There is no link between Biden policy and high gas prices. However, after Slate spent years floating crazed Trump/Russia conspiracy theories written by genuine lunatics, they have no credibility outside their own bubble. There are better sources describing how the price of gasoline is set. The Babylon Bee has more credibility than Slate.
Politics uses toddler logic and is very simple to predict. For example, if you are a Democratic voter:
If your party controls the White House and Congress and something good happens, it is to be expected.
If your party controls one branch and something good happens, it is because of the branch Democrats control.
If your party controls neither branch and something good happens, it is because of the previous Democratic leadership.
If your party controls both branches and something bad happens, it is because of the previous Republican administration.
If your party controls one branch and something bad happens, it is because of the branch Republicans control.
If your party controls neither branch and something bad happens, it is to be expected.
Reverse if Republican.
This simple guide has a 100 percent success rate at assigning credit and blame. Our political parties and our media operate at that level, with more big words.
I dunno. If the government demonizes fossil fuel and raises the cost to produce via regulations and so on, why would the producers risk more investment? The administration is playing nice with Iran and Venezuela, but when it comes to domestic producers, Psaki tells us they are evil and greedy.
It's not the government that's demonizing fossil fuel, it's Planet Earth. And we'd better break our addiction to it FAST, if we want our grandchildren to have any kind of a decent future.
Fiddlesticks, I'm looking forward to transplanting my grapes, fig and citrus trees up a few hundred kilometers north of where my Canadian mother grew up in Ontario Canada.
It's not the government that's demonizing fossil fuel, it's Planet Earth.
The Dems most certainly are demonizing fossil fuel. They want to legislate it out of affordability, so that's why I assume they want to restrict production in America.
So they are going to make Venezuela and Iran rich by buying oil from them while smearing domestic producers (to distract simpletons from the fact they are restricting domestic production). Do they think that by importing fuel from Iran it won't release as much carbon as from domestic wells? Used to think they were just stupid. Now I know they are evil.
There was a time when I was interested in global oil markets. It was a fascinating and almost incomprehensible topic.
Biden's rhetoric on petroleum is incoherent, but his actual policy has little effect on prices at the pump. His current negotiations with foreign countries for oil seems as incoherent as his rhetoric, but that's for the future.
Policies have effects on futures trading and so on the cost of fuel contracts.
If it's going to cost more to drill a well, get permits, transport, refine etc in the future, those future costs get baked into the final price. A policy implementation may not have an immediate effect on today's price, but Biden's been at it for a year now. The future of 2021 is now.
The impact of political leadership on the economy is in general overrated.
Had to laugh at this one.
The idea that presidents have little to no impact on things brought out in defense of Biden, when it was only yesterday that Trump was supposedly a dictator with unlimited power.
" it was only yesterday that Trump was supposedly a dictator with unlimited power"
He was unquestionably trying to be that, but fortunately we voted him out in time, in a totally fair and uncorrupt election. Had he somehow either won, or managed to overturn the election results, we would now likely be living in a white supremacist authoritarian dictatorship. But, THANK GOD, we dodged that lethal bullet (for now).
I wonder why you think you have to keep saying things like this.
It's like telling us that Biden is not corrupt before any mention of his name. You know the NYT admitted the laptop is real now and not "Russian disinformation", right? Well after this side of the 2020 election.
I am as confident that the 2020 election was clean and fair as I am that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. And "the way I am acting" is how any sane, ethical person should respond to the non-stop barrage of the Big Lie. Plus, the idea that the election was fraudulent is pure and lethal poison to our democracy. It is a roadmap to strongman dictatorship. Ergo, everyone who has taken an oath, as I have (twice) "to protect and defend the Constitution of the Unjited States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" is duty bound to oppose the Big Lie as vigorously and as often as possible. And if that makes people such as bmiller uncomfortable, then so be it. His discomfort is evidence that he cares not for the continuation of democracy in America.
For what? He's doing a more than competent job right now, and has committed no crimes (unlike his criminal predecessor). He'll never be a "great" president, but of of them have not been great. And we really should not wish for greatness, because that usually comes hand in hand with great national suffering (e.g., the Civil War, the Great Depression, WWII). I'll skip the greatness, thank you very much.
I am as confident that the 2020 election was clean and fair as I am that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
I'm confident that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow also, but people would think I'm nuts if I started every conversation by stating that. I'd rather not look like a nut, but to each his own.
Didn't you claim that Trump worked for Putin without evidence? There has always been evidence that Biden had been in Xi's pocket regardless of the coverup.
I think you have been effective in talking Star down from Trump as Hitler, to Trump being Mussolini. You're making progress. Keep at it, pretty soon Trump will only be Franco. Then with a little more effort, Trump as Oswald Mosley.
LP, I never called our former, loser president "Hitler". I may have lumped him in with Der Fuhrer once or twice in a list, as in "Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Trump", but as for equating him to Hitler? Nope. Benito is more his speed. He even copies Il Duce's facial tics at his rallies. Watch an old newsreel and then observe a MAGA rally. The resemblance is beyond eerie - it has to have been copied.
Sorry Star, shortly after the election, back when we were told you MUST question the results of the election (!!!!) because of the Russians, that Trump would tank the middle class, that Arabs and Israel would soon be at war (instead, Bahrain, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates signed treaties with Israel under Trump). And get this, after Putin annexed Crimea under Obama, with Trump he would start invading his neighbors (!!!!). Trump would get us into foreign wars like the fascists, Trump would give Afghanistan back to the Taliban...I could go on.
Anyway, at that time you made a post about what you thought of Trump with a link to a picture of Adolf Hitler. I'm not going to bother to find it. Democrats are a funny species if you have a memory and know how to laugh.
They are almost 100% reliable at being wrong about their opponents, while at the same time doing what they accuse their opponents of. You could make a lot of money if you could bet on it.
Now here is one of those sites that claims that taxation is theft.
Kevin,
You should poke around that site and compare to the Bastiat Essay which is a argument for limited government, not no government.
Whereas the former site concludes that since government has a monopoly on force, it is always immoral, the latter essay argues that since government has a monopoly on force, it must only be allowed to prevent people from violating each other's rights.
Voting is the only sane form of governance. What is the alternative? I live in California, and everyone in power is not someone I voted for. Not only did I not vote for them, I think some of them are genuinely mentally ill. But what is my alternative?
So, what do you do when you think the President is a doofus, the VP hasn't had an interesting thought in her political career, the leader of the Senate gives the most predictable Democratic party take on every topic (see Victor), the leader of the House can't even speak a coherent paragraph, and my whole state is run by lunatics? No one in power represents me. Well, I believe in our democracy and hope to persuade a few to come to the light.
Too bad for you. Maryland is the best state in the Union in which to live of all those I've been in (I've visited 37 of them, and lived in 6). We've got everything here: great cities, history, mountains, forests, rural countryside with small towns, the beach, crabcakes, the Chesapeake Bay, the very best state flag... and the Orioles! And all within less than a day's drive.
I've enjoyed my visits to Maryland. I've taken two long walks around the Antietam battlefield. I got caught in a blizzard outside of Frederick one night. One of the longest nights I've experienced on the road.
Perhaps we could have shared a cup of coffee if we had known each other.
And California is one of the 6 states I've lived in (1975-6), in Monterey. I met my wife there, and 35 years later her ashes were scattered along Big Sur. Haven't been back for several years, but I keep promising myself I'll make one more trip to the left coast before I'm too old to enjoy it.
My last visit was part of a month-long solo cross continental drive I took about a decade ago. It took three weeks to reach the Pacific and five days to drive back.
I love Monterey (one of the reasons I can't leave California). If you ever come back, let me know, I'll take you my favorite pub, The Crown and Anchor in Monterey. Sorry for your loss Bob.
Grant to her eternal rest. Let light perpetual shine upon her. May her soul and the souls of all the departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Voting is the only sane form of governance. What is the alternative? I live in California, and everyone in power is not someone I voted for. Not only did I not vote for them, I think some of them are genuinely mentally ill. But what is my alternative?
That is what people are brainwashed to believe, but it isn't sane. You are voting for a criminal syndicate called government. There are better alternatives, like voluntaryism (or anarchism) and egalitarianism.
Does she want to be lenient on pedophiles? I know that's the right wing narrative at the moment, but is it actually true?
Thus far the most interesting thing about her nomination to me is that her most important qualifications, according to Biden, are her skin color and her sex. Not a surprise that she also favors discriminating in order to favor black candidates over white or Asian candidates in other areas, such as education.
I know that's the right wing narrative at the moment, but is it actually true?
I haven't heard anyone outright deny it, which I would expect her defenders to if it wasn't true.
Thus far the most interesting thing about her nomination to me is that her most important qualifications, according to Biden, are her skin color and her sex.
Not interesting to me since it's all about sex and race and we all know it. It was however, a disservice to her that Biden said the silent part out loud.
She answered the charges of going light on child porn collectors by saying it was easier to collect child porn nowadays so they shouldn't be punished as harshly today.
So she agreed with her critics that they correctly described her as being lenient on pedos.
"I wonder why Biden wants someone lenient on pedos on the SC."
I get the sarcasm after the Dem's pushed judge Kavanaugh being a gang-rapist. If the Republicans launch on the last day of the hearing, while wrapping things up, some of the pedo victims of her actions, then I walk away from the Republican party. I'm hoping at least half the Republicans will vote for her confirmation. She is qualified and nominated by our President. I don't want to be as nasty and dishonest as the Democratic party.
She is qualified and nominated by our President. I don't want to be as nasty and dishonest as the Democratic party.
Agreed. Democrats have been reprehensible toward Trump's nominees, particularly Kavanaugh. While Biden and the Democrats deserves Republicans dragging Jackson through the exact same smear campaign, Jackson herself does not deserve it.
I don't think there is anything nasty about questioning a nominee about they reasoning they used while making decisions from the bench. It's not like her religion is being attacked or she is being accused of being a rapist. That would be nasty.
Apparently, to her and her supporters, pedophilia has been normalized. I don't want that type of judge on the court any more than one who would sign off on spying on journalists.
I mean according to our system of government, just because someone is nominated by a president doesn't mean the nominee takes the office. The Senate determines if the nominee is "qualified".
If all one means by being qualified is that they have a law degree or served time as a judge, then I disagree that makes one qualified as a SC judge. That would make Michael Avenatti qualified.
The Dems have been successful at cowing their opposition, it seems like forever. They launch putrid false and defamatory personal attacks on Republican SC nominees and conservatives get buffaloed into thinking any critique of a Dem nominee is therefore personal also. The Dems stopped laughing at the Republicans long ago. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Limited Perspective, I don't want to be as nasty and dishonest as the Democratic party.
There was very little "nasty" directed at Gorsuch during his nomination. There was plenty directed at Kavanaugh, and almost none at Barrett. If the problem was the Democratic party and not the candidate, why was only one candidate affected?
So now Jackson was asked if she could define what a woman is, and her answer indicates she believes only biologists are qualified to identify whether an individual is a man or a woman.
Suffice it to say, both sides are looking incredibly stupid right now.
Because esteemed Senators just asked a nominee to the highest court of the land what a woman is. The only thing more idiotic was her answer, as if only biologists can possibly figure that out.
Even if you feel that's a critical question to ask, it's a foregone conclusion that any nominee from Biden is going to be unwilling to equate women with females, as the English language has done for hundreds of years. And the conservative-majority Court already conflated sex and "gender identity" back in 2020, so the issue is moot.
The only reason to ask was political theater, and the question and answer did nothing but fire up the voter bases. Nothing in it was conducive to functional governing. It was a stupid question to ask and a stupid answer in response.
Even if you feel that's a critical question to ask, it's a foregone conclusion that any nominee from Biden is going to be unwilling to equate women with females, as the English language has done for hundreds of years.
I think the question serves a purpose. Of course the Senator suspected what the answer would be. That is precisely what lawyers do. They ask questions that get the respondent on record and under oath with an answer. That makes it more difficult for the press to gaslight the public that Republicans are making things up. It also allows those people who haven't been paying attention (a whole lot) to find out what's been going on.
Kevin, Because esteemed Senators just asked a nominee to the highest court of the land what a woman is. The only thing more idiotic was her answer, as if only biologists can possibly figure that out.
True, the correct answer would be "only a sociologist/anthropologist (depending on time frame of the culture) can answer that". I mean, you're not one of those people who thinks every adult male is a man, and every adult female is a woman, right? It's about how behave.
... to equate women with females, as the English language has done for hundreds of years.
Not in the Midwest in the 1960s/70s, where/when I grew up. Being a man meant showing courage, standing up for what's right, protecting the weak, etc.
The only reason to ask was political theater, and the question and answer did nothing but fire up the voter bases. Nothing in it was conducive to functional governing. It was a stupid question to ask and a stupid answer in response.
Starhopper: What would you have considered to be a not stupid answer?
One Brow: True, the correct answer would be "only a sociologist/anthropologist (depending on time frame of the culture) can answer that". I mean, you're not one of those people who thinks every adult male is a man, and every adult female is a woman, right?
So one thing I think someone who is a Supreme Court nominee should be able to do is recognize multiple sides of an issue when they are going to be establishing precedents that will legally bind the entire nation for potentially the remainder of its existence.
Since the early days of the English language - back to late Old English, according to etymonline.com - "man" has been synonymous with "adult human male". "Woman" has been synonymous with "adult human female". That's how they were used for hundreds of years, and many people still use them in that manner today. A Pew Research poll said that over half of those polled believe that only "man" and "woman" should be gender options for official documents. I suspect the same rough percentage would also use "man" and "adult human male" interchangeably. I know around where I've grown up, that's certainly the case. You say man, you are talking about an adult male. That's how the language is used here and in many other places.
So if Jackson wanted to give a non-stupid answer, she could have alluded to the fact that at least half the country does not need a biologist to identify a woman on sight, per their usage of the language which has been used that way for the better part of a thousand years, while also acknowledging that language changes over time and that the terms "man" and "woman" are being decoupled from sex. She could then express her view that she believes "woman" to be a term describing gender and not sex. But to just say she has no idea what a woman is without a biologist, she comes across as a complete idiot. Toddlers know the difference between a man and a woman as the words have been used historically. Jackson should have added context, because how can a judge interpret law that affects women if she has no idea what a woman is? Stupid answer.
It's about how behave.
Isn't that what feminists have fought against forever? Being forced to conform to societal standards of behavior because they are women? Also, should identifying as a woman allow you in female sports if you're a male?
On an amusing note, I do not hunt or fish, I detest sports, I don't swear, I don't drink or gamble or work out or play video games all day, I don't work on my car engine, I'm not competitive or aggressive and have never been in a fight and a single dad. At what point is someone going to tell me I'm not a man?
"If the problem was the Democratic party and not the candidate, why was only one candidate affected?"
There was a demented rationale they targeted Kavanaugh. I'm not going to get into it because it's below the level of an excuse, much less a reason. After the Kavanaugh hearing, every reasonable American knew how nasty they were, and they didn't want a repeat with Barret.
Once Senator Feinstein's staff recruited someone to accuse Kavanaugh, they should have brought that accusation to the FBI who were doing his, I can't remember, fourth or fifth background investigation. Democrats didn’t want an investigation because they knew there was nothing to the accusation (even both witnesses for the accuser denied any knowledge of the event). Instead, the nasty Democrats decided to have an Inquisitor-style show trial where they could publicly humiliate him in front of the country, his wife, his daughters, and his colleagues. They stirred up the unbalanced mob coupled with public shame in hopes he would quit. It was sickening to watch these nasty reprehensible Senators carry on with their cowardly fraud instead of engaging in public debate about legal ideas.
If on the last day of Judge Brown Jackson’s hearing some nasty despicable repulsive Republican springs a witness to accuse her of being a child molester (in a nation of 330 million, you can find someone to claim just about anything) and sets up the accusation in a way that it is impossible to defend herself (no time, no place, witnesses deny knowledge) to publicly shame her and destroy her reputation of judicial temperament, I guarantee you within a week I will go to the post office and switch my party affiliation. Both sides engage in political rough and tumble dishonesty, we expect that. What they did to Kavanaugh was nasty nauseating malice.
On a side note, I am almost finished with "A Republic, If You Can Keep It" by Neil Gorsuch—excellent.
Kevin, Since the early days of the English language - back to late Old English, according to etymonline.com - "man" has been synonymous with "adult human male". "Woman" has been synonymous with "adult human female". That's how they were used for hundreds of years, and many people still use them in that manner today.
That simply does not comport with my experience. It's a simplification that people reach for as a bulwark against change they fear, but being a man meant a lot more to my parents and grandparents than simply being a male at age 18 or older, and it means a lot more to me.
I went to etyonline.com, and this is their first paragraph in it's entirety.
"a featherless plantigrade biped mammal of the genus Homo" [Century Dictionary], Old English man, mann "human being, person (male or female); brave man, hero;" also "servant, vassal, adult male considered as under the control of another person," from Proto-Germanic *mann- (source also of Old Saxon, Swedish, Dutch, Old High German man, Old Frisian mon, German Mann, Old Norse maðr, Danish mand, Gothic manna "man"), from PIE root *man- (1) "man." For the plural, see men.
That's how the language is used here and in many other places.
So, you've never heard anyone say "be a man about (whatever)" , because they they already were a man, and nothing they could do would make them less of a man? None of that makes sense to you?
So if Jackson wanted to give a non-stupid answer, she could have alluded to the fact that at least half the country does not need a biologist to identify a woman on sight,
With perhaps 95% accuracy, since you are referring to some biological definition that does not fit reality.
Isn't that what feminists have fought against forever?
"Feminists" is a pretty broad category, and they don't all think alike on these matters. However, I would say that most feminists have been fighting allow adults to adopt the roles of men, women, or both in society, as they wish.
Also, should identifying as a woman allow you in female sports if you're a male?
Again, "sports" covers a pretty broad range of activities. 4-year-old basketball is sports, and so is the WNBA, and I don't think we should have the same set of rules for trans athletes in those two settings. There should be some regulations in every setting, and as far as I know, every setting has standards in line with the goals of that particular organization. Is their a more particular issue you are concerned about?
At what point is someone going to tell me I'm not a man?
You stand up for what you think is right, you don't blindly follow a leader, and you don't back down in the face of what you think is inaccurate criticism. that's manly as far as I'm concerned (although, do you even recognize "manly" as a meaningful word?).
There was a demented rationale they targeted Kavanaugh. I'm not going to get into it because it's below the level of an excuse, much less a reason. After the Kavanaugh hearing, every reasonable American knew how nasty they were, and they didn't want a repeat with Barret.
1) You didn't explain why this didn't occur with Gorsuch, who the Democrats saw as being given a stolen seat, and 2) this narrative is a little incoherent, as very few independents are going to cast their vote on how Supreme Court Justice nominees are treated in Senate.
being a man meant a lot more to my parents and grandparents than simply being a male at age 18 or older, and it means a lot more to me.
So, you've never heard anyone say "be a man about (whatever)" , because they they already were a man, and nothing they could do would make them less of a man? None of that makes sense to you?
Certainly I've heard those things. It meant "act the way you as a man are supposed to act, because you're a man". At no point in my experience did "be a man" apply to a female, until very recently with the progressive push regarding the transgender issue. "Man" and "male" were inseperable, with "man" being contrasted "boy" or "girl", depending on the insult being delivered.
I'm glad to have this conversation, though, because it shows how different upbringings can so radically affect something even like the shared language within one country. What you're describing is foreign to me, until very recently.
I went to etyonline.com, and this is their first paragraph in it's entirety.
This is most of the third paragraph on the same page:
Specific sense of "adult male of the human race" (distinguished from a woman or boy) is by late Old English (c. 1000); Old English used wer and wif to distinguish the sexes, but wer began to disappear late 13c. and was replaced by man. Universal sense of the word remains in mankind and manslaughter. Similarly, Latin had homo "human being" and vir "adult male human being," but they merged in Vulgar Latin, with homo extended to both senses. A like evolution took place in Slavic languages, and in some of them the word has narrowed to mean "husband." ...
It's a very common usage of the word "man" to specifically refer to an adult human male. That's how I was raised, and I don't personally know anyone who would use it to describe a female no matter how masculine she behaved.
you are referring to some biological definition that does not fit reality.
I don't agree.
However, I would say that most feminists have been fighting allow adults to adopt the roles of men, women, or both in society, as they wish.
Then it would seem that "man" and "woman" don't actually refer to anything, if the goal is to strip away defined roles. And it's that nebulous definition that bothers me - not because transgender people bother me, and not because my own views on the matter are threatened, but because frequently the lack of definition allows "women" to be treated as "females", when the two are supposed to be different. And then federal and corporate rules come in and declare it off-limits to question it. I don't like that.
If everyone would define the terms and then actually stick with it, and stop conflating sex and gender where desired, and if the left would stop calling me a bigot for not having been raised the same way as them in my language usage, then this issue wouldn't even be on my radar.
You stand up for what you think is right, you don't blindly follow a leader, and you don't back down in the face of what you think is inaccurate criticism
Every adult should do this. I don't think of those as masculine traits.
Kevin, I'm glad to have this conversation, though, because it shows how different upbringings can so radically affect something even like the shared language within one country. What you're describing is foreign to me, until very recently.
I agree.
I went to etyonline.com, and this is their first paragraph in it's entirety.
I read the third paragraph as discussing multiple uses of "man".
I don't agree.
Neither do the 5 or so different putative biological definitions of male, a small percentage of the time.
Then it would seem that "man" and "woman" don't actually refer to anything, if the goal is to strip away defined roles.
To strip away is not to destroy.
And it's that nebulous definition that bothers me - not because transgender people bother me, and not because my own views on the matter are threatened, but because frequently the lack of definition allows "women" to be treated as "females", when the two are supposed to be different. And then federal and corporate rules come in and declare it off-limits to question it. I don't like that.
I won't pretend this is anything other than complex and occasionally confusing to me.
Every adult should do this. I don't think of those as masculine traits.
I was taught (culturally) that the feminine version was to accept male headship, to influence the men to make better choices, and to be conciliatory as opposed to standing ground. As from My Big fat Greek Wedding, "the man is the head, but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wants".
I wonder why Biden wants someone who is consistently lenient on pedos on the SC (as the nominee herself affirmed). And why do Dems want to defend those decisions so vigorously, or in some cases accuse me of lying when I point out that the nominee herself affirmed she was lenient on pedos?
bmiller, I wonder why Biden wants someone who is consistently lenient on pedos on the SC (as the nominee herself affirmed). And why do Dems want to defend those decisions so vigorously, or in some cases accuse me of lying when I point out that the nominee herself affirmed she was lenient on pedos?
Because it is a lie that Jackson is lenient on pedophiles, and an even more bald-faced lie that she said she was. Even Sen. Hawley doesn't claim that, instead quoting about Jackson regarding people who are not pedophiles but still acquire child pornography.
Hawley Refutes ‘Fact Check’ on Judge Jackson’s Record of Lenient Sentencing for Pedophiles
If anyone, again, wonders why I rarely engage with this individual I hope this helps the understanding. Maybe the voices in his head told him Hawley agreed that the nominee wasn't lenient on pedophiles. Everyone disagreeing with those voices are lying.
But I really don't care too much what a confused and nasty atheist thinks.
I'm interested in how "Christians" explain supporting this nominee when they know "It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."
I watched the hearings and did not see a nominee "consistently lenient on pedos". What I did see was a woman adroitly fending off a barrage of dishonest "gotcha" questions, designed not to arrive at any truth, but rather to place the nominee in a "damned if you did, damned if you didn't" position. I think Jackson held up to the baseless attacks rather well. In fact, I knew nothing whatsoever about her 3 days ago, but now after seeing her in action, I admire her greatly. I believe Jackson will make a fine member of the Supreme Court, of whom we can all be proud.
And if you care not to engage with One Brow, it's your loss. He is one of the more intelligent participants in these discussions. We certainly do not agree theologically, but his heart's in the right place. Never having met him other than online, he yet strikes me as a Good Man. "I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." (Matthew 8:11-12)
Maybe you only see what you wanted to see, but that's no excuse. She consistently sentenced child porn offenders below recommended guidelines and below what the prosecutors recommended. In every case. No exception.
There is no "damned if you did, damned if you didn't". She could have sentenced within guidelines and she did not apparently with your approval. God help you.
I expect atheists to be perverse and nasty. They have an excuse. Christians, not so much.
"1) You didn't explain why this didn't occur with Gorsuch, who the Democrats saw as being given a stolen seat, and 2) this narrative is a little incoherent, as very few independents are going to cast their vote on how Supreme Court Justice nominees are treated in Senate."
1. Neil Gorsuch replaced Scalia. The balanced remained. Nothing really at stake. Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy, meaning a total loss to the Democrats.
2. The vast majority of Americans don't pay attention to the hearings of a Supreme Court nominee. A poll I read indicated half of Americans can't name a single Supreme Court Justice. Some people do pay attention, and reasonably know how despicable it is to try and destroy a man with accusations he has no way of defending himself against. Even Democrats have a conscience to defend against those who pay attention.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by partisan lenses. If a Republican president nominated a judge that reduced sentences for pedophiles, I would oppose that judge, just like oppose this one.
If you mean that one party thinks pedophilia isn't so bad while I do, then I guess you're right about partisan lenses. Just like I think getting rid of Roe v Wade is a good thing while Dems think is it a bad thing.
Even Dems think she did poorly and look ill prepared. Now they are the party that defends peds. Not an envious position to defend during the election season.
This guy needs to learn how to not hold it back, but to just express himself openly and freely. It's not healthy to stifle one's emotions like that. C'mon, man. Tell us what you really think!
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by partisan lenses.
I went back and read the reactions to Kavanaugh's hearing. (As an aside, I had forgotten how livid the conduct of the Democrats had made me, whoo boy.) At any rate, not to name names, but the depiction of both Kavanaugh, Jackson, Republicans, and Democrats in this thread and that one - the connotations of the specifically selected words to convey particular images - is like if the Democratic Party hired a poet to dispense Democratic propaganda.
Very effective communication, conveying images in rich detail. Just overwhelmingly partisan.
As I said in the same thread, these reactions are so predictable based entirely on political leaning. We don't even have to know anything about the nominees and the reactions would be precisely the same, just lacking specific rationalization hooks to hang our attack coats on.
As I also said in that thread, Republicans deserved to lose on Kavanaugh based on what they did to Merrick Garland, and Democrats deserved to lose on Kavanaugh based on what they did to Kavanaugh. Barrett was treated much better than Kavanaugh, despite being accused by Democrats of having an "orange cloud" over her nomination. I would like for Jackson and all future nominees to be treated with respect, and chosen entirely on judicial qualification (which doesn't include skin color and sex unless you are Joe Biden) and integrity. If Jackson fails on those, so be it. If not, she deserves a seat.
I would like for Jackson and all future nominees to be treated with respect, and chosen entirely on judicial qualification (which doesn't include skin color and sex unless you are Joe Biden) and integrity.
I suppose Dems would say they were questioning Kavanaugh's integrity. Likewise Republicans are questioning Jackson's judical decisions. The problem with Kavanaugh's hearing was, as you pointed out, it was the FBI's job to have investigated his background, not to have a Maoist struggle session televised nationwide.
But there is no such thing as fair anymore. Someone is going to force their will on you by any means necessary.
bmiller, If anyone, again, wonders why I rarely engage with this individual I hope this helps the understanding.
It's pretty clear. I call you out for spreading lies, and you hate that.
She consistently sentenced child porn offenders below recommended guidelines and below what the prosecutors recommended. In every case. No exception.
I wish I was surprised you didn't even read the link from Hawley, who's leading your charge in the Senate. It reads "... every single case for which we can find records, except two.", which is different from "In every case. No exception.", a lie whose origin seems to be you.
Prosecutors routinely recommend the maximum sentence in every case, and judges often don't follow their recommendations.
Demonic activity in the Emerald Isle.
If those are your trusted sources, it's not a wonder you're comfortable spreading falsehoods.
Limited Perspective, 1. Neil Gorsuch replaced Scalia. The balanced remained. Nothing really at stake. Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy, meaning a total loss to the Democrats.
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. Democrats had a chance to change the balance of the the Garland nomination, but instead were handed Gorsuch in what they consider to be a stolen seat, and they didn't care? Suddenly, Kavanaugh is nominated, and they do? Again, this is incoherent.
Kavanaugh was a binge drinker and sexual predator as a youth. Many privileged young men are; it's not exactly a surprise. I'm not even sure if it should be disqualifying; two-thirds of Congress would be ineligible if that were the case. Both the Democrats and Kavanaugh himself behaved badly during the confirmation hearings. The narrative that Kavanaugh was the victim is laughable.
"Can anyone in this forum, who thinks 'what is a woman' has a simple answer, give a simple answer that is true 100% of the time?"
This is one time when I agree with bmiller. Jackson could have said, "Well, I am" and left it at that. But unfortunately in real life, one rarely thinks up such perfect zingers until it's too late.
"Well, the jerk store called, and they're running out of you!" (George Costanza)
But the bottom line is it was a dishonest question, asked not to arrive at any kind of truth, but solely to entrap the answerer.
But the bottom line is it was a dishonest question, asked not to arrive at any kind of truth, but solely to entrap the answerer.
It was a question to illustrate the "wokeness" of the judge to the voting public. Particularly funny since Biden specifically selected her because she was black and a woman.
Not allowing a hearing for Eric Garland is in the category of rough and tumble political dishonesty. Something both sides will do. Indefensible for honest people. Awful sausage making..
I'm not sure what doesn't make sense. Replacing Scalia with a conservative changes nothing for the Democrats. They still had a chance with the swing decisions of Kennedy. Without that swing vote, the Democrats no longer had a chance in the Supreme Court. That made things desperate. The Democrats looked and acted desperate. Cory Booker with his ridiculous Spartacus speech. The last minute accusations of K being a sexual predator. The digging into his high school yearbook to find fart jokes. That is the only way their actions make sense to me. Outside that rationalization, the only other explanation to me is the are nuts (I hope that's not true). If it still doesn't make sense to you I won't pursue this further.
You accused a man of being a sexual predator. That is a very serious accusation against someone. You better have extremely good evidence for this accusation. These are the kind of accusations that ruin people, privileged or not. To say someone damaged by false accusations is laughable because of their status shows a callous disregard for someone as a person. Show me your evidence for the accusation.
Depends on the professor. I once had a tenured professor at ASU (back in the 1970s) who came to every class drunk as Boris Yeltsin, and couldn't speak 3 coherent sentences in a row while attempting to lecture... but, since he gave me an A, I really can't complain.
Deleted the first due to a ridiculous redundancy I couldn't tolerate.
Can anyone in this forum, who thinks 'what is a woman' has a simple answer, give a simple answer that is true 100% of the time?
The problem with your article is it assumes "woman" to be a sociological concept. In the South where I live, and to many/most conservatives, "woman" is synonymous with "adult human female", which is a biological question. So in this case, the one asking and the one answering have different concepts of the term, and they know it. Red meat for their supporters.
Ignoring all other problems with the article, such as "scientists agree" - they also disagree - I find "man" and "woman" to be utterly useless concepts that mean nothing, once they are decoupled from male and female. Everyone has different opinions on what is masculine and feminine, and each of them are influenced by one of the countless cultural backgrounds mixed with parental upbringing. May as well ask Jackson what the bestest food in the world is, because her answer is just as substantive as what the woman gender is.
And I don't think the bestest food in the world should be enforced and punished by government and the corporate world.
You accused a man of being a sexual predator. That is a very serious accusation against someone.
The Kavanaugh issue drove a wedge between me and a good friend who was very far to the left politically. Our disagreement was over Ford's accusation being sufficient evidence in of itself to confidentally accuse Kavanaugh of being a sexual predator. I said no, and he, like apparently most on the left, said yes. Given that I myself have been falsely accused (not of sexual assault) on public record, and given that he knows someone who has been sexually assaulted, no doubt our own experiences fueled our inclinations. I feel "innocent until proven guilty" is the best standard we have until we develop mind-reading technology, but he felt that standard allows too many sexual predators to get away with their crime. So it's better to punish more predators even at the cost of innocent people going to prison.
For me, there was so much wrong with the case that I wasn't willing to label Kavanaugh something so serious. Others have different standards.
"Depends on the professor. I once had a tenured professor at ASU (back in the 1970s) who came to every class drunk as Boris Yeltsin, and couldn't speak 3 coherent sentences in a row while attempting to lecture... but, since he gave me an A, I really can't complain."
I had the same (different person, different college) psychology professor. I thought he was nuts and since I was a chemistry major I was going to drop the class. I didn't because the girl next to me was the former head cheerleader from one of the neighboring towns (last name Beach, how cool was that). Long story short, we went on two dates and had no connection. The drunken crazy professor game me an A and and I am thankful I met the future Mrs Perspective about seven months later.
Sounds like there's always been a bunch of crazy drunk professors in the Liberal Arts wings of colleges. Guess I might be tempted to heavy drinking if I had to swallow all that other nonsense.
There is something about this whole "privileged" bullshit that irritates me. In my business I have two portfolios. I sell custodial supplies and packaging. With the custodial supplies it's paper towels, toilet paper, and cleaning chemicals and I mostly deal with janitors. In the packaging I usually meet with production managers but often with the owners of the company who want to ensure their multi-million dollar investment in the product they produce is going to arrive intact to their clients.
I do my best to treat all of them the same. I would no more accuse a janitor than a millionaire owner of a company, or a college professor for that matter, of being a sexual predator without evidence.
Kevin, The problem with your article is it assumes "woman" to be a sociological concept. In the South where I live, and to many/most conservatives, "woman" is synonymous with "adult human female", which is a biological question.
So, give the simple, 100% accurate answer to who is a female, and you're done. The answer needs to account for genes, physiology, endocrinology, anatomy, and brain structures. Take your time.
Everyone has different opinions on what is masculine and feminine, and each of them are influenced by one of the countless cultural backgrounds mixed with parental upbringing.
Limited Perspective, There is something about this whole "privileged" bullshit that irritates me. ... I would no more accuse a janitor than a millionaire owner of a company, or a college professor for that matter, of being a sexual predator without evidence.
Wealth (and other privileges) offers a degree of immunity or harm reduction from engaging in activities that harm others. Many people that perceive such immunity/reduction will take advantage of it. It's what humans are. I accept your irritation at human nature.
You've already described that you followed the Kavanaugh case, and I doubt I have more to add. As Kevin noted, some people find Ford's testimony convincing, some don't, and if you don't, I judge you any more than I judge Kevin for that. However, that's very different from referring to Ford as being "recruited", a term that I would use if I were saying the allegations were invented.
As for Kavanaugh's reputation, the whole thing could have blown over he had said that, while he didn't remember this (pretty believable for an admitted binge drinker at that time), he sympathized with Ford's suffering, that he strongly regretted any suffering he might have caused, and that he has done better since getting out of college and would continue to do better. Instead, he put on a show of pretending to be the victim, and he wound up looking just as bad as the Democratic Senators. Any long-term damage to his reputation as as much self-inflicted as other-inflicted.
Limited Perspective, In other words, there is never the perfect consequence for an action, harm or good.
Did this have any relevance to something someone said earlier? Were you trying to confuse a statement about differential treatment with a statement about perfection?
If you really don't think there's anything wrong with pedophilia and pedophiles shouldn't be punished, then just say so. It's cowardly not to own up to it.
Only in the fevered imaginations of the right wing Q-anon drugged over-the-edge conspiracy theorists. There is no hope for such, since they have, as Dante said, "lost the good of the intellect"
"As Kevin noted, some people find Ford's testimony convincing"
Ford could not provide a time, a place, a description of the location, who was there who wasn't. Her two witnesses denied knowledge. Do you understand the insane world you are asking for? Someone can accuse and ruin One Brow's career without providing any details and anyway to defend himself. Is that the country you want to live in? You have no idea of the world you are asking for.
"As for Kavanaugh's reputation, the whole thing could have blown over he had said..."
If he had just went along with the lie, everything would have been okay. If he would have just agreed to the show trial, the fraud, the false accusations, the reprehensible Democratic Senators, everything would have been okay.
I'm glad there are people who will stand up against fraud, lunacy, and liars. I'm glad Kavanaugh stood up to the repugnant inquisitors.
That's funny. Reminds me of how conversations go in my house when the kids and their spouses are here...
"Pass the potatoes."... I'm wondering about transubstantiation...I was thinking about the definition of 'death'..pass the peas...I don't understand the problem with open borders..."
Depends on the topic. If it's literature, religion, music, warfare, slavery, philosophy and ideas, governance, etc it's everybody's history. If it's the development, design and progress of a powered flying vehicle with fixed wings and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces, it's pretty much all white male history (is that a bad thing?).
Limited Perspective, Ford could not provide a time, a place, a description of the location, who was there who wasn't.
There are many significant events in my life that happened over two decades ago, of which I'd have trouble giving a specific address or naming the entire roster of people present.
However, I'm not going to debate on the believability of Ford's testimony. I've heard all this before, so have you, and I doubt either of us has anything new to say on it. As I meant to say above, I don't judge you for your disbelief; further, I don't care enough about your belief in Ford's testimony to bother.
What I find interesting is that Jackson's defenders prefer to attempt to gaslight people who point out that she doesn't think pedophilia isn't so bad rather than condemning pedophilia.
Limited Perspective, If it's the development, design and progress of a powered flying vehicle with fixed wings and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces, it's pretty much all white male history (is that a bad thing?)
It's a false thing, taught to you by a power structure trying to portray white people as superior.
I would think that'd be a given, and require no statement of condemnation. Would you expect every sentence a person utters to be prefaced by a condemnation of murder?
I thought not.
This entire made up controversy isn't just a tempest in a teapot. It's a wannabe tempest in the Atacama Desert. There's no "there" there.
And by the way... "What is the definition of "white"?"
I'm white. I'm the platonic ideal of whiteness. Look up "white person" in the dictionary, and you'll see my picture. 100% European stock, Catholic, male, straight, cis, no detectable accent, middle class, baseball fanatic, likes Simon and Garfunkel, Elvis Presley, and Jefferson Airplane, reads Tolkien and Prince Valiant, and thinks black pepper is a spice.
If I supported someone who thinks murder is OK, then yes, I owe people who question that support an answer. And then you start gaslighting again by ignoring her record.
I would think that'd be a given, and require no statement of condemnation. Would you expect every sentence a person utters to be prefaced by a condemnation of murder?
My bad. Forgot you routinely support abortionists also.
Why did he tell paratroopers they would soon be in the Ukraine? It's hard to believe he could make a cognitive slip like that even as much as I think he's not all there.
President Biden on Saturday said that Russian President Vladimir Putin "cannot remain in power," as he declared the Russian invasion of Ukraine a "strategic failure" while pledging continued support for the embattled Ukrainian people.
"For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power," Biden said during a speech in front of the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland.
He's just aching to get us into a war with Russia. What the heck?
Well, now you've made me have to join with One Brow in labeling you a bald faced LIAR. I have never once come even close to supporting abortionists. Never. And you have to know this, yet you still come out with such a total falsehood.
You accused me of supporting abortionists. I challenge you to find even one time, a single sentence, even one word, where I have ever done so. Hasn't happened; you'll never find one. Now apologize for the lying slander.
Try to deal with that rather than calling me names. Every time you voted for a politician that supported abortion, you chose to empower the abortionists who directly perform them. Remote material cooperation with evil.
This should not be a surprise to you since we've had this discussion before.
"Did you not read what I wrote? ... Every time you voted for a politician that supported abortion, you chose to empower the abortionists who directly perform them."
Total BS. I have NEVER ONCE voted for a candidate because they were "pro-abortion" - not ever. I vote for candidates who agree with me on a majority of issues. If they happen to hold opinions on abortion contrary to my own, that might be unfortunate, but has nothing to do with why I vote for them. I've yet to find any candidate from either party with whom I am in total agreement. If I followed your advice to its logical conclusion, I would never cast a vote for anyone.
Single issue voting is one of the greatest threats to our democracy today.
bmiller supports the war criminal Putin because his own Dear Leader does. If Putin falls, the Russian government archives might just open up and the full scale of that country's intervention in the 2016 presidential election would be revealed. bmiller is also anti-Ukraine because President Zelensky refused to go along with Trump's demand that he manufacture dirt on Biden.
Total BS. I have NEVER ONCE voted for a candidate because they were "pro-abortion" - not ever.
I'm going to have to ask you stop mischaracterizing what I said. I didn't say you voted for a candidate because he was pro-abortion. That would be formal cooperation with evil. The fact that you voted for pro-abortion candidates when you could have voted for pro-life candidates mean you made a decision to remotely cooperate with evil. Your immoral opinion regarding "single issue voting" does not bring those murdered children back to life and it certainly doesn't lessen your guilt.
The Dear Leader today is the guy you voted for. The guy wanting to start WWIII right at the moment when Russia claims they're pretty much done.
I really do hope though that Russia releases all the info on those Biolabs that Hunter and Joe were making money on in the Ukraine. Crooks need to be punished regardless of their connections.
If they happen to hold opinions on abortion contrary to my own, that might be unfortunate, but has nothing to do with why I vote for them.
In this, bmiller is correct. Your vote enables their abortion policies. What the guy you vote for does in office is in part thanks to you. My guilt at voting for Bush is testimony to that.
The obvious retort is to point to an evil Republican policy that is unfortunate but not why bmiller voted for them. That's not difficult to find - both parties have multiple options to choose from.
Single issue voting is one of the greatest threats to our democracy today.
Single issue voting is how many people manage to hold their nose long enough to vote. I'm not a literal single issue voter, but there are a very small smattering of issues I find important enough to heavily prioritize when looking at candidates. That they are spread between the parties is not helpful.
There are certainly things about any candidate that don't like or prefer they would hold a different position on. But that is different from a canididate that advocates the intentional killing of innocent humans as a consistent policy position. Those people don't deserve anyone's vote.
Furthermore, consistently arguing against punishing abortionists legally is more than just the remote material cooperation with evil by voting for pro-abortion candidates. It is advocating an incitement for people to perform abortions as well as to seek them out since such legislation induces many people to identify the "legal" with the "ethically legitimate."
Aviation history has been one of my favorite topics. I've read everything from the original documents of the Wright brothers design and data from their wind tunnel invention, to the design of wing lift and control surfaces. The way they upgraded their engine design and the design of the push and vacuum elements of their propeller. From wing warping to ailerons, I can take you through engine design, fabric and doping, aluminum technology, the development of the radial engine, the development of the jet engine, carbon fiber, whatever aspect of aviation you want to discuss. It's not a power structure thing. That's just idiotic. It's about engineers, risk and failure, technology, industry and finance. Please don't make a fool of yourself. You seem like a nice guy.
I defend the rights of the accused. Therefore I have skeletons in my closet? I can't imagine a more asinine and reprehensible response to a fundamental right. But maybe that's the way assholes argue nowadays.
On the other hand, I have been to most important aircraft museums around the country, and in several other countries. I would have liked the chance to walk around one of those museums with you and share my passion for aircraft technology.
I deleted a long comment on aviation. It was not helpful. Wish I could remove some the comments I've made to Mrs Perspective and the kids when I felt strongly about a topic.
Aviation history has been one of my favorite topics. ... It's not a power structure thing.
Engineering advances happen because men who have the training, funds, and opportunity to experiment can do so. If you don't think the power structure is involved in gaining opportunities for education, funds, and time, you really don't understand how the world works.
However, my point was that you felt confident in proclaiming a near-universally white history of contribution to aviation engineering, even though there have been significant contributions from black people. I believe you were trying to be honest in that statement, but the reason you could be both honest and so mistaken is because it's been white people writing about aviation history, presenting almost exclusively the contributions of white people.
On the topic of skeletons, I was merely curious because you seem to think that all men are vulnerable to having their careers destroyed, despite the ample evidence that very few men suffer long-term from accusations, and even more rarely from false allegations. Why would you think I possessed any fear of false allegations? It's less likely than being shot accidentally.
In 1987, my own career was nearly demolished by a series of false accusations (concerning the leaking of classified information to the press). But I weathered the storm, and eventually retired at the highest possible civil service grade, in charge of a project costing hundreds of millions of dollars. So not all false accusations are fatal, but it certainly is hell going through them.
Mrs Perspective and I were on vacation in Seattle the week of March 6, doing mostly the tourist stuff. The Mrs indulged me for a day at the Boeing aircraft museum. At the museum, there was an exhibit with a museum label/caption. I tried to find it online but couldn't, so I'm going from memory. The label read, if you have any information about minorities, marginalized groups, LBGQ contributions to aerospace please contact the staff. We are looking for personal stories, artifacts, photos (paraphrase from memory of a thousand things I read and observed that day). Your characterization of whites writing history is the exact opposite. They are eagerly looking for nonwhite narratives.
I run down historical rabbit holes all the time. For example, having rebuilt my girlfriend's (now Mrs Perspective) 1965 Mustang four barrel carburetor on the 289 engine, I wondered how they solved the problem of floats on a carburetor in aircraft since the aircraft is often not level to the plane of gravity (short answer, fuel injection). I can lead you through the thinking and engineering. I'm sorry, if I note the gender and ethnicity of the people working on that one, very minor, problem. In the history of aviation it was minor. I don't look down on anyone else, and certainly know I would not have been able to solve the problem, but I can't deny the history.
I don't think you have to worry about false accusations. Neither do I. I was trying to personalize what you would do if falsely accused. I remember every girl I dated and I know how I treat women.
What bothers me is I have invested thousands of hours in my career. As I'm sure you have. I've stayed up all night to study and then went to work at UPS at 4:30 am to sort packages. I have invested in developing trust with my wife, my kids, my friends, my church, and my clients. Can all of that be thrown away by one person who I've never met, who makes up an event that never happened, and leaves no details that will allow me to clear my name? From that moment on, people like One Brow will refer to me as a sexual predator?
It's an irrational and damaging perspective you are defending. I'm am strongly opposed to that defense.
"Do you believe that there are evil people in the world? If so, how would you recognize them?"
Yes I believe some people can be evil. I've seen a lot of horrible things in my life. I'm going to try to make it vague because this is not the place to talk about it. My wife, my close friends, my priest is the proper context to talk about those things.
There is real malicious mental illness. I honestly don't know what is brain chemistry and what is evil. But, yes I've seen real evil in the world.
I don't know how to recognize it before it is acted out. Wish I could.
Limited Perspective, I was trying to personalize what you would do if falsely accused.
No one really knows unless they experience it.
Can all of that be thrown away by one person who I've never met, who makes up an event that never happened, and leaves no details that will allow me to clear my name? From that moment on, people like One Brow will refer to me as a sexual predator?
How much does it impact Kavanaugh's life when I say he seems to have once sexually assaulted someone (and I certainly don't think Kavanaugh has been a predator in the past couple of decades)?
Can confirm.
ReplyDeleteHere is a good argument for Republicans to blame Biden.
ReplyDeleteThere is no link between Biden policy and high gas prices. However, after Slate spent years floating crazed Trump/Russia conspiracy theories written by genuine lunatics, they have no credibility outside their own bubble. There are better sources describing how the price of gasoline is set. The Babylon Bee has more credibility than Slate.
ReplyDeletePolitics uses toddler logic and is very simple to predict. For example, if you are a Democratic voter:
ReplyDeleteIf your party controls the White House and Congress and something good happens, it is to be expected.
If your party controls one branch and something good happens, it is because of the branch Democrats control.
If your party controls neither branch and something good happens, it is because of the previous Democratic leadership.
If your party controls both branches and something bad happens, it is because of the previous Republican administration.
If your party controls one branch and something bad happens, it is because of the branch Republicans control.
If your party controls neither branch and something bad happens, it is to be expected.
Reverse if Republican.
This simple guide has a 100 percent success rate at assigning credit and blame. Our political parties and our media operate at that level, with more big words.
I don't dislike Joe. Kamala is another story. I genuinely dislike her.
ReplyDeleteHe looks a doofus to me, but like I felt about Obama, he's my president, chosen by my fellow citizens, and that's what I accept.
I dunno. If the government demonizes fossil fuel and raises the cost to produce via regulations and so on, why would the producers risk more investment? The administration is playing nice with Iran and Venezuela, but when it comes to domestic producers, Psaki tells us they are evil and greedy.
ReplyDelete“If you really believe they’re going to be imposing regulatory and other constraints on the development of fossil fuel resources and investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, then higher prices are the result down the road — and therefore are the result now,” Zycher told The Post.
The administration is reportedly in diplomatic talks with longtime foes Venezuela and Iran as it looks for alternative sources to stave off the financial crunch facing US motorists — but outreach to US firms has been limited.
It's not the government that's demonizing fossil fuel, it's Planet Earth. And we'd better break our addiction to it FAST, if we want our grandchildren to have any kind of a decent future.
ReplyDeleteFiddlesticks, I'm looking forward to transplanting my grapes, fig and citrus trees up a few hundred kilometers north of where my Canadian mother grew up in Ontario Canada.
ReplyDeleteThe impact of political leadership on the economy is in general overrated. This cuts in every direction.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the government that's demonizing fossil fuel, it's Planet Earth.
ReplyDeleteThe Dems most certainly are demonizing fossil fuel. They want to legislate it out of affordability, so that's why I assume they want to restrict production in America.
So they are going to make Venezuela and Iran rich by buying oil from them while smearing domestic producers (to distract simpletons from the fact they are restricting domestic production). Do they think that by importing fuel from Iran it won't release as much carbon as from domestic wells? Used to think they were just stupid. Now I know they are evil.
There was a time when I was interested in global oil markets. It was a fascinating and almost incomprehensible topic.
ReplyDeleteBiden's rhetoric on petroleum is incoherent, but his actual policy has little effect on prices at the pump. His current negotiations with foreign countries for oil seems as incoherent as his rhetoric, but that's for the future.
Policies have effects on futures trading and so on the cost of fuel contracts.
ReplyDeleteIf it's going to cost more to drill a well, get permits, transport, refine etc in the future, those future costs get baked into the final price. A policy implementation may not have an immediate effect on today's price, but Biden's been at it for a year now. The future of 2021 is now.
The impact of political leadership on the economy is in general overrated.
ReplyDeleteHad to laugh at this one.
The idea that presidents have little to no impact on things brought out in defense of Biden, when it was only yesterday that Trump was supposedly a dictator with unlimited power.
" it was only yesterday that Trump was supposedly a dictator with unlimited power"
ReplyDeleteHe was unquestionably trying to be that, but fortunately we voted him out in time, in a totally fair and uncorrupt election. Had he somehow either won, or managed to overturn the election results, we would now likely be living in a white supremacist authoritarian dictatorship. But, THANK GOD, we dodged that lethal bullet (for now).
we would now likely be living in a white supremacist authoritarian dictatorship
ReplyDeleteThere is literally a zero percent chance this would have happened.
"in a totally fair and uncorrupt election."
ReplyDeleteI wonder why you think you have to keep saying things like this.
It's like telling us that Biden is not corrupt before any mention of his name.
You know the NYT admitted the laptop is real now and not "Russian disinformation", right? Well after this side of the 2020 election.
"I wonder why you think you have to keep saying things like this."
ReplyDeleteBecause far too many Americans have fallen for the Big Lie that the election was "stolen" - WHICH IT WAS NOT!
"There is literally a zero percent chance this would have happened."
ReplyDeleteWell, now that we have gotten rid of the wannabe Mussolini, the chance (for the time being) is zero. Let's keep it that way!
WHICH IT WAS NOT!
ReplyDeleteThe lady doth protest too much, methinks
In the face of such lies, nowhere near enough. It is not sufficient to just speak the Truth - one must call out the lie as well.
ReplyDeletePretty sure you suspect the truth is the opposite of what you're proclaiming.
ReplyDeleteConfident people don't act the way you're acting.
Ironically (for TDS sufferers), instead of Trump it appears that Biden actually is The Manchurian Candidate.
ReplyDeleteI expect those people that called for Trump's impeachment to demand Biden's impeachment now.
I am as confident that the 2020 election was clean and fair as I am that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. And "the way I am acting" is how any sane, ethical person should respond to the non-stop barrage of the Big Lie. Plus, the idea that the election was fraudulent is pure and lethal poison to our democracy. It is a roadmap to strongman dictatorship. Ergo, everyone who has taken an oath, as I have (twice) "to protect and defend the Constitution of the Unjited States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" is duty bound to oppose the Big Lie as vigorously and as often as possible. And if that makes people such as bmiller uncomfortable, then so be it. His discomfort is evidence that he cares not for the continuation of democracy in America.
ReplyDelete"to demand Biden's impeachment now"
ReplyDeleteFor what? He's doing a more than competent job right now, and has committed no crimes (unlike his criminal predecessor). He'll never be a "great" president, but of of them have not been great. And we really should not wish for greatness, because that usually comes hand in hand with great national suffering (e.g., the Civil War, the Great Depression, WWII). I'll skip the greatness, thank you very much.
I am as confident that the 2020 election was clean and fair as I am that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteI'm confident that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow also, but people would think I'm nuts if I started every conversation by stating that. I'd rather not look like a nut, but to each his own.
For what?
ReplyDeleteDidn't you claim that Trump worked for Putin without evidence? There has always been evidence that Biden had been in Xi's pocket regardless of the coverup.
Miller,
ReplyDeleteI think you have been effective in talking Star down from Trump as Hitler, to Trump being Mussolini. You're making progress. Keep at it, pretty soon Trump will only be Franco. Then with a little more effort, Trump as Oswald Mosley.
Keep up the good fight.
Not even slowing down till he's the Soup Nazi.
ReplyDeleteLP, I never called our former, loser president "Hitler". I may have lumped him in with Der Fuhrer once or twice in a list, as in "Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Trump", but as for equating him to Hitler? Nope. Benito is more his speed. He even copies Il Duce's facial tics at his rallies. Watch an old newsreel and then observe a MAGA rally. The resemblance is beyond eerie - it has to have been copied.
ReplyDeleteSorry Star, shortly after the election, back when we were told you MUST question the results of the election (!!!!) because of the Russians, that Trump would tank the middle class, that Arabs and Israel would soon be at war (instead, Bahrain, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates signed treaties with Israel under Trump). And get this, after Putin annexed Crimea under Obama, with Trump he would start invading his neighbors (!!!!). Trump would get us into foreign wars like the fascists, Trump would give Afghanistan back to the Taliban...I could go on.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, at that time you made a post about what you thought of Trump with a link to a picture of Adolf Hitler. I'm not going to bother to find it. Democrats are a funny species if you have a memory and know how to laugh.
Democrats are a funny species if you have a memory and know how to laugh.
ReplyDeleteThey're funny until you let them get close to even a little bit of power.
You do make a good point though.
ReplyDeleteThey are almost 100% reliable at being wrong about their opponents, while at the same time doing what they accuse their opponents of. You could make a lot of money if you could bet on it.
They're funny until you let them get close to even a little bit of power.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides are funny in their ignorance. They believe that any president is really in charge, and that voting actually makes a difference.
Voting is immoral. You are asking for your guy to force things on the other side that they don't want:
Synaptic Sparks: Examining Voting
If you have issues with this, the webmaster (not me, but another guy) will be more than happy to debate you, just to let you know.
Ah.
ReplyDeleteNow here is one of those sites that claims that taxation is theft.
Kevin,
You should poke around that site and compare to the Bastiat Essay which is a argument for limited government, not no government.
Whereas the former site concludes that since government has a monopoly on force, it is always immoral, the latter essay argues that since government has a monopoly on force, it must only be allowed to prevent people from violating each other's rights.
Voting is the only sane form of governance. What is the alternative? I live in California, and everyone in power is not someone I voted for. Not only did I not vote for them, I think some of them are genuinely mentally ill. But what is my alternative?
ReplyDeleteSo, what do you do when you think the President is a doofus, the VP hasn't had an interesting thought in her political career, the leader of the Senate gives the most predictable Democratic party take on every topic (see Victor), the leader of the House can't even speak a coherent paragraph, and my whole state is run by lunatics? No one in power represents me. Well, I believe in our democracy and hope to persuade a few to come to the light.
ReplyDelete"my whole state is run by lunatics"
ReplyDeleteJust curious, which state is that?
Maryland
ReplyDeleteSo you're calling your Republican governor, Larry Hogan, a lunatic?
ReplyDeleteWhere in Maryland? I live in Catonsville, Baltimore County.
ReplyDeleteBob, I was joking. I wrote in my post I live in California. I live in Kingsburg California.
ReplyDeleteToo bad for you. Maryland is the best state in the Union in which to live of all those I've been in (I've visited 37 of them, and lived in 6). We've got everything here: great cities, history, mountains, forests, rural countryside with small towns, the beach, crabcakes, the Chesapeake Bay, the very best state flag... and the Orioles! And all within less than a day's drive.
ReplyDeleteI've enjoyed my visits to Maryland. I've taken two long walks around the Antietam battlefield. I got caught in a blizzard outside of Frederick one night. One of the longest nights I've experienced on the road.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we could have shared a cup of coffee if we had known each other.
And California is one of the 6 states I've lived in (1975-6), in Monterey. I met my wife there, and 35 years later her ashes were scattered along Big Sur. Haven't been back for several years, but I keep promising myself I'll make one more trip to the left coast before I'm too old to enjoy it.
ReplyDeleteMy last visit was part of a month-long solo cross continental drive I took about a decade ago. It took three weeks to reach the Pacific and five days to drive back.
I love Monterey (one of the reasons I can't leave California). If you ever come back, let me know, I'll take you my favorite pub, The Crown and Anchor in Monterey. Sorry for your loss Bob.
ReplyDeleteGrant to her eternal rest. Let light perpetual shine upon her. May her soul and the souls of all the departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Voting is the only sane form of governance. What is the alternative? I live in California, and everyone in power is not someone I voted for. Not only did I not vote for them, I think some of them are genuinely mentally ill. But what is my alternative?
ReplyDeleteThat is what people are brainwashed to believe, but it isn't sane. You are voting for a criminal syndicate called government. There are better alternatives, like voluntaryism (or anarchism) and egalitarianism.
Another comment: How can voting be sane? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you should check this out:
Synaptic Sparks: YDOM
And, check out his tax stuff thoroughly. Don't just write it off. He provided links to look at the laws.
Anyone who says I am brainwashed is not worth the time. Good luck with whatever bullshit you are interested in.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Biden pushing for a SC justice that wants to be lenient on pedophiles?
ReplyDeleteDoes she want to be lenient on pedophiles? I know that's the right wing narrative at the moment, but is it actually true?
ReplyDeleteThus far the most interesting thing about her nomination to me is that her most important qualifications, according to Biden, are her skin color and her sex. Not a surprise that she also favors discriminating in order to favor black candidates over white or Asian candidates in other areas, such as education.
I know that's the right wing narrative at the moment, but is it actually true?
ReplyDeleteI haven't heard anyone outright deny it, which I would expect her defenders to if it wasn't true.
Thus far the most interesting thing about her nomination to me is that her most important qualifications, according to Biden, are her skin color and her sex.
Not interesting to me since it's all about sex and race and we all know it. It was however, a disservice to her that Biden said the silent part out loud.
Being the most interesting doesn't mean it is very interesting in of itself. I can't find very much info on her.
ReplyDeleteI think she attacked Christine Blasey Ford when she was a child.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShe answered the charges of going light on child porn collectors by saying it was easier to collect child porn nowadays so they shouldn't be punished as harshly today.
ReplyDeleteSo she agreed with her critics that they correctly described her as being lenient on pedos.
I wonder why Biden wants someone lenient on pedos on the SC.
ReplyDelete"I wonder why Biden wants someone lenient on pedos on the SC."
ReplyDeleteI get the sarcasm after the Dem's pushed judge Kavanaugh being a gang-rapist. If the Republicans launch on the last day of the hearing, while wrapping things up, some of the pedo victims of her actions, then I walk away from the Republican party. I'm hoping at least half the Republicans will vote for her confirmation. She is qualified and nominated by our President. I don't want to be as nasty and dishonest as the Democratic party.
She is qualified and nominated by our President. I don't want to be as nasty and dishonest as the Democratic party.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Democrats have been reprehensible toward Trump's nominees, particularly Kavanaugh. While Biden and the Democrats deserves Republicans dragging Jackson through the exact same smear campaign, Jackson herself does not deserve it.
I don't think there is anything nasty about questioning a nominee about they reasoning they used while making decisions from the bench. It's not like her religion is being attacked or she is being accused of being a rapist. That would be nasty.
ReplyDeleteApparently, to her and her supporters, pedophilia has been normalized. I don't want that type of judge on the court any more than one who would sign off on spying on journalists.
I mean according to our system of government, just because someone is nominated by a president doesn't mean the nominee takes the office. The Senate determines if the nominee is "qualified".
ReplyDeleteIf all one means by being qualified is that they have a law degree or served time as a judge, then I disagree that makes one qualified as a SC judge. That would make Michael Avenatti qualified.
The Dems have been successful at cowing their opposition, it seems like forever. They launch putrid false and defamatory personal attacks on Republican SC nominees and conservatives get buffaloed into thinking any critique of a Dem nominee is therefore personal also. The Dems stopped laughing at the Republicans long ago. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
bmiller,
ReplyDeleteI haven't heard anyone outright deny it, which I would expect her defenders to if it wasn't true.
Even the right-wingers at the National Review know it's a stupid charge.
"The allegation appears meritless to the point of demagoguery."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/senator-hawleys-disingenuous-attack-against-judge-jacksons-record-on-child-pornography/
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteI don't want to be as nasty and dishonest as the Democratic party.
There was very little "nasty" directed at Gorsuch during his nomination. There was plenty directed at Kavanaugh, and almost none at Barrett. If the problem was the Democratic party and not the candidate, why was only one candidate affected?
So now Jackson was asked if she could define what a woman is, and her answer indicates she believes only biologists are qualified to identify whether an individual is a man or a woman.
ReplyDeleteSuffice it to say, both sides are looking incredibly stupid right now.
Why both sides?
ReplyDeleteBmiller,
ReplyDeleteYou put down a site that says that taxation is theft. Maybe you should check this out:
What is NOT "Income Subject to Taxation"
Why both sides?
ReplyDeleteBecause esteemed Senators just asked a nominee to the highest court of the land what a woman is. The only thing more idiotic was her answer, as if only biologists can possibly figure that out.
Even if you feel that's a critical question to ask, it's a foregone conclusion that any nominee from Biden is going to be unwilling to equate women with females, as the English language has done for hundreds of years. And the conservative-majority Court already conflated sex and "gender identity" back in 2020, so the issue is moot.
The only reason to ask was political theater, and the question and answer did nothing but fire up the voter bases. Nothing in it was conducive to functional governing. It was a stupid question to ask and a stupid answer in response.
" a stupid answer in response"
ReplyDeleteWhat would you have considered to be a not stupid answer?
(I agree it was a stupid question.)
Even if you feel that's a critical question to ask, it's a foregone conclusion that any nominee from Biden is going to be unwilling to equate women with females, as the English language has done for hundreds of years.
ReplyDeleteI think the question serves a purpose. Of course the Senator suspected what the answer would be. That is precisely what lawyers do. They ask questions that get the respondent on record and under oath with an answer. That makes it more difficult for the press to gaslight the public that Republicans are making things up. It also allows those people who haven't been paying attention (a whole lot) to find out what's been going on.
Again, what would have been a "not stupid" answer?
ReplyDeleteKevin,
ReplyDeleteBecause esteemed Senators just asked a nominee to the highest court of the land what a woman is. The only thing more idiotic was her answer, as if only biologists can possibly figure that out.
True, the correct answer would be "only a sociologist/anthropologist (depending on time frame of the culture) can answer that". I mean, you're not one of those people who thinks every adult male is a man, and every adult female is a woman, right? It's about how behave.
... to equate women with females, as the English language has done for hundreds of years.
Not in the Midwest in the 1960s/70s, where/when I grew up. Being a man meant showing courage, standing up for what's right, protecting the weak, etc.
The only reason to ask was political theater, and the question and answer did nothing but fire up the voter bases. Nothing in it was conducive to functional governing. It was a stupid question to ask and a stupid answer in response.
Agreed.
I am.
ReplyDeletewould have been a non-stupid answer.
ReplyDeleteWell, whaddaya know? The monkey hit a word.
ReplyDeleteI gotta hand this one to you, bmiller... brilliant!
Starhopper: What would you have considered to be a not stupid answer?
ReplyDeleteOne Brow: True, the correct answer would be "only a sociologist/anthropologist (depending on time frame of the culture) can answer that". I mean, you're not one of those people who thinks every adult male is a man, and every adult female is a woman, right?
So one thing I think someone who is a Supreme Court nominee should be able to do is recognize multiple sides of an issue when they are going to be establishing precedents that will legally bind the entire nation for potentially the remainder of its existence.
Since the early days of the English language - back to late Old English, according to etymonline.com - "man" has been synonymous with "adult human male". "Woman" has been synonymous with "adult human female". That's how they were used for hundreds of years, and many people still use them in that manner today. A Pew Research poll said that over half of those polled believe that only "man" and "woman" should be gender options for official documents. I suspect the same rough percentage would also use "man" and "adult human male" interchangeably. I know around where I've grown up, that's certainly the case. You say man, you are talking about an adult male. That's how the language is used here and in many other places.
So if Jackson wanted to give a non-stupid answer, she could have alluded to the fact that at least half the country does not need a biologist to identify a woman on sight, per their usage of the language which has been used that way for the better part of a thousand years, while also acknowledging that language changes over time and that the terms "man" and "woman" are being decoupled from sex. She could then express her view that she believes "woman" to be a term describing gender and not sex. But to just say she has no idea what a woman is without a biologist, she comes across as a complete idiot. Toddlers know the difference between a man and a woman as the words have been used historically. Jackson should have added context, because how can a judge interpret law that affects women if she has no idea what a woman is? Stupid answer.
It's about how behave.
Isn't that what feminists have fought against forever? Being forced to conform to societal standards of behavior because they are women? Also, should identifying as a woman allow you in female sports if you're a male?
On an amusing note, I do not hunt or fish, I detest sports, I don't swear, I don't drink or gamble or work out or play video games all day, I don't work on my car engine, I'm not competitive or aggressive and have never been in a fight and a single dad. At what point is someone going to tell me I'm not a man?
At what point is someone going to tell me I'm not a man?
ReplyDeleteThat's easy. The moment you tell people you're not. Maybe when you walk into the lady's locker room.
It could happen to you, if it could happen to her
ReplyDelete"If the problem was the Democratic party and not the candidate, why was only one candidate affected?"
ReplyDeleteThere was a demented rationale they targeted Kavanaugh. I'm not going to get into it because it's below the level of an excuse, much less a reason. After the Kavanaugh hearing, every reasonable American knew how nasty they were, and they didn't want a repeat with Barret.
Once Senator Feinstein's staff recruited someone to accuse Kavanaugh, they should have brought that accusation to the FBI who were doing his, I can't remember, fourth or fifth background investigation. Democrats didn’t want an investigation because they knew there was nothing to the accusation (even both witnesses for the accuser denied any knowledge of the event). Instead, the nasty Democrats decided to have an Inquisitor-style show trial where they could publicly humiliate him in front of the country, his wife, his daughters, and his colleagues. They stirred up the unbalanced mob coupled with public shame in hopes he would quit. It was sickening to watch these nasty reprehensible Senators carry on with their cowardly fraud instead of engaging in public debate about legal ideas.
If on the last day of Judge Brown Jackson’s hearing some nasty despicable repulsive Republican springs a witness to accuse her of being a child molester (in a nation of 330 million, you can find someone to claim just about anything) and sets up the accusation in a way that it is impossible to defend herself (no time, no place, witnesses deny knowledge) to publicly shame her and destroy her reputation of judicial temperament, I guarantee you within a week I will go to the post office and switch my party affiliation. Both sides engage in political rough and tumble dishonesty, we expect that. What they did to Kavanaugh was nasty nauseating malice.
On a side note, I am almost finished with "A Republic, If You Can Keep It" by Neil Gorsuch—excellent.
I wonder why Biden wants someone who is consistently lenient on pedos on the SC. And why do Dems want to defend those decisions so vigorously?
ReplyDeleteWant to get rid of virus spread in a room? Install far-UVC light bulbs.
ReplyDeleteKevin,
ReplyDeleteSince the early days of the English language - back to late Old English, according to etymonline.com - "man" has been synonymous with "adult human male". "Woman" has been synonymous with "adult human female". That's how they were used for hundreds of years, and many people still use them in that manner today.
That simply does not comport with my experience. It's a simplification that people reach for as a bulwark against change they fear, but being a man meant a lot more to my parents and grandparents than simply being a male at age 18 or older, and it means a lot more to me.
I went to etyonline.com, and this is their first paragraph in it's entirety.
"a featherless plantigrade biped mammal of the genus Homo" [Century Dictionary], Old English man, mann "human being, person (male or female); brave man, hero;" also "servant, vassal, adult male considered as under the control of another person," from Proto-Germanic *mann- (source also of Old Saxon, Swedish, Dutch, Old High German man, Old Frisian mon, German Mann, Old Norse maðr, Danish mand, Gothic manna "man"), from PIE root *man- (1) "man." For the plural, see men.
That's how the language is used here and in many other places.
So, you've never heard anyone say "be a man about (whatever)" , because they they already were a man, and nothing they could do would make them less of a man? None of that makes sense to you?
So if Jackson wanted to give a non-stupid answer, she could have alluded to the fact that at least half the country does not need a biologist to identify a woman on sight,
With perhaps 95% accuracy, since you are referring to some biological definition that does not fit reality.
Isn't that what feminists have fought against forever?
"Feminists" is a pretty broad category, and they don't all think alike on these matters. However, I would say that most feminists have been fighting allow adults to adopt the roles of men, women, or both in society, as they wish.
Also, should identifying as a woman allow you in female sports if you're a male?
Again, "sports" covers a pretty broad range of activities. 4-year-old basketball is sports, and so is the WNBA, and I don't think we should have the same set of rules for trans athletes in those two settings. There should be some regulations in every setting, and as far as I know, every setting has standards in line with the goals of that particular organization. Is their a more particular issue you are concerned about?
At what point is someone going to tell me I'm not a man?
You stand up for what you think is right, you don't blindly follow a leader, and you don't back down in the face of what you think is inaccurate criticism. that's manly as far as I'm concerned (although, do you even recognize "manly" as a meaningful word?).
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteThere was a demented rationale they targeted Kavanaugh. I'm not going to get into it because it's below the level of an excuse, much less a reason. After the Kavanaugh hearing, every reasonable American knew how nasty they were, and they didn't want a repeat with Barret.
1) You didn't explain why this didn't occur with Gorsuch, who the Democrats saw as being given a stolen seat, and
2) this narrative is a little incoherent, as very few independents are going to cast their vote on how Supreme Court Justice nominees are treated in Senate.
being a man meant a lot more to my parents and grandparents than simply being a male at age 18 or older, and it means a lot more to me.
ReplyDeleteSo, you've never heard anyone say "be a man about (whatever)" , because they they already were a man, and nothing they could do would make them less of a man? None of that makes sense to you?
Certainly I've heard those things. It meant "act the way you as a man are supposed to act, because you're a man". At no point in my experience did "be a man" apply to a female, until very recently with the progressive push regarding the transgender issue. "Man" and "male" were inseperable, with "man" being contrasted "boy" or "girl", depending on the insult being delivered.
I'm glad to have this conversation, though, because it shows how different upbringings can so radically affect something even like the shared language within one country. What you're describing is foreign to me, until very recently.
I went to etyonline.com, and this is their first paragraph in it's entirety.
This is most of the third paragraph on the same page:
Specific sense of "adult male of the human race" (distinguished from a woman or boy) is by late Old English (c. 1000); Old English used wer and wif to distinguish the sexes, but wer began to disappear late 13c. and was replaced by man. Universal sense of the word remains in mankind and manslaughter. Similarly, Latin had homo "human being" and vir "adult male human being," but they merged in Vulgar Latin, with homo extended to both senses. A like evolution took place in Slavic languages, and in some of them the word has narrowed to mean "husband." ...
It's a very common usage of the word "man" to specifically refer to an adult human male. That's how I was raised, and I don't personally know anyone who would use it to describe a female no matter how masculine she behaved.
you are referring to some biological definition that does not fit reality.
I don't agree.
However, I would say that most feminists have been fighting allow adults to adopt the roles of men, women, or both in society, as they wish.
Then it would seem that "man" and "woman" don't actually refer to anything, if the goal is to strip away defined roles. And it's that nebulous definition that bothers me - not because transgender people bother me, and not because my own views on the matter are threatened, but because frequently the lack of definition allows "women" to be treated as "females", when the two are supposed to be different. And then federal and corporate rules come in and declare it off-limits to question it. I don't like that.
If everyone would define the terms and then actually stick with it, and stop conflating sex and gender where desired, and if the left would stop calling me a bigot for not having been raised the same way as them in my language usage, then this issue wouldn't even be on my radar.
You stand up for what you think is right, you don't blindly follow a leader, and you don't back down in the face of what you think is inaccurate criticism
Every adult should do this. I don't think of those as masculine traits.
bmiller,
ReplyDeleteI wonder why Biden wants someone who is consistently lenient on pedos on the SC.
Why do you keep spreading lies even right-wingers are debunking?
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to have this conversation, though, because it shows how different upbringings can so radically affect something even like the shared language within one country. What you're describing is foreign to me, until very recently.
I agree.
I went to etyonline.com, and this is their first paragraph in it's entirety.
I read the third paragraph as discussing multiple uses of "man".
I don't agree.
Neither do the 5 or so different putative biological definitions of male, a small percentage of the time.
Then it would seem that "man" and "woman" don't actually refer to anything, if the goal is to strip away defined roles.
To strip away is not to destroy.
And it's that nebulous definition that bothers me - not because transgender people bother me, and not because my own views on the matter are threatened, but because frequently the lack of definition allows "women" to be treated as "females", when the two are supposed to be different. And then federal and corporate rules come in and declare it off-limits to question it. I don't like that.
I won't pretend this is anything other than complex and occasionally confusing to me.
Every adult should do this. I don't think of those as masculine traits.
I was taught (culturally) that the feminine version was to accept male headship, to influence the men to make better choices, and to be conciliatory as opposed to standing ground. As from My Big fat Greek Wedding, "the man is the head, but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wants".
I wonder why Biden wants someone who is consistently lenient on pedos on the SC (as the nominee herself affirmed). And why do Dems want to defend those decisions so vigorously, or in some cases accuse me of lying when I point out that the nominee herself affirmed she was lenient on pedos?
ReplyDeletebmiller,
ReplyDeleteI wonder why Biden wants someone who is consistently lenient on pedos on the SC (as the nominee herself affirmed). And why do Dems want to defend those decisions so vigorously, or in some cases accuse me of lying when I point out that the nominee herself affirmed she was lenient on pedos?
Because it is a lie that Jackson is lenient on pedophiles, and an even more bald-faced lie that she said she was. Even Sen. Hawley doesn't claim that, instead quoting about Jackson regarding people who are not pedophiles but still acquire child pornography.
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-refutes-fact-check-judge-jacksons-record-lenient-sentencing-pedophiles
So, even the main person makes the claims you are trying to defend acknowledges this is not about pedophiles.
I have no expectation that this will stop you from spreading lies.
Hawley Refutes ‘Fact Check’ on Judge Jackson’s Record of Lenient Sentencing for Pedophiles
ReplyDeleteIf anyone, again, wonders why I rarely engage with this individual I hope this helps the understanding. Maybe the voices in his head told him Hawley agreed that the nominee wasn't lenient on pedophiles. Everyone disagreeing with those voices are lying.
But I really don't care too much what a confused and nasty atheist thinks.
I'm interested in how "Christians" explain supporting this nominee when they know "It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."
I watched the hearings and did not see a nominee "consistently lenient on pedos". What I did see was a woman adroitly fending off a barrage of dishonest "gotcha" questions, designed not to arrive at any truth, but rather to place the nominee in a "damned if you did, damned if you didn't" position. I think Jackson held up to the baseless attacks rather well. In fact, I knew nothing whatsoever about her 3 days ago, but now after seeing her in action, I admire her greatly. I believe Jackson will make a fine member of the Supreme Court, of whom we can all be proud.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you care not to engage with One Brow, it's your loss. He is one of the more intelligent participants in these discussions. We certainly do not agree theologically, but his heart's in the right place. Never having met him other than online, he yet strikes me as a Good Man. "I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." (Matthew 8:11-12)
Starhopper.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you only see what you wanted to see, but that's no excuse.
She consistently sentenced child porn offenders below recommended guidelines and below what the prosecutors recommended. In every case. No exception.
There is no "damned if you did, damned if you didn't". She could have sentenced within guidelines and she did not apparently with your approval. God help you.
I expect atheists to be perverse and nasty. They have an excuse.
Christians, not so much.
And so the partisan lenses continue.
ReplyDelete"1) You didn't explain why this didn't occur with Gorsuch, who the Democrats saw as being given a stolen seat, and
ReplyDelete2) this narrative is a little incoherent, as very few independents are going to cast their vote on how Supreme Court Justice nominees are treated in Senate."
1. Neil Gorsuch replaced Scalia. The balanced remained. Nothing really at stake. Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy, meaning a total loss to the Democrats.
2. The vast majority of Americans don't pay attention to the hearings of a Supreme Court nominee. A poll I read indicated half of Americans can't name a single Supreme Court Justice. Some people do pay attention, and reasonably know how despicable it is to try and destroy a man with accusations he has no way of defending himself against. Even Democrats have a conscience to defend against those who pay attention.
I haven't been paying much attention to the current hearings. I think they should just vote her in.
ReplyDeleteI did watch some of questions/conversation between Jackson and old Southern Senator Kennedy. I was glad to be a Republican.
And so the partisan lenses continue.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure exactly what you mean by partisan lenses. If a Republican president nominated a judge that reduced sentences for pedophiles, I would oppose that judge, just like oppose this one.
If you mean that one party thinks pedophilia isn't so bad while I do, then I guess you're right about partisan lenses. Just like I think getting rid of Roe v Wade is a good thing while Dems think is it a bad thing.
I think they should just vote her in.
ReplyDeleteEven Dems think she did poorly and look ill prepared. Now they are the party that defends peds. Not an envious position to defend during the election season.
Quick Quiz:
ReplyDeleteWhich resident commentator on this blog is this?
This guy needs to learn how to not hold it back, but to just express himself openly and freely. It's not healthy to stifle one's emotions like that. C'mon, man. Tell us what you really think!
ReplyDeleteAha! You gave yourself away.
ReplyDeleteCory Booker?
ReplyDeleteDemonic activity in the Emerald Isle.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure exactly what you mean by partisan lenses.
ReplyDeleteI went back and read the reactions to Kavanaugh's hearing. (As an aside, I had forgotten how livid the conduct of the Democrats had made me, whoo boy.) At any rate, not to name names, but the depiction of both Kavanaugh, Jackson, Republicans, and Democrats in this thread and that one - the connotations of the specifically selected words to convey particular images - is like if the Democratic Party hired a poet to dispense Democratic propaganda.
Very effective communication, conveying images in rich detail. Just overwhelmingly partisan.
As I said in the same thread, these reactions are so predictable based entirely on political leaning. We don't even have to know anything about the nominees and the reactions would be precisely the same, just lacking specific rationalization hooks to hang our attack coats on.
As I also said in that thread, Republicans deserved to lose on Kavanaugh based on what they did to Merrick Garland, and Democrats deserved to lose on Kavanaugh based on what they did to Kavanaugh. Barrett was treated much better than Kavanaugh, despite being accused by Democrats of having an "orange cloud" over her nomination. I would like for Jackson and all future nominees to be treated with respect, and chosen entirely on judicial qualification (which doesn't include skin color and sex unless you are Joe Biden) and integrity. If Jackson fails on those, so be it. If not, she deserves a seat.
This cracked me up more than it should have, but then I've been up since about 4 AM.
ReplyDeleteHa!.
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, cut her some slack. It seems it's a very difficult question.
I would like for Jackson and all future nominees to be treated with respect, and chosen entirely on judicial qualification (which doesn't include skin color and sex unless you are Joe Biden) and integrity.
ReplyDeleteI suppose Dems would say they were questioning Kavanaugh's integrity. Likewise Republicans are questioning Jackson's judical decisions. The problem with Kavanaugh's hearing was, as you pointed out, it was the FBI's job to have investigated his background, not to have a Maoist struggle session televised nationwide.
But there is no such thing as fair anymore. Someone is going to force their will on you by any means necessary.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2022/03/24/marsha-blackburn-asked-ketanji-jackson-define-woman-science/7152439001/
ReplyDeleteCan anyone in this forum, who thinks 'what is a woman' has a simple answer, give a simple answer that is true 100% of the time?
bmiller,
ReplyDeleteIf anyone, again, wonders why I rarely engage with this individual I hope this helps the understanding.
It's pretty clear. I call you out for spreading lies, and you hate that.
She consistently sentenced child porn offenders below recommended guidelines and below what the prosecutors recommended. In every case. No exception.
I wish I was surprised you didn't even read the link from Hawley, who's leading your charge in the Senate. It reads "... every single case for which we can find records, except two.", which is different from "In every case. No exception.", a lie whose origin seems to be you.
Prosecutors routinely recommend the maximum sentence in every case, and judges often don't follow their recommendations.
Demonic activity in the Emerald Isle.
If those are your trusted sources, it's not a wonder you're comfortable spreading falsehoods.
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDelete1. Neil Gorsuch replaced Scalia. The balanced remained. Nothing really at stake. Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy, meaning a total loss to the Democrats.
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. Democrats had a chance to change the balance of the the Garland nomination, but instead were handed Gorsuch in what they consider to be a stolen seat, and they didn't care? Suddenly, Kavanaugh is nominated, and they do? Again, this is incoherent.
Kavanaugh was a binge drinker and sexual predator as a youth. Many privileged young men are; it's not exactly a surprise. I'm not even sure if it should be disqualifying; two-thirds of Congress would be ineligible if that were the case. Both the Democrats and Kavanaugh himself behaved badly during the confirmation hearings. The narrative that Kavanaugh was the victim is laughable.
"Can anyone in this forum, who thinks 'what is a woman' has a simple answer, give a simple answer that is true 100% of the time?"
ReplyDeleteThis is one time when I agree with bmiller. Jackson could have said, "Well, I am" and left it at that. But unfortunately in real life, one rarely thinks up such perfect zingers until it's too late.
"Well, the jerk store called, and they're running out of you!" (George Costanza)
But the bottom line is it was a dishonest question, asked not to arrive at any kind of truth, but solely to entrap the answerer.
But the bottom line is it was a dishonest question, asked not to arrive at any kind of truth, but solely to entrap the answerer.
ReplyDeleteIt was a question to illustrate the "wokeness" of the judge to the voting public. Particularly funny since Biden specifically selected her because she was black and a woman.
One Brow,
ReplyDeleteNot allowing a hearing for Eric Garland is in the category of rough and tumble political dishonesty. Something both sides will do. Indefensible for honest people. Awful sausage making..
I'm not sure what doesn't make sense. Replacing Scalia with a conservative changes nothing for the Democrats. They still had a chance with the swing decisions of Kennedy. Without that swing vote, the Democrats no longer had a chance in the Supreme Court. That made things desperate. The Democrats looked and acted desperate. Cory Booker with his ridiculous Spartacus speech. The last minute accusations of K being a sexual predator. The digging into his high school yearbook to find fart jokes. That is the only way their actions make sense to me. Outside that rationalization, the only other explanation to me is the are nuts (I hope that's not true). If it still doesn't make sense to you I won't pursue this further.
You accused a man of being a sexual predator. That is a very serious accusation against someone. You better have extremely good evidence for this accusation. These are the kind of accusations that ruin people, privileged or not. To say someone damaged by false accusations is laughable because of their status shows a callous disregard for someone as a person. Show me your evidence for the accusation.
I consider a college professor privileged. Should that change the way I treat them?
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty clear.
ReplyDeleteYes it is clear. I don't want to waste time on a nasty little confused nut.
Depends on the professor. I once had a tenured professor at ASU (back in the 1970s) who came to every class drunk as Boris Yeltsin, and couldn't speak 3 coherent sentences in a row while attempting to lecture... but, since he gave me an A, I really can't complain.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDeleted the first due to a ridiculous redundancy I couldn't tolerate.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone in this forum, who thinks 'what is a woman' has a simple answer, give a simple answer that is true 100% of the time?
The problem with your article is it assumes "woman" to be a sociological concept. In the South where I live, and to many/most conservatives, "woman" is synonymous with "adult human female", which is a biological question. So in this case, the one asking and the one answering have different concepts of the term, and they know it. Red meat for their supporters.
Ignoring all other problems with the article, such as "scientists agree" - they also disagree - I find "man" and "woman" to be utterly useless concepts that mean nothing, once they are decoupled from male and female. Everyone has different opinions on what is masculine and feminine, and each of them are influenced by one of the countless cultural backgrounds mixed with parental upbringing. May as well ask Jackson what the bestest food in the world is, because her answer is just as substantive as what the woman gender is.
And I don't think the bestest food in the world should be enforced and punished by government and the corporate world.
You accused a man of being a sexual predator. That is a very serious accusation against someone.
ReplyDeleteThe Kavanaugh issue drove a wedge between me and a good friend who was very far to the left politically. Our disagreement was over Ford's accusation being sufficient evidence in of itself to confidentally accuse Kavanaugh of being a sexual predator. I said no, and he, like apparently most on the left, said yes. Given that I myself have been falsely accused (not of sexual assault) on public record, and given that he knows someone who has been sexually assaulted, no doubt our own experiences fueled our inclinations. I feel "innocent until proven guilty" is the best standard we have until we develop mind-reading technology, but he felt that standard allows too many sexual predators to get away with their crime. So it's better to punish more predators even at the cost of innocent people going to prison.
For me, there was so much wrong with the case that I wasn't willing to label Kavanaugh something so serious. Others have different standards.
Here's a Rorschach test.
ReplyDeleteIf you call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?
"Depends on the professor. I once had a tenured professor at ASU (back in the 1970s) who came to every class drunk as Boris Yeltsin, and couldn't speak 3 coherent sentences in a row while attempting to lecture... but, since he gave me an A, I really can't complain."
ReplyDeleteI had the same (different person, different college) psychology professor. I thought he was nuts and since I was a chemistry major I was going to drop the class. I didn't because the girl next to me was the former head cheerleader from one of the neighboring towns (last name Beach, how cool was that). Long story short, we went on two dates and had no connection. The drunken crazy professor game me an A and and I am thankful I met the future Mrs Perspective about seven months later.
Sounds like there's always been a bunch of crazy drunk professors in the Liberal Arts wings of colleges. Guess I might be tempted to heavy drinking if I had to swallow all that other nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThere is something about this whole "privileged" bullshit that irritates me. In my business I have two portfolios. I sell custodial supplies and packaging. With the custodial supplies it's paper towels, toilet paper, and cleaning chemicals and I mostly deal with janitors. In the packaging I usually meet with production managers but often with the owners of the company who want to ensure their multi-million dollar investment in the product they produce is going to arrive intact to their clients.
ReplyDeleteI do my best to treat all of them the same. I would no more accuse a janitor than a millionaire owner of a company, or a college professor for that matter, of being a sexual predator without evidence.
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteYou accused a man of being a sexual predator. That is a very serious accusation against someone.
Well, aren't you in high dungeon.
Show me your evidence for the accusation.
Ford's testimony and the surrounding investigation is more than sufficient.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteThe problem with your article is it assumes "woman" to be a sociological concept. In the South where I live, and to many/most conservatives, "woman" is synonymous with "adult human female", which is a biological question.
So, give the simple, 100% accurate answer to who is a female, and you're done. The answer needs to account for genes, physiology, endocrinology, anatomy, and brain structures. Take your time.
Everyone has different opinions on what is masculine and feminine, and each of them are influenced by one of the countless cultural backgrounds mixed with parental upbringing.
I agree completely.
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteThere is something about this whole "privileged" bullshit that irritates me. ... I would no more accuse a janitor than a millionaire owner of a company, or a college professor for that matter, of being a sexual predator without evidence.
Wealth (and other privileges) offers a degree of immunity or harm reduction from engaging in activities that harm others. Many people that perceive such immunity/reduction will take advantage of it. It's what humans are. I accept your irritation at human nature.
One Brow,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, I'm trying to climb down(?) from my dungeon. What was the evidence in the Ford testimony and the investigation?
In other words, there is never the perfect consequence for an action, harm or good. Thanks for that wonderful insight.
ReplyDeleteLimited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteYou've already described that you followed the Kavanaugh case, and I doubt I have more to add. As Kevin noted, some people find Ford's testimony convincing, some don't, and if you don't, I judge you any more than I judge Kevin for that. However, that's very different from referring to Ford as being "recruited", a term that I would use if I were saying the allegations were invented.
As for Kavanaugh's reputation, the whole thing could have blown over he had said that, while he didn't remember this (pretty believable for an admitted binge drinker at that time), he sympathized with Ford's suffering, that he strongly regretted any suffering he might have caused, and that he has done better since getting out of college and would continue to do better. Instead, he put on a show of pretending to be the victim, and he wound up looking just as bad as the Democratic Senators. Any long-term damage to his reputation as as much self-inflicted as other-inflicted.
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteIn other words, there is never the perfect consequence for an action, harm or good.
Did this have any relevance to something someone said earlier? Were you trying to confuse a statement about differential treatment with a statement about perfection?
Here's my view of being a privileged white male.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CsYQFMOvOw
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Kavanaugh issue drove a wedge between me and a good friend who was very far to the left politically.
ReplyDeleteWas the friend a man or a woman?
Well, now that depends on your definition, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if all Dems will vote for pedophilia?
ReplyDeleteWell, now that depends on your definition, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteI did that on purpose. Pretty nutzo world isn't it?
Still would like to know the answer.
"I wonder if all Dems will vote for pedophilia?"
ReplyDeleteNone of them will, since it is not a (genuine) issue in this nomination.
A vote for Jackson is a vote for pedophilia.
ReplyDeleteIf you really don't think there's anything wrong with pedophilia and pedophiles shouldn't be punished, then just say so. It's cowardly not to own up to it.
ReplyDeleteOnly in the fevered imaginations of the right wing Q-anon drugged over-the-edge conspiracy theorists. There is no hope for such, since they have, as Dante said, "lost the good of the intellect"
ReplyDeleteTo all sane people, such talk is... well, insane.
Responding to your comment of 1:03 PM, not the next one.
ReplyDeleteLet your true color show Star
ReplyDeleteI hope it's cerulean blue. That's my favorite color.
ReplyDeleteIs that the color on the top?
ReplyDelete"As Kevin noted, some people find Ford's testimony convincing"
ReplyDeleteFord could not provide a time, a place, a description of the location, who was there who wasn't. Her two witnesses denied knowledge. Do you understand the insane world you are asking for? Someone can accuse and ruin One Brow's career without providing any details and anyway to defend himself. Is that the country you want to live in? You have no idea of the world you are asking for.
No, but it (by chance) is the color at the top of the flag of Ukraine.
ReplyDelete"As for Kavanaugh's reputation, the whole thing could have blown over he had said..."
ReplyDeleteIf he had just went along with the lie, everything would have been okay. If he would have just agreed to the show trial, the fraud, the false accusations, the reprehensible Democratic Senators, everything would have been okay.
I'm glad there are people who will stand up against fraud, lunacy, and liars. I'm glad Kavanaugh stood up to the repugnant inquisitors.
If he had just went along with the lie, everything would have been okay.
ReplyDeleteThat's the point in 1984. It's a sign of submission to acknowledge a lie as the truth.
Wokeness has the smell of sulphur.
No, but it (by chance) is the color at the top of the flag of Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteAh. The country that supplied Hunter with his underaged girls.
bmiller: A vote for Jackson is a vote for pedophilia.
ReplyDeleteA vote for any politician is a vote for pedophilia. They are all involved in it.
How 'bout them gas prices?
ReplyDeleteDrive less. I go by the WWII slogan, "Is this trip necessary?
ReplyDelete"How 'bout them gas prices?"
ReplyDeleteThat's funny. Reminds me of how conversations go in my house when the kids and their spouses are here...
"Pass the potatoes."... I'm wondering about transubstantiation...I was thinking about the definition of 'death'..pass the peas...I don't understand the problem with open borders..."
To add my share of levity,
ReplyDeleteWhen I was young there was Johnny Cash, Steve Jobs, and Bob Hope. Now that I'm older there's no cash, on jobs, and no hope.
OK. That's funny.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBet nobody knew that March is Women's History Month. Now tell me what that means! 🤡
ReplyDeleteYeah. And, July is White History Month.
ReplyDeleteEvery month is white history month.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the definition of "white"?
ReplyDelete"Every month is white history month."
ReplyDeleteDepends on the topic. If it's literature, religion, music, warfare, slavery, philosophy and ideas, governance, etc it's everybody's history. If it's the development, design and progress of a powered flying vehicle with fixed wings and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces, it's pretty much all white male history (is that a bad thing?).
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteFord could not provide a time, a place, a description of the location, who was there who wasn't.
There are many significant events in my life that happened over two decades ago, of which I'd have trouble giving a specific address or naming the entire roster of people present.
However, I'm not going to debate on the believability of Ford's testimony. I've heard all this before, so have you, and I doubt either of us has anything new to say on it. As I meant to say above, I don't judge you for your disbelief; further, I don't care enough about your belief in Ford's testimony to bother.
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteBy the way, how was Kavanaugh's career ruined?
I'm not worried at all about accusations of misconduct against me. It sounds like you pretty worried about it, though. Got some skeletons?
What I find interesting is that Jackson's defenders prefer to attempt to gaslight people who point out that she doesn't think pedophilia isn't so bad rather than condemning pedophilia.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why that is so?
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteIf it's the development, design and progress of a powered flying vehicle with fixed wings and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces, it's pretty much all white male history (is that a bad thing?)
It's a false thing, taught to you by a power structure trying to portray white people as superior.
bmiller,
ReplyDeleteWhat I find interesting ...
What I find ordinary and expected is that you're spreading lies about what Jackson has said, and seem to have no shame in so doing.
"rather than condemning pedophilia"
ReplyDeleteI would think that'd be a given, and require no statement of condemnation. Would you expect every sentence a person utters to be prefaced by a condemnation of murder?
I thought not.
This entire made up controversy isn't just a tempest in a teapot. It's a wannabe tempest in the Atacama Desert. There's no "there" there.
And by the way... "What is the definition of "white"?"
I'm white. I'm the platonic ideal of whiteness. Look up "white person" in the dictionary, and you'll see my picture. 100% European stock, Catholic, male, straight, cis, no detectable accent, middle class, baseball fanatic, likes Simon and Garfunkel, Elvis Presley, and Jefferson Airplane, reads Tolkien and Prince Valiant, and thinks black pepper is a spice.
Starhopper,
ReplyDeleteIf I supported someone who thinks murder is OK, then yes, I owe people who question that support an answer. And then you start gaslighting again by ignoring her record.
Whiteness is all in your head. Confusion too, which explains your support of the Walking Woke.
ReplyDeleteI would think that'd be a given, and require no statement of condemnation. Would you expect every sentence a person utters to be prefaced by a condemnation of murder?
ReplyDeleteMy bad. Forgot you routinely support abortionists also.
I have a theory.
ReplyDeleteIs Biden in Poland to start WWIII?
ReplyDeleteWhy did he tell paratroopers they would soon be in the Ukraine? It's hard to believe he could make a cognitive slip like that even as much as I think he's not all there.
President Biden on Saturday said that Russian President Vladimir Putin "cannot remain in power," as he declared the Russian invasion of Ukraine a "strategic failure" while pledging continued support for the embattled Ukrainian people.
ReplyDelete"For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power," Biden said during a speech in front of the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland.
He's just aching to get us into a war with Russia. What the heck?
"you routinely support abortionists"
ReplyDeleteWell, now you've made me have to join with One Brow in labeling you a bald faced LIAR. I have never once come even close to supporting abortionists. Never. And you have to know this, yet you still come out with such a total falsehood.
Starhopper,
ReplyDeleteYou've tole me that you routinely vote for politicians that enable abortions.
That is called remote material cooperation with evil.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a lie. It is a fact.
ReplyDeleteYou accused me of supporting abortionists. I challenge you to find even one time, a single sentence, even one word, where I have ever done so. Hasn't happened; you'll never find one. Now apologize for the lying slander.
ReplyDeleteAll we need to know about the Jackson confirmation hearings.
ReplyDeleteDid you not read what I wrote?
ReplyDeleteTry to deal with that rather than calling me names. Every time you voted for a politician that supported abortion, you chose to empower the abortionists who directly perform them. Remote material cooperation with evil.
This should not be a surprise to you since we've had this discussion before.
I at least suspect that you want some penalities for pedophiles (beginning to look like I'm wrong) but AFAIK you want no penalities for abortionists.
ReplyDelete"Did you not read what I wrote? ... Every time you voted for a politician that supported abortion, you chose to empower the abortionists who directly perform them."
ReplyDeleteTotal BS. I have NEVER ONCE voted for a candidate because they were "pro-abortion" - not ever. I vote for candidates who agree with me on a majority of issues. If they happen to hold opinions on abortion contrary to my own, that might be unfortunate, but has nothing to do with why I vote for them. I've yet to find any candidate from either party with whom I am in total agreement. If I followed your advice to its logical conclusion, I would never cast a vote for anyone.
Single issue voting is one of the greatest threats to our democracy today.
bmiller,
ReplyDeleteWhy did he tell paratroopers they would soon be in the Ukraine?
He was telling what they would see on the Polish border. Why do you oppse giving aid refugees? Why do you want those women and children to die?
bmiller,
ReplyDeleteThat is called remote material cooperation with evil.
Says the guy supporting troops killing children.
bmiller supports the war criminal Putin because his own Dear Leader does. If Putin falls, the Russian government archives might just open up and the full scale of that country's intervention in the 2016 presidential election would be revealed. bmiller is also anti-Ukraine because President Zelensky refused to go along with Trump's demand that he manufacture dirt on Biden.
ReplyDeleteTotal BS. I have NEVER ONCE voted for a candidate because they were "pro-abortion" - not ever.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to ask you stop mischaracterizing what I said. I didn't say you voted for a candidate because he was pro-abortion. That would be formal cooperation with evil. The fact that you voted for pro-abortion candidates when you could have voted for pro-life candidates mean you made a decision to remotely cooperate with evil. Your immoral opinion regarding "single issue voting" does not bring those murdered children back to life and it certainly doesn't lessen your guilt.
Sorry Star.
ReplyDeleteThe Dear Leader today is the guy you voted for. The guy wanting to start WWIII right at the moment when Russia claims they're pretty much done.
I really do hope though that Russia releases all the info on those Biolabs that Hunter and Joe were making money on in the Ukraine. Crooks need to be punished regardless of their connections.
Remote Cooperation With Evil for beginners.
ReplyDeleteIf they happen to hold opinions on abortion contrary to my own, that might be unfortunate, but has nothing to do with why I vote for them.
ReplyDeleteIn this, bmiller is correct. Your vote enables their abortion policies. What the guy you vote for does in office is in part thanks to you. My guilt at voting for Bush is testimony to that.
The obvious retort is to point to an evil Republican policy that is unfortunate but not why bmiller voted for them. That's not difficult to find - both parties have multiple options to choose from.
Single issue voting is one of the greatest threats to our democracy today.
Single issue voting is how many people manage to hold their nose long enough to vote. I'm not a literal single issue voter, but there are a very small smattering of issues I find important enough to heavily prioritize when looking at candidates. That they are spread between the parties is not helpful.
There are certainly things about any candidate that don't like or prefer they would hold a different position on. But that is different from a canididate that advocates the intentional killing of innocent humans as a consistent policy position. Those people don't deserve anyone's vote.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, consistently arguing against punishing abortionists legally is more than just the remote material cooperation with evil by voting for pro-abortion candidates. It is advocating an incitement for people to perform abortions as well as to seek them out since such legislation induces many people to identify the "legal" with the "ethically legitimate."
ReplyDeleteOne Brow,
ReplyDeleteAviation history has been one of my favorite topics. I've read everything from the original documents of the Wright brothers design and data from their wind tunnel invention, to the design of wing lift and control surfaces. The way they upgraded their engine design and the design of the push and vacuum elements of their propeller. From wing warping to ailerons, I can take you through engine design, fabric and doping, aluminum technology, the development of the radial engine, the development of the jet engine, carbon fiber, whatever aspect of aviation you want to discuss. It's not a power structure thing. That's just idiotic. It's about engineers, risk and failure, technology, industry and finance. Please don't make a fool of yourself. You seem like a nice guy.
I defend the rights of the accused. Therefore I have skeletons in my closet? I can't imagine a more asinine and reprehensible response to a fundamental right. But maybe that's the way assholes argue nowadays.
On the other hand, I have been to most important aircraft museums around the country, and in several other countries. I would have liked the chance to walk around one of those museums with you and share my passion for aircraft technology.
I have been to many, not most, of the important aircraft museums in the United States. Sorry One Brow exaggeration.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI deleted a long comment on aviation. It was not helpful. Wish I could remove some the comments I've made to Mrs Perspective and the kids when I felt strongly about a topic.
ReplyDeleteLimited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteAviation history has been one of my favorite topics. ... It's not a power structure thing.
Engineering advances happen because men who have the training, funds, and opportunity to experiment can do so. If you don't think the power structure is involved in gaining opportunities for education, funds, and time, you really don't understand how the world works.
However, my point was that you felt confident in proclaiming a near-universally white history of contribution to aviation engineering, even though there have been significant contributions from black people. I believe you were trying to be honest in that statement, but the reason you could be both honest and so mistaken is because it's been white people writing about aviation history, presenting almost exclusively the contributions of white people.
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of skeletons, I was merely curious because you seem to think that all men are vulnerable to having their careers destroyed, despite the ample evidence that very few men suffer long-term from accusations, and even more rarely from false allegations. Why would you think I possessed any fear of false allegations? It's less likely than being shot accidentally.
In 1987, my own career was nearly demolished by a series of false accusations (concerning the leaking of classified information to the press). But I weathered the storm, and eventually retired at the highest possible civil service grade, in charge of a project costing hundreds of millions of dollars. So not all false accusations are fatal, but it certainly is hell going through them.
ReplyDeleteLimited.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that there are evil people in the world? If so, how would you recognize them?
One Brow,
ReplyDeleteMrs Perspective and I were on vacation in Seattle the week of March 6, doing mostly the tourist stuff. The Mrs indulged me for a day at the Boeing aircraft museum. At the museum, there was an exhibit with a museum label/caption. I tried to find it online but couldn't, so I'm going from memory. The label read, if you have any information about minorities, marginalized groups, LBGQ contributions to aerospace please contact the staff. We are looking for personal stories, artifacts, photos (paraphrase from memory of a thousand things I read and observed that day). Your characterization of whites writing history is the exact opposite. They are eagerly looking for nonwhite narratives.
I run down historical rabbit holes all the time. For example, having rebuilt my girlfriend's (now Mrs Perspective) 1965 Mustang four barrel carburetor on the 289 engine, I wondered how they solved the problem of floats on a carburetor in aircraft since the aircraft is often not level to the plane of gravity (short answer, fuel injection). I can lead you through the thinking and engineering. I'm sorry, if I note the gender and ethnicity of the people working on that one, very minor, problem. In the history of aviation it was minor. I don't look down on anyone else, and certainly know I would not have been able to solve the problem, but I can't deny the history.
I don't think you have to worry about false accusations. Neither do I. I was trying to personalize what you would do if falsely accused. I remember every girl I dated and I know how I treat women.
What bothers me is I have invested thousands of hours in my career. As I'm sure you have. I've stayed up all night to study and then went to work at UPS at 4:30 am to sort packages. I have invested in developing trust with my wife, my kids, my friends, my church, and my clients. Can all of that be thrown away by one person who I've never met, who makes up an event that never happened, and leaves no details that will allow me to clear my name? From that moment on, people like One Brow will refer to me as a sexual predator?
It's an irrational and damaging perspective you are defending. I'm am strongly opposed to that defense.
"Do you believe that there are evil people in the world? If so, how would you recognize them?"
ReplyDeleteYes I believe some people can be evil. I've seen a lot of horrible things in my life. I'm going to try to make it vague because this is not the place to talk about it. My wife, my close friends, my priest is the proper context to talk about those things.
There is real malicious mental illness. I honestly don't know what is brain chemistry and what is evil. But, yes I've seen real evil in the world.
I don't know how to recognize it before it is acted out. Wish I could.
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteI was trying to personalize what you would do if falsely accused.
No one really knows unless they experience it.
Can all of that be thrown away by one person who I've never met, who makes up an event that never happened, and leaves no details that will allow me to clear my name? From that moment on, people like One Brow will refer to me as a sexual predator?
How much does it impact Kavanaugh's life when I say he seems to have once sexually assaulted someone (and I certainly don't think Kavanaugh has been a predator in the past couple of decades)?
I don't know how to recognize it before it is acted out. Wish I could.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it takes all that long to see it acted out. Maybe not something dramatic but you can start to see signs of it early on in encounters.