propped the rotten corpse of Roger Taney up in the hearing room of the Judiciary Committee and grilled him regarding their strongly-held litmus test principles that when Dred Scott comes before the Court again in 2017, Taney should stick to his guns.
The Republican Party is an All (meaning some, no liberals, blacks, or women need arise from the dead)-Souls Day vigil for confederate, conservative pigf*ckery.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/heritage-fellow-scalias-vote-should-still-count-beyond-grave
In other news, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan propped the rotten corpse of Roger Taney up in the hearing room of the Judiciary Committee and grilled him regarding their strongly-held litmus test principles that when Dred Scott comes before the Court again in 2017, Taney should stick to his guns.
The Republican Party is an All (meaning some, no liberals, blacks, or women need arise from the dead)-Souls Day vigil for confederate, conservative pigf*ckery.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/heritage-fellow-scalias-vote-should-still-count-beyond-grave
In other news, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan propped the rotten corpse of Roger Taney up in the hearing room of the Judiciary Committee and grilled him regarding their strongly-held litmus test principles that when Dred Scott comes before the Court again in 2017, Taney should stick to his guns.
The Republican Party is an All (meaning some, no liberals, blacks, or women need arise from the dead)-Souls Day vigil for confederate, conservative pigf*ckery.
This isn’t my first major math error at ObWi.
On the other hand, consider how many legal errors some of the rest of us (e.g. me) make here, you shouldn’t sweat it.
This isn’t my first major math error at ObWi.
On the other hand, consider how many legal errors some of the rest of us (e.g. me) make here, you shouldn’t sweat it.
This isn’t my first major math error at ObWi.
On the other hand, consider how many legal errors some of the rest of us (e.g. me) make here, you shouldn’t sweat it.
I agree with the sentiment, but good luck finding people who are neutral on this issue.
Very few people are entirely neutral on any remotely political issue, but that doesn’t mean we throw our hands up a forget about it.
What you can put together is a body of people who aren’t rabidly partisan as individuals and that, to the degree that they are not entirely neutral, there is balance among them such that they don’t all lean in the same direction.
All that aside, I honestly don’t know why anyone would think that there is any sort of equivalency between the respective degrees of non-neutrality of the CDC and the NRA (…THE FNCKING NRA!!!).
(This comment is not intended necessarily as a rebuttal specifically to Slart. I’m simply using his comment as my jumping-off point.)
I agree with the sentiment, but good luck finding people who are neutral on this issue.
Very few people are entirely neutral on any remotely political issue, but that doesn’t mean we throw our hands up a forget about it.
What you can put together is a body of people who aren’t rabidly partisan as individuals and that, to the degree that they are not entirely neutral, there is balance among them such that they don’t all lean in the same direction.
All that aside, I honestly don’t know why anyone would think that there is any sort of equivalency between the respective degrees of non-neutrality of the CDC and the NRA (…THE FNCKING NRA!!!).
(This comment is not intended necessarily as a rebuttal specifically to Slart. I’m simply using his comment as my jumping-off point.)
I agree with the sentiment, but good luck finding people who are neutral on this issue.
Very few people are entirely neutral on any remotely political issue, but that doesn’t mean we throw our hands up a forget about it.
What you can put together is a body of people who aren’t rabidly partisan as individuals and that, to the degree that they are not entirely neutral, there is balance among them such that they don’t all lean in the same direction.
All that aside, I honestly don’t know why anyone would think that there is any sort of equivalency between the respective degrees of non-neutrality of the CDC and the NRA (…THE FNCKING NRA!!!).
(This comment is not intended necessarily as a rebuttal specifically to Slart. I’m simply using his comment as my jumping-off point.)
I rarely wade into Yahoo Finance comment threads, but I couldn’t resist this one, written by a liberal-hating conservative Republican Marie Antoinette, Liz Peek of the Fiscal Times, who gets her head handed to her by the angry, and I am sure armed and violent far-right Trump caucus.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-just-symptom-marco-111500634.html
I believe unbelievable violence in this country is coming if any Republican is elected President, whether Congress remains in Republican hands or not.
However, that violence … rivers of blood in the streets … will be dwarfed by the killing the filth on that comment thread will subject this country to if Trump loses.
This is the hornet’s nest whacked by 40 years of concerted, concentrated, brinkmanship, Republican hatred of the American institutions of government and civility has brought us to and turned into a constant cloud of vengeful rhetoric against EVERYONE.
Yeah, I know, it’s all Obama’s fault.
I rarely wade into Yahoo Finance comment threads, but I couldn’t resist this one, written by a liberal-hating conservative Republican Marie Antoinette, Liz Peek of the Fiscal Times, who gets her head handed to her by the angry, and I am sure armed and violent far-right Trump caucus.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-just-symptom-marco-111500634.html
I believe unbelievable violence in this country is coming if any Republican is elected President, whether Congress remains in Republican hands or not.
However, that violence … rivers of blood in the streets … will be dwarfed by the killing the filth on that comment thread will subject this country to if Trump loses.
This is the hornet’s nest whacked by 40 years of concerted, concentrated, brinkmanship, Republican hatred of the American institutions of government and civility has brought us to and turned into a constant cloud of vengeful rhetoric against EVERYONE.
Yeah, I know, it’s all Obama’s fault.
I rarely wade into Yahoo Finance comment threads, but I couldn’t resist this one, written by a liberal-hating conservative Republican Marie Antoinette, Liz Peek of the Fiscal Times, who gets her head handed to her by the angry, and I am sure armed and violent far-right Trump caucus.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-just-symptom-marco-111500634.html
I believe unbelievable violence in this country is coming if any Republican is elected President, whether Congress remains in Republican hands or not.
However, that violence … rivers of blood in the streets … will be dwarfed by the killing the filth on that comment thread will subject this country to if Trump loses.
This is the hornet’s nest whacked by 40 years of concerted, concentrated, brinkmanship, Republican hatred of the American institutions of government and civility has brought us to and turned into a constant cloud of vengeful rhetoric against EVERYONE.
Yeah, I know, it’s all Obama’s fault.
I agree with the sentiment, but good luck finding people who are neutral on this issue.
You feel strongly about it, ergo everyone must?
I agree with the sentiment, but good luck finding people who are neutral on this issue.
You feel strongly about it, ergo everyone must?
I agree with the sentiment, but good luck finding people who are neutral on this issue.
You feel strongly about it, ergo everyone must?
at some point, this becomes data.
at some point, this becomes data.
at some point, this becomes data.
…at some point.
…at some point.
…at some point.
Such data is the dog that did not bark in the night.
We’re looking into where the tractor was during the time frame when the barking stopped.
We know there were complaints that the barking was keeping people up at night.
Then the silence after the barking halted was even more insomnia-inducing.
There was a guy three counties over a couple of years ago who electrocuted himself by digging up his electrical serving cable from his back yard, gripping it in his teeth and doing a 9.7 double backwards kip into into his swimming pool.
Go back to sleep.
Such data is the dog that did not bark in the night.
We’re looking into where the tractor was during the time frame when the barking stopped.
We know there were complaints that the barking was keeping people up at night.
Then the silence after the barking halted was even more insomnia-inducing.
There was a guy three counties over a couple of years ago who electrocuted himself by digging up his electrical serving cable from his back yard, gripping it in his teeth and doing a 9.7 double backwards kip into into his swimming pool.
Go back to sleep.
Such data is the dog that did not bark in the night.
We’re looking into where the tractor was during the time frame when the barking stopped.
We know there were complaints that the barking was keeping people up at night.
Then the silence after the barking halted was even more insomnia-inducing.
There was a guy three counties over a couple of years ago who electrocuted himself by digging up his electrical serving cable from his back yard, gripping it in his teeth and doing a 9.7 double backwards kip into into his swimming pool.
Go back to sleep.
The problem is not that little girls are shot in the tummy.
The problem is that the gunfire is directed against the wrong people:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hannity-trump-clinton-prosecute-survival
The problem is not that little girls are shot in the tummy.
The problem is that the gunfire is directed against the wrong people:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hannity-trump-clinton-prosecute-survival
The problem is not that little girls are shot in the tummy.
The problem is that the gunfire is directed against the wrong people:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hannity-trump-clinton-prosecute-survival
Cleek,
I’ve come to the conclusion that the only change in guns that has even the slightest, tiniest, most minuscule chance of passing in my lifetime is this:
Insurance requirements. You’re required to carry liability insurance on your gun(s). No insurance, if you’re caught with your gun (by ‘caught’ I don’t mean random inspections. I mean you do something that draws attention to you and your gun. Shoot someone. Discharge it accidentally. Lose it in a theater. No random searches. Open and concealed carry permits require insurance upon acquisition and renewal) it gets confiscated. You have a sizable window to show proof (similar to the grace periods with auto-insurance) that you were insured at the time. If you weren’t, gun destroyed.
Get caught more than once? You lose your ability to own a gun (much like a felon) because you refuse to show responsibility. Get caught with one after that? Jail.
Let the insurance companies price risk, handle registration, identification, and determination. If you’re so irresponsible with your gun(s) (they keep getting stolen, discharged accidentally, used in crimes) and you can’t afford it? Personal problem.
So if little Timmy shoots his friend with his Daddy’s gun, well — at least there’s some money to help defray the costs and Daddy might not be able to keep his gun because State Farm thinks he’s too much of a risk (and AllState agrees).
I’d personally like to couple that with strict legal liability — your gun used? If it wasn’t reported stolen (or a jury decides a reasonable person would have noticed his gun missing) you share in the crime. If Timmy shoots his friend with Daddy’s gun on accident, Daddy’s on the hook for negligent homicide. Automatically. None of this “hasn’t the family suffered enough” or”it was a tragic accident”. No, it was negligent homicide. 6 year old Timmy didn’t know better, but his Daddy darn sure should have.
It’ll never happen. The last thing the modern NRA preaches is personal responsibility. That doesn’t sell guns.
Cleek,
I’ve come to the conclusion that the only change in guns that has even the slightest, tiniest, most minuscule chance of passing in my lifetime is this:
Insurance requirements. You’re required to carry liability insurance on your gun(s). No insurance, if you’re caught with your gun (by ‘caught’ I don’t mean random inspections. I mean you do something that draws attention to you and your gun. Shoot someone. Discharge it accidentally. Lose it in a theater. No random searches. Open and concealed carry permits require insurance upon acquisition and renewal) it gets confiscated. You have a sizable window to show proof (similar to the grace periods with auto-insurance) that you were insured at the time. If you weren’t, gun destroyed.
Get caught more than once? You lose your ability to own a gun (much like a felon) because you refuse to show responsibility. Get caught with one after that? Jail.
Let the insurance companies price risk, handle registration, identification, and determination. If you’re so irresponsible with your gun(s) (they keep getting stolen, discharged accidentally, used in crimes) and you can’t afford it? Personal problem.
So if little Timmy shoots his friend with his Daddy’s gun, well — at least there’s some money to help defray the costs and Daddy might not be able to keep his gun because State Farm thinks he’s too much of a risk (and AllState agrees).
I’d personally like to couple that with strict legal liability — your gun used? If it wasn’t reported stolen (or a jury decides a reasonable person would have noticed his gun missing) you share in the crime. If Timmy shoots his friend with Daddy’s gun on accident, Daddy’s on the hook for negligent homicide. Automatically. None of this “hasn’t the family suffered enough” or”it was a tragic accident”. No, it was negligent homicide. 6 year old Timmy didn’t know better, but his Daddy darn sure should have.
It’ll never happen. The last thing the modern NRA preaches is personal responsibility. That doesn’t sell guns.
Cleek,
I’ve come to the conclusion that the only change in guns that has even the slightest, tiniest, most minuscule chance of passing in my lifetime is this:
Insurance requirements. You’re required to carry liability insurance on your gun(s). No insurance, if you’re caught with your gun (by ‘caught’ I don’t mean random inspections. I mean you do something that draws attention to you and your gun. Shoot someone. Discharge it accidentally. Lose it in a theater. No random searches. Open and concealed carry permits require insurance upon acquisition and renewal) it gets confiscated. You have a sizable window to show proof (similar to the grace periods with auto-insurance) that you were insured at the time. If you weren’t, gun destroyed.
Get caught more than once? You lose your ability to own a gun (much like a felon) because you refuse to show responsibility. Get caught with one after that? Jail.
Let the insurance companies price risk, handle registration, identification, and determination. If you’re so irresponsible with your gun(s) (they keep getting stolen, discharged accidentally, used in crimes) and you can’t afford it? Personal problem.
So if little Timmy shoots his friend with his Daddy’s gun, well — at least there’s some money to help defray the costs and Daddy might not be able to keep his gun because State Farm thinks he’s too much of a risk (and AllState agrees).
I’d personally like to couple that with strict legal liability — your gun used? If it wasn’t reported stolen (or a jury decides a reasonable person would have noticed his gun missing) you share in the crime. If Timmy shoots his friend with Daddy’s gun on accident, Daddy’s on the hook for negligent homicide. Automatically. None of this “hasn’t the family suffered enough” or”it was a tragic accident”. No, it was negligent homicide. 6 year old Timmy didn’t know better, but his Daddy darn sure should have.
It’ll never happen. The last thing the modern NRA preaches is personal responsibility. That doesn’t sell guns.
It’ll never happen.
nope, it won’t.
my father just got a new neighbor. the guy is an ex-felon as is his wife. his rap sheet includes several counts of battery and felony battery, battery on his own father, stalking, multiple instances of child abuse, DUI, possession, etc.. he’s a hothead and spends his days drinking beer in a lawn chair in the driveway. he also told my father that he has multiple unregistered handguns in his house.
since he’s in NYS, that is illegal.
but, my father is afraid to tell the police because he lives next to two ex-felons with several illegal handguns in their house and one of them has a rap sheet longer than most resumes.
catch .22
It’ll never happen.
nope, it won’t.
my father just got a new neighbor. the guy is an ex-felon as is his wife. his rap sheet includes several counts of battery and felony battery, battery on his own father, stalking, multiple instances of child abuse, DUI, possession, etc.. he’s a hothead and spends his days drinking beer in a lawn chair in the driveway. he also told my father that he has multiple unregistered handguns in his house.
since he’s in NYS, that is illegal.
but, my father is afraid to tell the police because he lives next to two ex-felons with several illegal handguns in their house and one of them has a rap sheet longer than most resumes.
catch .22
It’ll never happen.
nope, it won’t.
my father just got a new neighbor. the guy is an ex-felon as is his wife. his rap sheet includes several counts of battery and felony battery, battery on his own father, stalking, multiple instances of child abuse, DUI, possession, etc.. he’s a hothead and spends his days drinking beer in a lawn chair in the driveway. he also told my father that he has multiple unregistered handguns in his house.
since he’s in NYS, that is illegal.
but, my father is afraid to tell the police because he lives next to two ex-felons with several illegal handguns in their house and one of them has a rap sheet longer than most resumes.
catch .22
Does the police dept with jurisdiction over the area where you father lives not have an anonymous tip line?
Does the police dept with jurisdiction over the area where you father lives not have an anonymous tip line?
Does the police dept with jurisdiction over the area where you father lives not have an anonymous tip line?
Does the police dept with jurisdiction over the area where you father lives not have an anonymous tip line?
Why would that help?
If one or both of these neighbors gets jacked up by the cops on the basis of an anonymous tip, don’t you think there is a good chance they will suspect/blame cleek’s father, even if he in fact had nothing to do with the tip?
And are we assuming these neighbors won’t get or make bail? And that they have no friends or family to carry out retribution?
Does the police dept with jurisdiction over the area where you father lives not have an anonymous tip line?
Why would that help?
If one or both of these neighbors gets jacked up by the cops on the basis of an anonymous tip, don’t you think there is a good chance they will suspect/blame cleek’s father, even if he in fact had nothing to do with the tip?
And are we assuming these neighbors won’t get or make bail? And that they have no friends or family to carry out retribution?
Does the police dept with jurisdiction over the area where you father lives not have an anonymous tip line?
Why would that help?
If one or both of these neighbors gets jacked up by the cops on the basis of an anonymous tip, don’t you think there is a good chance they will suspect/blame cleek’s father, even if he in fact had nothing to do with the tip?
And are we assuming these neighbors won’t get or make bail? And that they have no friends or family to carry out retribution?
Everyone is of course free to feel such feelings as they are inclined to feel.
Including feelings about conclusions that I have not, as far as I am aware, expressed.
Everyone is of course free to feel such feelings as they are inclined to feel.
Including feelings about conclusions that I have not, as far as I am aware, expressed.
Everyone is of course free to feel such feelings as they are inclined to feel.
Including feelings about conclusions that I have not, as far as I am aware, expressed.
Grumpy, you suggest that these neighbors would apparently blame cleek’s relatives for an anonymous tip. So wouldn’t they also get blamed for any other police action against the neighbors? In which case, if the relatives are going to get blamed anyway, why not try for effective police action?
Grumpy, you suggest that these neighbors would apparently blame cleek’s relatives for an anonymous tip. So wouldn’t they also get blamed for any other police action against the neighbors? In which case, if the relatives are going to get blamed anyway, why not try for effective police action?
Grumpy, you suggest that these neighbors would apparently blame cleek’s relatives for an anonymous tip. So wouldn’t they also get blamed for any other police action against the neighbors? In which case, if the relatives are going to get blamed anyway, why not try for effective police action?
don’t you think there is a good chance they will suspect/blame cleek’s father
that’s his concern.
since he doesn’t know how many other people know of these guns, he doesn’t know if he can take the chance of providing a tip.
clearly, the answer is to decriminalize the handguns. then the lunatic wouldn’t have to worry about hiding them and my father would have nothing to rat him out for.
don’t you think there is a good chance they will suspect/blame cleek’s father
that’s his concern.
since he doesn’t know how many other people know of these guns, he doesn’t know if he can take the chance of providing a tip.
clearly, the answer is to decriminalize the handguns. then the lunatic wouldn’t have to worry about hiding them and my father would have nothing to rat him out for.
don’t you think there is a good chance they will suspect/blame cleek’s father
that’s his concern.
since he doesn’t know how many other people know of these guns, he doesn’t know if he can take the chance of providing a tip.
clearly, the answer is to decriminalize the handguns. then the lunatic wouldn’t have to worry about hiding them and my father would have nothing to rat him out for.
“Grumpy, you suggest that these neighbors would apparently blame cleek’s relatives for an anonymous tip. So wouldn’t they also get blamed for any other police action against the neighbors? In which case, if the relatives are going to get blamed anyway, why not try for effective police action?”
cleek said that the neighbor told cleek’s father that he has multiple unregistered handguns. Neither we nor cleek nor cleek’s father know how many other people this neighbor similarly confided in. If the cops bust him and he has an attorney or even a jailhouse lawyer friend, they will challenge the warrant used for the search, and see that an anonymous informant told the police that the subject of the warrant had multiple unregistered guns. It would not be hard for the neighbor to (correctly or not) connect the dots.
I have no idea why you think the neighbor is equally likely to blame all police action on cleek’s father. If they jack him up for an unprosecuted assault two states over, as far as we know he’d have no basis to blame cleek’s father. This same logic applies to any other crime to which cleek’s father has no connection.
“Grumpy, you suggest that these neighbors would apparently blame cleek’s relatives for an anonymous tip. So wouldn’t they also get blamed for any other police action against the neighbors? In which case, if the relatives are going to get blamed anyway, why not try for effective police action?”
cleek said that the neighbor told cleek’s father that he has multiple unregistered handguns. Neither we nor cleek nor cleek’s father know how many other people this neighbor similarly confided in. If the cops bust him and he has an attorney or even a jailhouse lawyer friend, they will challenge the warrant used for the search, and see that an anonymous informant told the police that the subject of the warrant had multiple unregistered guns. It would not be hard for the neighbor to (correctly or not) connect the dots.
I have no idea why you think the neighbor is equally likely to blame all police action on cleek’s father. If they jack him up for an unprosecuted assault two states over, as far as we know he’d have no basis to blame cleek’s father. This same logic applies to any other crime to which cleek’s father has no connection.
“Grumpy, you suggest that these neighbors would apparently blame cleek’s relatives for an anonymous tip. So wouldn’t they also get blamed for any other police action against the neighbors? In which case, if the relatives are going to get blamed anyway, why not try for effective police action?”
cleek said that the neighbor told cleek’s father that he has multiple unregistered handguns. Neither we nor cleek nor cleek’s father know how many other people this neighbor similarly confided in. If the cops bust him and he has an attorney or even a jailhouse lawyer friend, they will challenge the warrant used for the search, and see that an anonymous informant told the police that the subject of the warrant had multiple unregistered guns. It would not be hard for the neighbor to (correctly or not) connect the dots.
I have no idea why you think the neighbor is equally likely to blame all police action on cleek’s father. If they jack him up for an unprosecuted assault two states over, as far as we know he’d have no basis to blame cleek’s father. This same logic applies to any other crime to which cleek’s father has no connection.
he’s a hothead and spends his days drinking beer in a lawn chair in the driveway.
I must live in a more affluent neighborhood, because my hothead neighbor drinks beer in a faux-leather office chair in his driveway after wheeling it out of the garage. The weird part (or a weird part) is that he has a porch with rocking chairs, but he always sits in the office chair in the driveway. Maybe it’s because he can both rock and swivel in his office chair. He does lots of both while he’s out there. It’s very odd.
He hates most of the neighbors, so I don’t know why he doesn’t sit in the back of the house where he wouldn’t have to see anybody. But I guess he just likes being weird and annoying, for the very reason that he does hate most of us.
I hope he doesn’t have any guns. He could snap at any moment.
he’s a hothead and spends his days drinking beer in a lawn chair in the driveway.
I must live in a more affluent neighborhood, because my hothead neighbor drinks beer in a faux-leather office chair in his driveway after wheeling it out of the garage. The weird part (or a weird part) is that he has a porch with rocking chairs, but he always sits in the office chair in the driveway. Maybe it’s because he can both rock and swivel in his office chair. He does lots of both while he’s out there. It’s very odd.
He hates most of the neighbors, so I don’t know why he doesn’t sit in the back of the house where he wouldn’t have to see anybody. But I guess he just likes being weird and annoying, for the very reason that he does hate most of us.
I hope he doesn’t have any guns. He could snap at any moment.
he’s a hothead and spends his days drinking beer in a lawn chair in the driveway.
I must live in a more affluent neighborhood, because my hothead neighbor drinks beer in a faux-leather office chair in his driveway after wheeling it out of the garage. The weird part (or a weird part) is that he has a porch with rocking chairs, but he always sits in the office chair in the driveway. Maybe it’s because he can both rock and swivel in his office chair. He does lots of both while he’s out there. It’s very odd.
He hates most of the neighbors, so I don’t know why he doesn’t sit in the back of the house where he wouldn’t have to see anybody. But I guess he just likes being weird and annoying, for the very reason that he does hate most of us.
I hope he doesn’t have any guns. He could snap at any moment.
i could be wrong about the type chair. don’t tell me you live in Ballston Lake.
i could be wrong about the type chair. don’t tell me you live in Ballston Lake.
i could be wrong about the type chair. don’t tell me you live in Ballston Lake.
Truth be told, cleek, I am your father’s hothead, unregistered-gun-owning neighbor. Everything I’ve written on this blog before this comment has been an elaborate fabrication for purposes you couldn’t begin to understand.
Truth be told, cleek, I am your father’s hothead, unregistered-gun-owning neighbor. Everything I’ve written on this blog before this comment has been an elaborate fabrication for purposes you couldn’t begin to understand.
Truth be told, cleek, I am your father’s hothead, unregistered-gun-owning neighbor. Everything I’ve written on this blog before this comment has been an elaborate fabrication for purposes you couldn’t begin to understand.
If Timmy shoots his friend with Daddy’s gun on accident, Daddy’s on the hook for negligent homicide.
I think this is true today. IANAL but maybe a state law, I’m pretty sure this is/was true in Texas.
If Timmy shoots his friend with Daddy’s gun on accident, Daddy’s on the hook for negligent homicide.
I think this is true today. IANAL but maybe a state law, I’m pretty sure this is/was true in Texas.
If Timmy shoots his friend with Daddy’s gun on accident, Daddy’s on the hook for negligent homicide.
I think this is true today. IANAL but maybe a state law, I’m pretty sure this is/was true in Texas.
clearly, the answer is to decriminalize the handguns. then the lunatic wouldn’t have to worry about hiding them and my father would have nothing to rat him out for.
Typical liberal thinking, wanting the government to solve all your problems. No, the answer is for pops to get enough guns of his own and fortify his house so he has nothing to fear from that or any other neighbor.
clearly, the answer is to decriminalize the handguns. then the lunatic wouldn’t have to worry about hiding them and my father would have nothing to rat him out for.
Typical liberal thinking, wanting the government to solve all your problems. No, the answer is for pops to get enough guns of his own and fortify his house so he has nothing to fear from that or any other neighbor.
clearly, the answer is to decriminalize the handguns. then the lunatic wouldn’t have to worry about hiding them and my father would have nothing to rat him out for.
Typical liberal thinking, wanting the government to solve all your problems. No, the answer is for pops to get enough guns of his own and fortify his house so he has nothing to fear from that or any other neighbor.
I think this is true today
It’s state by state.
Currently 27 states and DC have some level of criminal liability for making firearms accessible to children (whether intentionally or through negligence).
The criteria for liability varies from state to state.
TX is one of the stricter states.
I think this is true today
It’s state by state.
Currently 27 states and DC have some level of criminal liability for making firearms accessible to children (whether intentionally or through negligence).
The criteria for liability varies from state to state.
TX is one of the stricter states.
I think this is true today
It’s state by state.
Currently 27 states and DC have some level of criminal liability for making firearms accessible to children (whether intentionally or through negligence).
The criteria for liability varies from state to state.
TX is one of the stricter states.
cleek, I am your father’s hothead
but i can’t not see Darth Vader saying this.
cleek, I am your father’s hothead
but i can’t not see Darth Vader saying this.
cleek, I am your father’s hothead
but i can’t not see Darth Vader saying this.
Same here. I was too lazy to figure out a way to play that up a little more, though.
Incidentally, while I don’t live in Ballston Lake, my sister-in-law lives in Halfmoon. (What are the chances?)
Same here. I was too lazy to figure out a way to play that up a little more, though.
Incidentally, while I don’t live in Ballston Lake, my sister-in-law lives in Halfmoon. (What are the chances?)
Same here. I was too lazy to figure out a way to play that up a little more, though.
Incidentally, while I don’t live in Ballston Lake, my sister-in-law lives in Halfmoon. (What are the chances?)
Iowa is getting into the data generation biz:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/iowa-house-bill-eliminate-gun-age-restriction
Iowa is getting into the data generation biz:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/iowa-house-bill-eliminate-gun-age-restriction
Iowa is getting into the data generation biz:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/iowa-house-bill-eliminate-gun-age-restriction
So now we are going with our own child soldiers? Since the whole justification for our gun laws is “a well regulated militia,” what other reasoning is there but to allow them to be soldiers — and presumably in opposition to their parents, since otherwise they could just use their parents’ guns…?
Some days, I weep for my country.
So now we are going with our own child soldiers? Since the whole justification for our gun laws is “a well regulated militia,” what other reasoning is there but to allow them to be soldiers — and presumably in opposition to their parents, since otherwise they could just use their parents’ guns…?
Some days, I weep for my country.
So now we are going with our own child soldiers? Since the whole justification for our gun laws is “a well regulated militia,” what other reasoning is there but to allow them to be soldiers — and presumably in opposition to their parents, since otherwise they could just use their parents’ guns…?
Some days, I weep for my country.
Some stuff I picked out:
I’d say telling young children that guns are dangerous and that they shouldn’t touch them would be allowing them to learn the respect that a gun commands. In fact, it would be teaching them such respect.
And, if I’m not mistaken, 14 is less than 18. Wouldn’t people be able to turn 18 with 4 years of gun-safety experience under current law? (Also, too, do you need to know gun safety if you don’t handle guns at all? They aren’t making the use of guns mandatory for 18-year-olds, are they? Most of the people I know had no experience with guns at the age of 18, but were still somehow able to live full, happy lives.)
Some stuff I picked out:
I’d say telling young children that guns are dangerous and that they shouldn’t touch them would be allowing them to learn the respect that a gun commands. In fact, it would be teaching them such respect.
And, if I’m not mistaken, 14 is less than 18. Wouldn’t people be able to turn 18 with 4 years of gun-safety experience under current law? (Also, too, do you need to know gun safety if you don’t handle guns at all? They aren’t making the use of guns mandatory for 18-year-olds, are they? Most of the people I know had no experience with guns at the age of 18, but were still somehow able to live full, happy lives.)
Some stuff I picked out:
I’d say telling young children that guns are dangerous and that they shouldn’t touch them would be allowing them to learn the respect that a gun commands. In fact, it would be teaching them such respect.
And, if I’m not mistaken, 14 is less than 18. Wouldn’t people be able to turn 18 with 4 years of gun-safety experience under current law? (Also, too, do you need to know gun safety if you don’t handle guns at all? They aren’t making the use of guns mandatory for 18-year-olds, are they? Most of the people I know had no experience with guns at the age of 18, but were still somehow able to live full, happy lives.)
They can certainly learn the principles of gun safety with BB-guns, it’s a common part of the Scouting experience (and wildly popular with the kids).
They can certainly learn the principles of gun safety with BB-guns, it’s a common part of the Scouting experience (and wildly popular with the kids).
They can certainly learn the principles of gun safety with BB-guns, it’s a common part of the Scouting experience (and wildly popular with the kids).
True. I had a pistol that shot BBs when I was about 8 years old. In my previous comment “guns” = “firearms.”
My pistol probably couldn’t have killed a squirrel, except maybe with a contact shot to the head, but I still had to follow the same safety protocol as I would with, say, a .44 Magnum.
True. I had a pistol that shot BBs when I was about 8 years old. In my previous comment “guns” = “firearms.”
My pistol probably couldn’t have killed a squirrel, except maybe with a contact shot to the head, but I still had to follow the same safety protocol as I would with, say, a .44 Magnum.
True. I had a pistol that shot BBs when I was about 8 years old. In my previous comment “guns” = “firearms.”
My pistol probably couldn’t have killed a squirrel, except maybe with a contact shot to the head, but I still had to follow the same safety protocol as I would with, say, a .44 Magnum.
my sister-in-law lives in Halfmoon
East Siyyyeeeed!
my sister-in-law lives in Halfmoon
East Siyyyeeeed!
my sister-in-law lives in Halfmoon
East Siyyyeeeed!
True. I had a pistol that shot BBs when I was about 8 years old.
I got a Daisy air rifle when I was 7 or 8. Lever action, like a tiny, non-lethal Winchester.
I shot a lot of cans and bottles. I can say with authority that it was not lethal to squirrels and birds, although it was apparently very annoying to them.
I learned to not point it at my brother or cousins, to not use it in the house, and to not shoot at the birds that came to my neighbor’s bird feeder.
All pretty good lessons.
True. I had a pistol that shot BBs when I was about 8 years old.
I got a Daisy air rifle when I was 7 or 8. Lever action, like a tiny, non-lethal Winchester.
I shot a lot of cans and bottles. I can say with authority that it was not lethal to squirrels and birds, although it was apparently very annoying to them.
I learned to not point it at my brother or cousins, to not use it in the house, and to not shoot at the birds that came to my neighbor’s bird feeder.
All pretty good lessons.
True. I had a pistol that shot BBs when I was about 8 years old.
I got a Daisy air rifle when I was 7 or 8. Lever action, like a tiny, non-lethal Winchester.
I shot a lot of cans and bottles. I can say with authority that it was not lethal to squirrels and birds, although it was apparently very annoying to them.
I learned to not point it at my brother or cousins, to not use it in the house, and to not shoot at the birds that came to my neighbor’s bird feeder.
All pretty good lessons.
Thanks for the summary HSH. I had apparently totally misunderstood what the proposed law was doing.
Probably because it didn’t occur to me that the existing law in Iowa didn’t allow kids to touch guns at all. After all, here in notoriously anti-gun California, I went thru the NTA’s gun safety course** at about 14 — and nobody thought anything about it.
** This was, obviously, back in the middle of the last century. When the NRA was focused on things like gun safety and hunting, rather than on promoting gun sales.
Thanks for the summary HSH. I had apparently totally misunderstood what the proposed law was doing.
Probably because it didn’t occur to me that the existing law in Iowa didn’t allow kids to touch guns at all. After all, here in notoriously anti-gun California, I went thru the NTA’s gun safety course** at about 14 — and nobody thought anything about it.
** This was, obviously, back in the middle of the last century. When the NRA was focused on things like gun safety and hunting, rather than on promoting gun sales.
Thanks for the summary HSH. I had apparently totally misunderstood what the proposed law was doing.
Probably because it didn’t occur to me that the existing law in Iowa didn’t allow kids to touch guns at all. After all, here in notoriously anti-gun California, I went thru the NTA’s gun safety course** at about 14 — and nobody thought anything about it.
** This was, obviously, back in the middle of the last century. When the NRA was focused on things like gun safety and hunting, rather than on promoting gun sales.
I think it is actually handguns that kids aren’t currently allowed to touch. Shotgun? Go right ahead Billy, just stop eating your boogers first.
I think it is actually handguns that kids aren’t currently allowed to touch. Shotgun? Go right ahead Billy, just stop eating your boogers first.
I think it is actually handguns that kids aren’t currently allowed to touch. Shotgun? Go right ahead Billy, just stop eating your boogers first.
I started shooting .22’s under adult supervision when I was 7. I got my own single shot .22 (still have it) when I was 10 and hunted unsupervised when I was 11. Got a 20 gauge shotgun when I was 12, hunted unsupervised immediately. Hunted deer with a WWI Norwegian Krag 6.5mm when I was 13 (shot an 8 point buck) unsupervised. Still have the rifle.
In my experience, the earlier a kid learns how to handle a firearm safely (many hunting and shooting trips, hours of instruction over several years, not just a ‘how to’), the more responsible they are as teens who often discount what their parents have to say.
I started shooting .22’s under adult supervision when I was 7. I got my own single shot .22 (still have it) when I was 10 and hunted unsupervised when I was 11. Got a 20 gauge shotgun when I was 12, hunted unsupervised immediately. Hunted deer with a WWI Norwegian Krag 6.5mm when I was 13 (shot an 8 point buck) unsupervised. Still have the rifle.
In my experience, the earlier a kid learns how to handle a firearm safely (many hunting and shooting trips, hours of instruction over several years, not just a ‘how to’), the more responsible they are as teens who often discount what their parents have to say.
I started shooting .22’s under adult supervision when I was 7. I got my own single shot .22 (still have it) when I was 10 and hunted unsupervised when I was 11. Got a 20 gauge shotgun when I was 12, hunted unsupervised immediately. Hunted deer with a WWI Norwegian Krag 6.5mm when I was 13 (shot an 8 point buck) unsupervised. Still have the rifle.
In my experience, the earlier a kid learns how to handle a firearm safely (many hunting and shooting trips, hours of instruction over several years, not just a ‘how to’), the more responsible they are as teens who often discount what their parents have to say.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2016/02/what_do_we_call_options_worse059743.php
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2016/02/what_do_we_call_options_worse059743.php
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2016/02/what_do_we_call_options_worse059743.php
I won the riflery tournament a Y-Camp one summer in Iowa (a .22). Don’t recall how old I was (under 13 at a minimum), or if the counselor supervising was an adult (probably).
I won the riflery tournament a Y-Camp one summer in Iowa (a .22). Don’t recall how old I was (under 13 at a minimum), or if the counselor supervising was an adult (probably).
I won the riflery tournament a Y-Camp one summer in Iowa (a .22). Don’t recall how old I was (under 13 at a minimum), or if the counselor supervising was an adult (probably).
“[T]he intractability of both sides to compromise over the last seven years.”
Gosh, Marty, you don’t usually lie this blatantly and this laughably. Guess you’re having an off day.
“[T]he intractability of both sides to compromise over the last seven years.”
Gosh, Marty, you don’t usually lie this blatantly and this laughably. Guess you’re having an off day.
“[T]he intractability of both sides to compromise over the last seven years.”
Gosh, Marty, you don’t usually lie this blatantly and this laughably. Guess you’re having an off day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/29/one-third-of-all-u-s-presidents-appointed-a-supreme-court-justice-in-an-election-year/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/29/one-third-of-all-u-s-presidents-appointed-a-supreme-court-justice-in-an-election-year/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/29/one-third-of-all-u-s-presidents-appointed-a-supreme-court-justice-in-an-election-year/
None of them were born in Kenya.
None of them were born in Kenya.
None of them were born in Kenya.