RBG leaves the stage.

Pixel42 said:
There is a clear difference, though, between judging someone by the choices they consciously made, and judging them based solely on who their parents were. The poster Craig4 was responding to was trying to conflate the two.
Click to expand...
Scene: an elementary school playground. A girl looks on as a bunch of boys and girls harrass a smaller boy, who looks close to tears. She turns to the new kid:
"I hate those kids, they're always being mean to everyone. They're the meanest kids ever!"
The new kid is shocked. "Oh, that's so mean! Those poor bullies! I say, now I want to be friends with them and not with you!"
 
Yeah you joke but that's literally what we get told here all the time. "How dare you not be tolerant of my intolerance" is the distilled version of a lot of discussion we have here. Hell sometimes it's not even distilled.

The Paradox of Tolerance is dead as a concept because using someone's argument against them on a surface level is the only way so many people can get any joy out of their lives at all.

Nobody argues anymore they just "show up" the other side.
 
Unsolicited reflection and off-topic:
JoeMorgue said:
At this point I'm legit surprised Susan Collins has created an account here yet.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many famous people I've run across online, posting on forums, in newspaper comments threads, or on YouTube, or even playing online games, under anonymous pseudonyms. They surely want to hang out online as much as the rest of us, and I also assume they'd create usernames that don't give away who they really are. Just a fun thing to think about.
</ot>
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah you joke but that's literally what we get told here all the time. "How dare you not be tolerant of my intolerance" is the distilled version of a lot of discussion we have here. Hell sometimes it's not even distilled.
Click to expand...
I keep running into people complaining about the "bullying" of Trump, and I'm at a loss for words every single time.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
anti trust, especially anti Friedman doctrine
Click to expand...

Democrats are more aligned to your position here.

anti racism, and that includes anti affirmative action.
Click to expand...

If you were actually talking about doing away with racism, then the Democrats would be more closely aligned to your position, but since your stated position is more along the lines of just pretending racism doesn't exist because it doesn't affect you directly, then you're right to go for the Republicans. That's exactly how they justify white supremacism.

Pro gun rights
Click to expand...

Trump is on record as saying that he wants to take people's guns away and worry about due process afterwards. So the Democrats would be more closely aligned with your position here.

The entire rest of my life I have dedicated to ending global warming, specifically by restoring ecosystem function on about 1/2 the land surface of the planet by improving land management and especially farming practices and bringing the carbon cycle back into balance.
Click to expand...

Definitely democrats here.

But, sure, vote for Trump because some anonymous internet stranger made a post that you found to be a little too abrasive. That'll be voting for your best interests.
 
Again because their core philosophy is "It's better to have no standards or consistant horrible standards than good standards you don't live up to strawman versions of 100% of the time."

This is why "Oh goodie I get to use your argument (or at least a surface level misunderstanded version of it) against you, this is better than sex!" is such a integral part of their personas.

And "tolerance" is the biggest part of the Left's overall personality and a key piece of so many of their arguments and stances. So of course getting to call them "intolerant" (even if it's just in the nonsensical concept of not being tolerant of intolerance) that must feel better than having an orgasm while eating a chocolate chip cookie in a hot tub on your birthday to them.
 
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper said:
Unsolicited reflection and off-topic:

I wonder how many famous people I've run across online, posting on forums, in newspaper comments threads, or on YouTube, or even playing online games, under anonymous pseudonyms. They surely want to hang out online as much as the rest of us, and I also assume they'd create usernames that don't give away who they really are. Just a fun thing to think about.
</ot>
Click to expand...
Mitch Benn (a not particularly well known British comic) used to post regularly on a Doctor Who forum I belong to under his real name, and was amused when other posters doubted he was that Mitch Benn. He would point out that if was going to pretend to be someone famous on the internet, he'd pretend to be someone a lot more famous than Mitch Benn.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Lindsey Graham:
"People wonder about the peaceful transfer of power. I can assure you it will be peaceful. Now we may have litigation about who won the election, but the court will decide, and if Republicans lose, we'll accept that result. But we need a full court."
Click to expand...

Mumbles replies to Senator Grovels: "You've already shown that you are not to be trusted, which in truth we knew all along, purse rat. Pack it up and leave, nothing you say is to be believed."
 
JoeMorgue said:
And "tolerance" is the biggest part of the Left's overall personality and a key piece of so many of their arguments and stances. So of course getting to call them "intolerant" (even if it's just in the nonsensical concept of not being tolerant of intolerance) that must feel better than having an orgasm while eating a chocolate chip cookie in a hot tub on your birthday to them.
Click to expand...

Also harder to clean up afterwards.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Unsolicited reflection and off-topic:

I wonder how many famous people I've run across online, posting on forums, in newspaper comments threads, or on YouTube, or even playing online games, under anonymous pseudonyms. They surely want to hang out online as much as the rest of us, and I also assume they'd create usernames that don't give away who they really are. Just a fun thing to think about.
</ot>
Click to expand...

Mila Kunis was an avid World Of Warcraft player up until about a decade ago. She says that she had to quit because she was too addicted to it. She also said that she had to stop using the mic because she's got a distinctive voice and people would recognise her all the time, and then the session would become about her rather than the game.

There are also some celebrities who are out and proud online. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a member of Reddit, for example.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
I am a pro lifer,
Click to expand...

By pro-life, you mean you are opposed to abortion in all instances (except presumably when it is required to save the life of the mother - I will assume you can consistently argue for that!)?

Just out of interest, do you think the Supreme Court should overturn Roe vs Wade? And if so, do you think that an appointment of a conservative justice will result in this?


Red Baron Farms said:
Other issues I feel are important
  1. anti trust, especially anti Friedman doctrine
Click to expand...


  1. Do you have some idea here of how this will play out with a conservative Supreme Court?


    Red Baron Farms said:
    [*]anti racism, and that includes anti affirmative action. Race should never even enter into the conversation. I am not a white man. I am not a red man. I am a man. And I don't have Black friends, or Asian friends, or Hispanic friends, or White friends, they are just friends. Race doesn't even scientifically exist. Time to move on.
    Click to expand...

    I can't remember if it is a real conversation, or an apocryphal story, but I seem to recall that following Indian independence, Jinnah argued that it was necessary for a Muslim state to protect them from Hindu nationalists. Apparently Gandhi was shocked at the idea, and said that he would never bear any ill-will towards India's Muslim population, and Jinnah replied that this is completely true, but not everyone is Gandhi.

    Of course, Muslims and Hindus kill each other over their own completely non-existent gods all the time. The fact that there is no scientific basis for their squabbles doesn't change that.

    And unfortunately, when it comes to race, not everyone is Gandhi Red Baron Farms. People will still discriminate on the basis of perceived racial distinctions no matter how colour blind you personally are.

    Red Baron Farms said:
    [*]Pro gun rights
    Click to expand...

    Is there anything specific that you would like to see changed here? I mean, is it a commitment to states' rights on the bearing arms, or is it that you would like to see some federal ban on gun bans? The only thing I can see here is that the Supreme Court may rule fitness tests unconstitutional, or that DC or other places must overturn bans on guns.

    Is there anything specific that you would like to see a conservative court do?


    Red Baron Farms said:
    [*]The entire rest of my life I have dedicated to ending global warming, specifically by restoring ecosystem function on about 1/2 the land surface of the planet by improving land management and especially farming practices and bringing the carbon cycle back into balance.
    Click to expand...
Red Baron Farms said:
Click to expand...

You mean the Chinese Hoax? Why would you throw in your lot with Donald Clean Coal Trump? I cannot think of a more powerful group of climate change deniers than the GOP.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
The entire rest of my life I have dedicated to ending global warming, specifically by restoring ecosystem function on about 1/2 the land surface of the planet by improving land management and especially farming practices and bringing the carbon cycle back into balance.
Click to expand...

So naturally you want a judge that would want to eliminate Chevron deference and otherwise cripple the federal government's ability to regulate environmental issues.
 
JoeMorgue said:
So what should be the rules, the actual in place rules not a "Gentleman's Agreement" as to nominating a SCOTUS vacancy close to an election year?

Let's use a ~6 month cut off prior to election day. Let's say that in an election year a SCOTUS nomination should come up within 180 days of November 3rd.

Option 1: - Nothing. The current administration and current Senate nominate and approve a candidate, same as always.
Option 2: - The President can nominate, but we have to wait until after the election for approval. So in our scenario Trump could nominate someone, but we would have to wait until the new Senate takes office January 3rd for the approval.
Option 3: - We wait until the new President and Senate take office.
Option 4: - Other.

Also should the rules changes if the current incumbent could be (I.e. the Mitch McConnell loophole) President after the election?
Click to expand...

What kind of rules are we talking about?

Option 1: The Constitution clearly requires/allows the Senate to do certain things, and the Supreme Court needs to issue a ruling to that effect.

Option 2: The Constitution needs to be amended to clearly require/allow certain things.

Option 3: The Senate needs to propose and vote on Senate procedures that clearly require/allow certain things.

---

Anyway, absent a Supreme Court ruling on what the Constitution requires/allows, my pick is a mix of Joe's Options 1 and 4.

Which is to say, the president is allowed to nominate or not as he sees fit, and the Senate is allowed to hold confirmation hearings or not, as they see fit. And there's the tacit (option 4) rule that if voters don't like it they can elect someone else. And if the voters really don't like it, the legislature can impeach or expel the offending person.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
See its comments like that which are slowly but steadily causing me to lean towards Trump, even though I don't like him at all.

If anything, this whole thread has got me thinking maybe it is important to vote for Trump, although I swore to myself I never would due to his poor environmental stance, far too liberal economic policies, and absolute failure to handle covid correctly.

But as bad as he is overall, the supreme court is also important. Here we could get both a much more intelligent person as well as being actually conservative, rather than Trump's more like a Democrat style of creating racial tensions, tribalism, and proclaiming bigotry is ok if it they are on the correct side of the "us vs you" dynamic.

I would even go so far to say that if there is any traitor to the ideals this country was founded on present, it would be the one proclaiming any kind of bigot is ok.
Click to expand...


Why not just boil this down to' "Look what you're making me do!"

It's like the wife complaining about the abuse, then hubby kills her and says, "Look what you made me do!"

It's an immature response and an unreasonable placement of blame. It reeks of an underlying search for an excuse to take action.
 
theprestige said:
Anyway, absent a Supreme Court ruling on what the Constitution requires/allows, my pick is a mix of Joe's Options 1 and 4.

Which is to say, the president is allowed to nominate or not as he sees fit, and the Senate is allowed to hold confirmation hearings or not, as they see fit. And there's the tacit (option 4) rule that if voters don't like it they can elect someone else. And if the voters really don't like it, the legislature can impeach or expel the offending person.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But you can see how that can lead to a president deciding that, “hey, I get the power to appoint judges and the Senate has the power to confirm, so let’s just pack the court with friendly judges. Let’s say another ten to over-ride the known leanings of the current court.”

What would prevent that? I presume nothing according to your stated pick.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
I am a pro lifer,
Other issues I feel are important
  1. anti trust, especially anti Friedman doctrine
  2. anti racism, and that includes anti affirmative action. Race should never even enter into the conversation. I am not a white man. I am not a red man. I am a man. And I don't have Black friends, or Asian friends, or Hispanic friends, or White friends, they are just friends. Race doesn't even scientifically exist. Time to move on.
  3. Pro gun rights
  4. The entire rest of my life I have dedicated to ending global warming, specifically by restoring ecosystem function on about 1/2 the land surface of the planet by improving land management and especially farming practices and bringing the carbon cycle back into balance.
Click to expand...

You do realize, dont you, that the GOP are against 2 (or maybe 3?) out of those 4, right? And their judges are hoped to be of the same stripe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom