Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[REDSTATEWARD]

So Zucker bolts CNN claiming a guilty conscience over a covered up love affair with a co-worker.
Someone else can figure out how to deal with thevmess of the Cable  News Channel  he ruined.
In reality Zucker is probably better off.

[Holly Martins]

"Pinky squared and deeds done..."

Again  it is a feature, not a bug. Brandeis, Marshall, OConnor, Sotomayor, etc.  It is extremely relevant to the Court we have today and its broadening perspective over historical time.

The real optics are Joe doing exactly what he said he would do.  My guess is many Americans still like that sort of approach.

The fact that the promise helped Biden win southern states does not lessen the value, the intrinsic merit of deliberately adding a black female perspective.  It would be a good idea even if Biden had never promised it.  A deal with cynical undercurrents can still produce a laudable result.

Would we call a library board exclusionary because the city refused to make every seat appointed a reader of only pop bestsellers?  Would seeking and appointing an historian to help advance the library s regional history collection cause a civic rage machine to fire up and start yelling that the James Patterson and Stephen King promoters were being excluded?  Would people scream about backroom deals to bring in a scholar and get the mayor votes from the university district?   

[Holly Martins]

And that concludes the marine mammal nutrition segment, for today.

[REDSTATEWARD]

The real optics are Joe doing exactly what he said he would do.  My guess is many Americans still like that sort of approach.

We pretty much already know what most Americans think of that approach.
The end does not justify the means.

[FlyingVProd]

We need to build more schools and fewer prisons.

And when people are able to make a good honest living then there is no need for crime.

In my case my Grandmother taught me when I was young to work and to earn honest money, she was a dog groomer and I washed dogs to help her, and that was how my Grandmother paid the rent and how she put food on the table. We washed 20 dogs per day, and that was how she paid the rent and how she bought groceries. It was hard work, but it was honest. And I eventually managed a dog kennel where we worked, and was able to buy a new Jeep, I was poor but I had a new Jeep, and I felt good because I was doing everything honest.

Later when I was working at China Lake, and at NASA, one of my uncles came to my home and he told me that I did not have to work, he told me that all that I had to do was to sell meth, and he offered me a big bag of meth to sell. His father died when he was young, like my father, but he did not have anyone to teach him how to work and how to earn honest money. But, I was honest, so I told him that I did not want to be a drug dealer and that I wanted to work. And what he did not know is that my house was owned by a cop, I was renting a home from a cop, it would have been real stupid to sell drugs out of a house that was owned by a cop. My uncle spent his whole life in prison for being stupid and for not having people to teach him how to work and how to earn an honest living.

We can teach people when they are young how to earn an honest living so that they did not become criminals, the same way that my Grandmother taught me how to wash dogs and was a good example for me of a good honest person who was respected by the community. We even washed Victoria Principal's dog, it was great, a lot of stars brought their dogs to us for grooming. And then later when I managed the kennel we had a lot of stars for customers. We were honest and we were respected.

We need to teach our children how to be honest and respected, so they do not fall into a life of crime. Especially the foster youth, and the children who do not have fathers, we need to teach them good things when they are young. And we need to send the foster youth to college.

Salute,

Tony V.

[facilitatorn]

The real optics are Joe doing exactly what he said he would do.  My guess is many Americans still like that sort of approach.

We pretty much already know what most Americans think of that approach.
The end does not justify the means.

In that case you should have cut your fucking nose off already from an abundance of shame, pasty fascist fucktard.

[REDSTATEWARD]

For those interested in the report on Covid-19 lockdowns and the resulting mortality effects.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lockdown-catastrophe-11643833939?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb

[kiidcarter8]

"It is the city vs the killers.  And we are going to win!"

God bless you, Eric Adams

[Hamilton Samuels]

Biden looks stupid for guaranteeing a black woman SCOTUS. Good pols never put their own balls in a vise.

Nonsense, Forrest. Plenty of highly qualified African American candidates. The Repos criticizing him on this issue would find something wrong with any process he used. No reason for him to pay attention to any of that criticism.

Easier to ignore it.
Truth is Biden never considered anyone except black women, in his campaign promises and his presidency.

And?

And, by saying you exclude others who are not female and black, you practice bigotry, at the very least.

But that wasn't my criticism, nor am I here to defend what the Grand Old Prevaricators might do.

From the standpoint of the average American, saying you only will look at one group of folks for a position is seen as unfair. That's why it is dumb politics, especially when you represent a party who says that is about inclusion, not exclusion.

Everyone wants to be able to have equal opportunity for any job in this country, but Joe B is essentially saying that some are more equal than others at  this time, and that concept doesn't fly for most Americans.

Oh, BULLSHIT,

Do now you oppose equal opportunity.

Good to know.

And not surprising.

Bullshit piled higher and deeper.

I bet you think you've made an argument.

If we were 12, maybe.

But, no, you haven't. Explain why it's good politics for President Biden to act, well, like a Republican would act---trying to appease a narrow group of his supporters, instead of considering what is best for the entire country.

 

[Hamilton Samuels]

Biden looks stupid for guaranteeing a black woman SCOTUS. Good pols never put their own balls in a vise.

Nonsense, Forrest. Plenty of highly qualified African American candidates. The Repos criticizing him on this issue would find something wrong with any process he used. No reason for him to pay attention to any of that criticism.

Easier to ignore it.
Truth is Biden never considered anyone except black women, in his campaign promises and his presidency.

And?

And, by saying you exclude others who are not female and black, you practice bigotry, at the very least.

No, not bigotry, because the choice to diversify the Court by adding an African American is not based on some idea of inherent superiority, but rather the opposite.

But that wasn't my criticism, nor am I here to defend what the Grand Old Prevaricators might do.

From the standpoint of the average American, saying you only will look at one group of folks for a position is seen as unfair. That's why it is dumb politics, especially when you represent a party who says that is about inclusion, not exclusion.

Well, that happens all the time for the SCOTUS. For instance, presidents limit their selections to lawyers. And to people who agree with their politic philosophy. At least two Republican presidents have, for political reasons, publicly stated they were selecting a woman for the Court. Drumpf limited his choices on all three occasions to people vetted by the Federalist Society.

And Bidens commitment to select an African American female was made back before the SoCar primary, and in context was not dumb politics, but very smart because it got him the primary, the nomination and the election. Not honoring that commitment to a key constituency would have been dumb.

Everyone wants to be able to have equal opportunity for any job in this country, but Joe B is essentially saying that some are more equal than others at  this time, and that concept doesn't fly for most Americans.

We do not have equal opportunity for jobs. Never have. Race, gender and class have always mattered. So have connections and family. It may be unspoken, but it is there and those always favor one group of.people. it.always amused me that people would question, as an example, Obama getting into Harvard law but not George Bush getting into Yale. Some advantages are normalized in the way we view them.

The choice of SCOTUS justice is always limited by ideology and demographics. If your complaint is Biden said the quiet part out loud, fine. But I think that the selection of a well qualified justice will wash away any objections in the end, outside of the right wing rage machine.

Optics count. That's the way of the world.

My complaint is Biden's politics needed fine tuning on this one.

His problem to deal with, but an unnecessary one.

Let's hope he doesn't nominate Whoopi Goldberg.

Again, the optics got him the presidency.

He made a promise to his voting base and that pisses of Hammy because the base of the Democratic Party is the most educated demographic in the nation... Black women, and he thinks that is unfair.

Now, you've just dummied down to an even lower level of stupidity.

 

[Hairy Lime]

Biden looks stupid for guaranteeing a black woman SCOTUS. Good pols never put their own balls in a vise.

Nonsense, Forrest. Plenty of highly qualified African American candidates. The Repos criticizing him on this issue would find something wrong with any process he used. No reason for him to pay attention to any of that criticism.

Easier to ignore it.
Truth is Biden never considered anyone except black women, in his campaign promises and his presidency.

And?

And, by saying you exclude others who are not female and black, you practice bigotry, at the very least.

No, not bigotry, because the choice to diversify the Court by adding an African American is not based on some idea of inherent superiority, but rather the opposite.

But that wasn't my criticism, nor am I here to defend what the Grand Old Prevaricators might do.

From the standpoint of the average American, saying you only will look at one group of folks for a position is seen as unfair. That's why it is dumb politics, especially when you represent a party who says that is about inclusion, not exclusion.

Well, that happens all the time for the SCOTUS. For instance, presidents limit their selections to lawyers. And to people who agree with their politic philosophy. At least two Republican presidents have, for political reasons, publicly stated they were selecting a woman for the Court. Drumpf limited his choices on all three occasions to people vetted by the Federalist Society.

And Bidens commitment to select an African American female was made back before the SoCar primary, and in context was not dumb politics, but very smart because it got him the primary, the nomination and the election. Not honoring that commitment to a key constituency would have been dumb.

Everyone wants to be able to have equal opportunity for any job in this country, but Joe B is essentially saying that some are more equal than others at  this time, and that concept doesn't fly for most Americans.

We do not have equal opportunity for jobs. Never have. Race, gender and class have always mattered. So have connections and family. It may be unspoken, but it is there and those always favor one group of.people. it.always amused me that people would question, as an example, Obama getting into Harvard law but not George Bush getting into Yale. Some advantages are normalized in the way we view them.

The choice of SCOTUS justice is always limited by ideology and demographics. If your complaint is Biden said the quiet part out loud, fine. But I think that the selection of a well qualified justice will wash away any objections in the end, outside of the right wing rage machine.

Optics count. That's the way of the world.

My complaint is Biden's politics needed fine tuning on this one.

His problem to deal with, but an unnecessary one.

Let's hope he doesn't nominate Whoopi Goldberg.

Again, the optics got him the presidency.

He made a promise to his voting base and that pisses of Hammy because the base of the Democratic Party is the most educated demographic in the nation... Black women, and he thinks that is unfair.

Now, you've just dummied down to an even lower level of stupidity.

Fear not. He will get to your level eventually.

[FlyingVProd]

Ronald Reagan made all of our immigrants legal so that they could join labor unions, and so that they could call the police in the case of an emergency, etc. We need to do the same thing now that Reagan did, and we need to make everyone legal. We also need to have a good neighbor policy for our good Christian neighbors here in the Western Hemisphere, including with Mexico, and with Canada. ( We also need to invest in the ports in Mexico, and we need to allow Mexican truckers to drive in the USA, and the Mexican truckers need to be able to join the Teamsters union. )

Salute,

Tony V.

[kiidcarter8]

White folk?

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2022/02/01/watch-massive-brawl-breaks-out-in-bensalem-golden-corral-over-alleged-steak-shortage/

[Holly Martins]

The real optics are Joe doing exactly what he said he would do.  My guess is many Americans still like that sort of approach.

We pretty much already know what most Americans think of that approach.
The end does not justify the means.

The fact that you did not answer the other main points of my post, and removed them from the quote, is the white flag we expected.  And then you ran straight back to SCOREBOARD! while again never linking your poll or how the questions were posed.

Similarly, on the epidemiologic effects of lockdowns, you again revert to a study from political partisans that has had no scientific peer review and was conducted by economists with zero medical credentials.  Which you provide a paywall blocked link for.  BAE.

[REDSTATEWARD]

The real optics are Joe doing exactly what he said he would do.  My guess is many Americans still like that sort of approach.

We pretty much already know what most Americans think of that approach.
The end does not justify the means.

The fact that you did not answer the other main points of my post, and removed them from the quote, is the white flag we expected.  And then you ran straight back to SCOREBOARD! while again never linking your poll or how the questions were posed.

The poll is public record and so is its methodology. Play your games elsewhere.

Similarly, on the epidemiologic effects of lockdowns, you again revert to a study from political partisans that has had no scientific peer review and was conducted by economists with zero medical credentials.  Which you provide a paywall blocked link for.  BAE.

Economists are social scientists who study effects of policies, medical, political, etc. on society.
The authors used thousands of studies to gauge the effectiveness of lockdowns in curtailing deaths from the virus. That is a skill set a biologist or an epidemiologist is not trained in. Instead they are experts in medical solutions.
And to label the authors political partisans is pretty disgusting, especially since you cannot  afford a dollar paywall fee to read their work.
Like the poll on SCOTUS you are content to ignore it and damn findings that do not fit your political bias.
It is also helpful to remember the Great Barrington Declaration was written by medical scientists who warned against lockdowns. It was shunned by the media, censored on the internet, and laughed at by WHO, the CDC, etc.  It should have been a centerpiece in discussing our public policies.  The fact it was not is disturbing in a country that professes an openness to free speech.