Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 azazel the cat wrote:

But that's part of the nirvana fallacy that permeates the thinking of the GOP: there's no perfect solution, so they won't try to solve anything at all.

Actually, there's a bunch of them that want to make things worse, rather than better. After all, God wills it.

 AustonT wrote:
Seb: I get what you are driving at but look how well conservative judges worked out on Roe ja? Judges are rarely just fatuous gas bags and political puppets. Such judges are even more rare in SCOTUS, I can't even fathom an actual situation where Roe would be overturned, let alone by a 5-4. I could be wrong of course, but I think most judges come down on the side of civil liberties when push comes shove.

Belief that Roe v Wade was the wrong decision is not that uncommon among highly credentialled judges. And it isn't simply a matter of more or less rights, but an issue of whether the precedents for privacy drawn from the Constitution really extend up to abortion.

sebster wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Seb: I get what you are driving at but look how well conservative judges worked out on Roe ja? Judges are rarely just fatuous gas bags and political puppets. Such judges are even more rare in SCOTUS, I can't even fathom an actual situation where Roe would be overturned, let alone by a 5-4. I could be wrong of course, but I think most judges come down on the side of civil liberties when push comes shove.

Belief that Roe v Wade was the wrong decision is not that uncommon among highly credentialled judges. And it isn't simply a matter of more or less rights, but an issue of whether the precedents for privacy drawn from the Constitution really extend up to abortion.

While there a little grey area to it (though less so than you've implied) those same highly credentialled judges always seem to work along party lines.

It's really a shame judges are forced to campaign in the US

 azazel the cat wrote:
It's really a shame judges are forced to campaign in the US

True. One of the problems, to my mind, is that while Supreme Court Justices are appointed and are therefore kind of outside of politics, potential nominees will first have won election as judges at lower levels, putting them into the party political system. That isn't the only reason the judiciary in the US has become so political, but it's a major one.

TheHammer wrote:
I agree, Amaya. Soft drinks and the like should be taxed pretty heavily to discourage people from drinking them, and to use that money to fund a national healthcare plan.

It's naive that we can tackle healthcare without talking farm subsidies, poverty, and lots of other issues. Only a holistic approach would work.

I just don't expect Michelle Obama to come out to the hard left of President Obama.

Since the family doesn't drink soft drinks I think they should be taxed 5000% percent. In fact nearly everything I don't use should be heavily taxed, with those proceeds use to offset any taxes on goods I use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happygrunt wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Oh...and everyone... that's just a list of the "percieved' greivences that I"m seeing.

Whether they have any basis, thats debatable.

Do anyone want to see my Bush list?

I have a Buchanan list...

EVERYONE has a Buchanan list.

I have a Jefferson list., (or had one, can't seem to find it now)

You're good.

 Frazzled wrote:


Since the family doesn't drink soft drinks

Really ?

.. what do you mix your rum with then ?

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Since the family doesn't drink soft drinks

Really ?

.. what do you mix your rum with then ?

Orange and pineapple juice with a splash of pomegranate.

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Since the family doesn't drink soft drinks

Really ?

.. what do you mix your rum with then ?

water baby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Since the family doesn't drink soft drinks

Really ?

.. what do you mix your rum with then ?

Orange and pineapple juice with a splash of pomegranate.

Thats good to for the coconut rum. When we go for the dark rum (our favorite) just a splash of water.

Orange and pineapple juice with a splash of pomegranate.

.. hmm.. have to try that.

.. water.. .. ooff. rather you than me there.

 whembly wrote:

No, in the pass 2 months, the Democrats (and liberal media, but I repeat myself) are looking for topics to distract how horrible the current presidency is.

The list you posted in defense of this comment is basically just a series of conservative talking points, which honestly makes sense given that the vast majority of people claiming that Obama can't discuss his Presidency are either conservatives or libertarians. In other words, people that would be highly unlikely to vote for a Democrat anyway. This makes the expressed sentiment about as relevant as a liberal claiming that Bush II would be unable to discuss his first Presidency as, in both cases, it ignores how actions are qualitatively assessed by people of differing stances.

 reds8n wrote:


Really ?

.. what do you mix your rum with then ?

... Rum.... MIXED??? SEIZE THE HERETIC! ... and prepare the plank!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

water baby.

Frazz, you never struck me as a grog man.

 sebster wrote:

True. One of the problems, to my mind, is that while Supreme Court Justices are appointed and are therefore kind of outside of politics, potential nominees will first have won election as judges at lower levels, putting them into the party political system.

Not necessarily. At the very least Kagan never held a judicial position prior to her nomination to the Supreme Court, and Clarence Thomas held no judicial position prior to being nominated to the DC court of appeals; and I imagine there are other cases.

The biggest issues I think, it simply that both parties attempt to nominate justices with sympathetic political and legal views.

 dogma wrote:

 sebster wrote:

True. One of the problems, to my mind, is that while Supreme Court Justices are appointed and are therefore kind of outside of politics, potential nominees will first have won election as judges at lower levels, putting them into the party political system.

Not necessarily. At the very least Kagan never held a judicial position prior to her nomination to the Supreme Court, and Clarence Thomas held no judicial position prior to being nominated to the DC court of appeals; and I imagine there are other cases.

The biggest issues I think, it simply that both parties attempt to nominate justices with sympathetic political and legal views.

Technically speaking... a Prez could nominate Kim Kardashian for Justice... but, good luck getting the Senate's approval .

 whembly wrote:

Technically speaking... a Prez could nominate Kim Kardashian for Justice... but, good luck getting the Senate's approval .

'

How the Right perceives the pres.

LOL... that's an awesome pic!

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 reds8n wrote:


Really ?

.. what do you mix your rum with then ?

... Rum.... MIXED??? SEIZE THE HERETIC! ... and prepare the plank!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

water baby.

Frazz, you never struck me as a grog man.

Heck yea! Its from my mom's side I am sure - they were all sailors. Thats why I hate the ocean.
Now I love Mai Tais but they are best poolside.

Vodka and gaterade
Gentleman Jack and coke
Southern Comfort with Dew
Thats about it for me.

 Frazzled wrote:

TheHammer wrote:
I agree, Amaya. Soft drinks and the like should be taxed pretty heavily to discourage people from drinking them, and to use that money to fund a national healthcare plan.

It's naive that we can tackle healthcare without talking farm subsidies, poverty, and lots of other issues. Only a holistic approach would work.

I just don't expect Michelle Obama to come out to the hard left of President Obama.

Since the family doesn't drink soft drinks I think they should be taxed 5000% percent. In fact nearly everything I don't use should be heavily taxed, with those proceeds use to offset any taxes on goods I use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happygrunt wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Oh...and everyone... that's just a list of the "percieved' greivences that I"m seeing.

Whether they have any basis, thats debatable.

Do anyone want to see my Bush list?

I have a Buchanan list...

EVERYONE has a Buchanan list.

I have a Jefferson list., (or had one, can't seem to find it now)

You're good.

Thank you, I try.

 Frazzled wrote:

GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.

And yet, the economy is tooling along just fine, doing what it's supposed to do. Wall Street is doing well, and corporations are running all-time record profits these past five years. If that's not what the economy is supposed to do, what IS it supposed to do?

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.

And yet, the economy is tooling along just fine, doing what it's supposed to do. Wall Street is doing well, and corporations are running all-time record profits these past five years. If that's not what the economy is supposed to do, what IS it supposed to do?

It's supposed to help Republicans get elected of course.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.

And yet, the economy is tooling along just fine, doing what it's supposed to do. Wall Street is doing well, and corporations are running all-time record profits these past five years. If that's not what the economy is supposed to do, what IS it supposed to do?

You think less than 2% is doing just fine???

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.

And yet, the economy is tooling along just fine, doing what it's supposed to do. Wall Street is doing well, and corporations are running all-time record profits these past five years. If that's not what the economy is supposed to do, what IS it supposed to do?

You think less than 2% is doing just fine???

Well, big businesses are doing just fine. Romney said so as well.

According to the Republican party, that's all that really matters because they'll trickle down on everyone else.

(even though that lie that they keep telling everyone has been disproven for something like fifty years)

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.

And yet, the economy is tooling along just fine, doing what it's supposed to do. Wall Street is doing well, and corporations are running all-time record profits these past five years. If that's not what the economy is supposed to do, what IS it supposed to do?

You think less than 2% is doing just fine???

Well, big businesses are doing just fine. Romney said so as well.

And according to the Republican economic platform of trickle-down economics, so long as the rich are making money, they will create jobs and pay well and everyone will be great!

So, since the 1% is doing fantastically well, we must all be doing fantastically well. It's just the liberal media lying again.

(And if you actually believe that in face of the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary, go ahead and vote Republican. This is EXACTLY the economic situation they've been clamining would be best for the country, after all...)

 Vulcan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.

And yet, the economy is tooling along just fine, doing what it's supposed to do. Wall Street is doing well, and corporations are running all-time record profits these past five years. If that's not what the economy is supposed to do, what IS it supposed to do?

You think less than 2% is doing just fine???

Well, big businesses are doing just fine. Romney said so as well.

And according to the Republican economic platform of trickle-down economics, so long as the rich are making money, they will create jobs and pay well and everyone will be great!

So, since the 1% is doing fantastically well, we must all be doing fantastically well. It's just the liberal media lying again.

(And if you actually believe that in face of the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary, go ahead and vote Republican. This is EXACTLY the economic situation they've been clamining would be best for the country, after all...)

They'll pay well for the men who work for them anyways. Because women just aren't worth as much, so they just don't need equal wages.

Question it seems do YOU think the economy is doing fine? Everyone can read a paper or a internet news source and draw an accurate conclusion. The conclusion you come up with. Is it accurate?

 Jihadin wrote:
Question it seems do YOU think the economy is doing fine? Everyone can read a paper or a internet news source and draw an accurate conclusion. The conclusion you come up with. Is it accurate?

My neck of the woods weathered it pretty good.

Last unemployment number I could find for Oklahoma City was 4.5%, and 4.8 for Oklahoma in general. The long term trend seems to follow the national average as far as ups and downs go.

I also live in a new neighborhood where we build a new home, moved there in January 2010 and when we moved in there were 5 empty lots on our street. In 2010 there were no houses build on my street. In 2011 they build one house, and this year they build on the remaining 4 lots. There are less foreclosure signs and for sale signs in our neighborhood as well and they went from hardly building on our street to submitting plans to the city for the next phase addition to the neighborhood.

We have more national businesses move to Oklahoma City, and more retail being build, more hotels being build.

I know it's not hard data, but at least for us it seems like things are moving up.

 Jihadin wrote:
Question it seems do YOU think the economy is doing fine?

I think it's doing far better than if Obama had done what the Republicans wanted and not acted at all.

It would be doing a lot better well if the republicans didn't filibusterer every proposal that would have helped.

It would be doing a lot better well if the republicans didn't filibusterer every proposal that would have helped.

I disagree with this a bit. Who trying to get the Keystone Pipeline started on its new new route?