• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Scalia is dead

beren said:
People are dying of preventable diseases.
People are hungry and/or starving while there is food in warehouses.
People are suffering and living in poverty simply because they had the bad luck to be born to poor parents while others are living lives of luxury.

I guess we could argue about "needed," but there sure is a hell of a lot that SHOULD have been done that hasn't.
Click to expand...

Conservatives believe that liberal solutions to those problems only make things worse.

By the way, most of the people (in the US) dying of preventable diseases are doing so because of their own poor choices (or their parents').

Most of the people who are hungry and/or starving (are there really any in the US?) are doing so because of their own poor choices (or their parents').

The largest disadvantage that a child can suffer is having bad parents. That trumps income and wealth (although probably not genes - but those come from the parents too, with some randomness thrown in). There is not much the government can do about bad parents.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yawn. 1. One person does not represent all Democrats.
2. This snippet excludes context and had been Debunked.
Click to expand...
Yes. I watched that full 90 minute speech, and Biden shows superior statesmanship.

I doubt many people will view it all, but if anyone is interested: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581759/sen-joe-biden-supreme-court-confirmation-process

Here is just a snip, a little over a minute, the cons would prefer to not acknowledge:

Biden was talking about what would have been a fall election year hearing in his hypothetical, and he goes on to say "compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate."

(for the record, this is what the make-up of the court was when he made the speech: )

John Paul Stevens - Appointed by Ford
William Rehnquist - Appointed by Nixon - Appointed to CJ byReagan
Sandra Day O'Connor - Appointed by Reagan
Antonin Scalia - Appointed by Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - Appointed byReagan
Clarence Thomas - Appointed by GHW Bush
David Souter.- Appointed by GHW Bush
Harry Blackmun - Appointed by Nixon
Byron White - Appointed by JFK

8 out 9 SCJ's nominated by Republican POTUS - and Byron White was hinting at resigning (he did resign the following year.)

A snip from the above clip: "If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter. But if he does not, as is the President's right, then I will oppose his future nominees, as is my right."
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
Conservatives believe that liberal solutions to those problems only make things worse.
Click to expand...
Which is odd synced there are no conservative solutions other than "let the market fix it" which has never worked.

By the way, most of the people (in the US) dying of preventable diseases are doing so because of their own poor choices (or their parents').
Click to expand...
And yet conservatives argue for more personal choice and less help.
1. People make bad choices that cause then to die.
2. People should be allowed to make there own choices without intervention.
3. Author consequences people don't learn.
4. There people should be allowed to die.

Where have I misunderstood the conservative "solution?"

Most of the people who are hungry and/or starving (are there really any in the US?) are doing so because of their own poor choices (or their parents').

The largest disadvantage that a child can suffer is having bad parents. That trumps income and wealth (although probably not genes - but those come from the parents too, with some randomness thrown in). There is not much the government can do about bad parents.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if innocent child is cursed with bad parents they should just suffer and die because of their bad luck, right?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
beren said:
Which is odd synced there are no conservative solutions other than "let the market fix it" which has never worked.


And yet conservatives argue for more personal choice and less help.
1. People make bad choices that cause then to die.
2. People should be allowed to make there own choices without intervention.
3. Author consequences people don't learn.
4. There people should be allowed to die.

Where have I misunderstood the conservative "solution?"



Yes, but if innocent child is cursed with bad parents they should just suffer and die because of their bad luck, right?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I do think Sunmaster is quite eloquently summing up the conservative position, however ******* reprehensible it is. Please note that these "unlucky" children that we should let die don't include abortions. Those "unlucky" kids are different because... magic.
 
Last edited:
Rare Truth said:
Yes. I watched that full 90 minute speech, and Biden shows superior statesmanship.

I doubt many people will view it all, but if anyone is interested: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581759/sen-joe-biden-supreme-court-confirmation-process

Here is just a snip, a little over a minute, the cons would prefer to not acknowledge:

Biden was talking about what would have been a fall election year hearing in his hypothetical, and he goes on to say "compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate."
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I've already addressed this. It is a patina of moderate language, but it is disingenuous. He's leaving open the possibility that a nomination can be agreed on in the throes of a Presidential election, if (and only if) Senate democrats like the selection. Why wouldn't he? It's a no-lose position to take. I actually think the Republican position is more principled (to wait until a new President is elected before confirming a new justice, regardless), although I suspect they would not adhere to it either if Obama nominated somebody they liked.

(for the record, this is what the make-up of the court was when he made the speech: )

John Paul Stevens - Appointed by Ford
William Rehnquist - Appointed by Nixon - Appointed to CJ byReagan
Sandra Day O'Connor - Appointed by Reagan
Antonin Scalia - Appointed by Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - Appointed byReagan
Clarence Thomas - Appointed by GHW Bush
David Souter.- Appointed by GHW Bush
Harry Blackmun - Appointed by Nixon
Byron White - Appointed by JFK

8 out 9 SCJ's nominated by Republican POTUS - and Byron White was hinting at resigning (he did resign the following year.)
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who nominated whom. What matters is how they turned out. Stevens was a liberal. O'Connor was a moderate. Kennedy was a random number generator. Souter was a liberal. And Blackmun was a liberal. Biden brags about how he voted for Souter and Kennedy, but those were damn good choices from the Democratic point of view.

A snip from the above clip: "If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter. But if he does not, as is the President's right, then I will oppose his future nominees, as is my right."
Click to expand...

His message in the speech was clear. Because it was an election year, there would be absolutely no deference paid to the President's choice of nominee. Of course, if the President chose somebody the Senate Democrats liked, they would be happy to put that person on the court. Why wouldn't they?
 
Argumemnon said:
As others have pointed out, cock-blocking the Democrats was their stated goal since the beginning. Unless they are uneducated, stupid idiots, they can't possibly think that not allowing the government to do anything would be good for the country.

'course, I'm open to the idea that they're uneducated, stupid idiots, but it's more likely that they are looking for political victory rather than actual results for America.
Click to expand...

Everything I know about politicians and their supporters points to idiots.
 
Argumemnon said:
As others have pointed out, cock-blocking the Democrats was their stated goal since the beginning.
Click to expand...

Who is they [their]? One or two Congressional leaders who made an off-hand comment or two which could be interpreted in many different ways? And those comments represent the entire party for eight years?

I like the cock-blocking metaphor by the way. It's as if the Republicans were preventing the Democrats from screwing the country.
 
beren said:
Which is odd synced there are no conservative solutions other than "let the market fix it" which has never worked.


And yet conservatives argue for more personal choice and less help.
1. People make bad choices that cause then to die.
2. People should be allowed to make there own choices without intervention.
3. Author consequences people don't learn.
4. There people should be allowed to die.

Where have I misunderstood the conservative "solution?"



Yes, but if innocent child is cursed with bad parents they should just suffer and die because of their bad luck, right?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I am not wholly against government intervention in some cases. And I might even be in favor of the libertarian paternalism advocated by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. The problem, however, with a policy of government getting involved in people's lives and taking away their liberty if they are perceived as making bad choices is that it can go awry pretty fast. For instance, who is to decide what is a bad choice or not? Government is, but government is made of people who are not perfect. Maybe certain rules can be followed to prevent imperfect people from making matters worse, but then those rules will necessarily be inflexible and can lead to inappropriate application in special circumstances.

There is also the rather large problem of moral hazard. People are quite adaptable, and if you take away the downside of bad behavior, and leave the upside, then you'll get a lot more bad behavior. I think it is quite clear that many liberal policies have done just that. One obvious example is that welfare is structured to give more money per person to a household with fewer people. That is, a poor household of four people gets less money in aggregate than a poor household of three people and a poor household of one person. Naturally this structure encourages poor parents to live in separate households. Isn't that just brilliant?
 
sunmaster14 said:
I am not wholly against government intervention in some cases. And I might even be in favor of the libertarian paternalism advocated by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. The problem, however, with a policy of government getting involved in people's lives and taking away their liberty if they are perceived as making bad choices is that it can go awry pretty fast. For instance, who is to decide what is a bad choice or not? Government is, but government is made of people who are not perfect. Maybe certain rules can be followed to prevent imperfect people from making matters worse, but then those rules will necessarily be inflexible and can lead to inappropriate application in special circumstances.

There is also the rather large problem of moral hazard. People are quite adaptable, and if you take away the downside of bad behavior, and leave the upside, then you'll get a lot more bad behavior. I think it is quite clear that many liberal policies have done just that. One obvious example is that welfare is structured to give more money per person to a household with fewer people. That is, a poor household of four people gets less money in aggregate than a poor household of three people and a poor household of one person. Naturally this structure encourages poor parents to live in separate households. Isn't that just brilliant?
Click to expand...
Being born to poor and/or neglectful parents is a poor moral choice that must be punished so that they learn.

If we keep them from doing they might not learn to not die.

Better for moral people to die than immortal ones allowed to live.

Have I missed any?


I also LOVE hire you fret over the responsibility for deciding what are good choices, how that is subjective and how quickly that could be abused and then underpin your next point with an appeal to morals which are inherently subjective.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
Dr. Keith said:
Biden.
Click to expand...

Well, I think Biden's comment just shows how the Democrats would act if the roles were reversed. Is there really any doubt about that? Whereas McConnell's comment (I'm not referring to the Supreme Court nomination stuff) doesn't show that he wouldn't cooperate with the President under any circumstances. In fact, I didn't interpret it that way when he said it, wouldn't have believed it anyway, and the actual record has shown that the Republicans were perfectly willing to work with Obama on a multitude of issues. They've been quite supportive of his military decisions, for example, from surging in Afghanistan, to overthrowing Qaddafi, to blowing up things with missiles fired from drones.
 
beren said:
Being born to poor and/or neglectful parents is a poor moral choice that must be punished so that they learn.

If we keep them from doing they might not learn to not die.

Better for moral people to die than immortal ones allowed to live.

Have I missed any?


I also LOVE hire you fret over the responsibility for deciding what are good choices, how that is subjective and how quickly that could be abused and then underpin your next point with an appeal to morals which are inherently subjective.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You have not advanced any argument here worth responding to. I'll note also that you completely misunderstand what moral hazard is. Hint: It has nothing to do with morals.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Sorry, but I've already addressed this. It is a patina of moderate language, but it is disingenuous. He's leaving open the possibility that a nomination can be agreed on in the throes of a Presidential election, if (and only if) Senate democrats like the selection. Why wouldn't he? It's a no-lose position to take. I actually think the Republican position is more principled (to wait until a new President is elected before confirming a new justice, regardless), although I suspect they would not adhere to it either if Obama nominated somebody they liked.
Click to expand...

The gift of mind reading is the greatest boon of hyperpartisanship.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Well, I think Biden's comment just shows how the Democrats would act if the roles were reversed. Is there really any doubt about that? Whereas McConnell's comment (I'm not referring to the Supreme Court nomination stuff) doesn't show that he wouldn't cooperate with the President under any circumstances. In fact, I didn't interpret it that way when he said it, wouldn't have believed it anyway, and the actual record has shown that the Republicans were perfectly willing to work with Obama on a multitude of issues. They've been quite supportive of his military decisions, for example, from surging in Afghanistan, to overthrowing Qaddafi, to blowing up things with missiles fired from drones.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I've got it right:

One cherry picked comment from a democrat = policy of all democrats forever.

The stated goal of several republicans = not reflective of republicans anymore.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Let me see if I've got it right:

One cherry picked comment from a democrat = policy of all democrats forever.

The stated goal of several republicans = not reflective of republicans anymore.
Click to expand...

How about you answering my question.
 
theprestige said:
What is the downside for Senate Republicans if Obama nominates a conservative?
Click to expand...

And they nominate him/her? Potential blowback from the pro-obstructionist hard right wing of the party? Of course they're probably angry the GOP isn't constantly trying to impeach Obama so the party may just not care that much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom