Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died

[Mikey 16,578]

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You don't remember all the attacks against Obama supporters when he won? Should all Republicans be blamed for that?

There were rioting, looting, burning and murders after Obama won? No, I don't remember that.

[homersapien 11,367]

10 hours ago, alexava said:

Exactly why I am not a democrat anymore. I’m not down with destroying the country to win. They have shown that they are. 

C'mon alexava, that's mindlessly Manichean.

One can make the argument that Democrats (with big D) represent the majority of the country, or at least the majority of the electorate.

You're better than that.

[Leftfield 2,595]

7 minutes ago, Mikey said:

There were rioting, looting, burning and murders after Obama won? No, I don't remember that.

That wasn't my question. I asked if he remembered the violence against Obama supporters after he was elected. I already said I didn't defend rioting and looting. My point was not all Democrats are responsible for it and that Republicans are perfectly capable of violence.

Part of the issue here, although I'm sure you'll dismiss it, is the focus of those who are committing violence. The majority of Democrats you mention are minorities that are lashing out at what they see as an unfair institution, which is the entire world around them. The Republicans I mentioned saw minorities as a threat, so that is what they attacked. Despite people's differences, by-and-large we act in very similar manners when in similar situations, so I can guarantee that if the roles were reversed, the reactions would be, as well.

[Mikey 16,578]

10 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Don't pay attention to The Blaze.  Not a reliable source for information at all.  Seriously, Fox is better than them.

I thought we weren't supposed to attack sources in this forum. Or was that just liberal sources that can't be attacked? Or does that rule only apply to me?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

37 minutes ago, alexava said:

The threats are not from “ legitimate “ sources. They are from Mostly nameless sources who are going to riot and burn s*** down. Those people are not legitimate. However the threats will be downplayed by legitimate people. Those people happen to be democrats. Where have you been the past 6 months? All these buildings didn’t set themselves on fire. Nobody is taking credit for it. Just blame “outside agitators “. 

You act like this is some widespread problem.  It's not.  Get in your car and drive to major city after major city.  You'll find quickly that America is not on fire.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

8 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I thought we weren't supposed to attack sources in this forum. Or was that just liberal sources that can't be attacked? Or does that rule only apply to me?

I also provided reason not to take that source seriously.  I'd say the same if it was HuffPo too.  Pay attention.

[homersapien 11,367]

21 minutes ago, Mikey said:

It's been said that every president who was faced with this opportunity tried to use it. Some failed, some succeeded, but every one who had a vacancy in an election year, or who was a lame duck when the vacancy happened, tried to put an appointment through. Why would this time be any different?

I'm fine with that. It shouldn't be handled any differently than the Garland nomination.  The
Republicans - starting with McConnell made a compelling case for their reasoning. It's in the record.  Just listen to their statements and perhaps you'll understand the controversy better.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

22 minutes ago, Mikey said:

It's been said that every president who was faced with this opportunity tried to use it. Some failed, some succeeded, but every one who had a vacancy in an election year, or who was a lame duck when the vacancy happened, tried to put an appointment through. Why would this time be any different?

You'll notice that I don't put the onus on Trump here.  This is all about McConnell and the Senate.  He and the Republican led Senate argued until they were blue in the face four years ago that we shouldn't seat someone on the Supreme Court in an election year.  This whole narrative that he's spinning now about it being different because it's the same party in the White House and the Senate is some BS that he said well after Trump was elected, not during the heat of the moment.

He made up new rules to play by in 2016.  Not asking for anything more than consistency.  And if he tries to change the game again, Dems should be ready to go nuclear once they take back the Senate and WH, whenever that may be.

[homersapien 11,367]

15 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I thought we weren't supposed to attack sources in this forum. Or was that just liberal sources that can't be attacked? Or does that rule only apply to me?

Glenn Beck started The Blaze for crissakes.

[Mikey 16,578]

5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I also provided reason not to take that source seriously.  I'd say the same if it was HuffPo too.  Pay attention.

I paid attention when I provided a reason to doubt a source and was told not to do it again in this forum, go to the smacktalk forum.

[Mikey 16,578]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Glenn Beck started The Blaze for crissakes.

As if that matters? Check out the ownership of the source i questioned.

[homersapien 11,367]

Just now, Mikey said:

As if that matters? Check out the ownership of the source i questioned.

Of course it matters.  It indicates the site's heritage.

[Mikey 16,578]

8 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

You'll notice that I don't put the onus on Trump here.  This is all about McConnell and the Senate.  He and the Republican led Senate argued until they were blue in the face four years ago that we shouldn't seat someone on the Supreme Court in an election year.  This whole narrative that he's spinning now about it being different because it's the same party in the White House and the Senate is some BS that he said well after Trump was elected, not during the heat of the moment.

He made up new rules to play by in 2016.  Not asking for anything more than consistency.  And if he tries to change the game again, Dems should be ready to go nuclear once they take back the Senate and WH, whenever that may be.

Both parties want an appointment made while their guy is in. Both parties gripe about an appointment when their guy isn't in. It's called politics and that consistency you'd like to see isn't forthcoming, now or into the distant future.

Remember, it was Harry Reid and the Dems who undid 220 years of consistency and invoked the nuclear option. It's come back to bite them more than once and hopefully it's going to happen again very soon.

[Mikey 16,578]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Of course it matters.  It indicates the site's heritage.

Agreed that that history and ownership indicate a site's leanings. The people with the purse strings call the shots. That applies universally across virtually all sources.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

This has become a political hammer. Both sides have used it, and it doesn't appear to be going away any time soon. 

[alexava 6,973]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

C'mon alexava, that's mindlessly Manichean.  You're better than that.

It can be reasonably argued that Democrats (with a big "D" ) represent a majority of the country - or at least a majority of the electorate.

Homer, you know I’ve been a democrat for years. The only change I have had in philosophy is gun control. I’m 100% 2a supporter now. Every thing else is basically the same. The whole police killing black people has been a complete farce. If you really examine the numbers with an objective mind you will see it’s a lie. BLM is a lie. Confessed marxists with stated agendas  creating divisions that shouldn’t exist. Selective journalism to appeal to emotions without context or logic. Opposition arguments or simply facts get shutdown to Keep the angry, violent mob appeased. Hardly a word from democrats until the polls start showing Negative  results. Hell they don’t care what damages they have to endure as long as they have power. 
       I’m still a democrat in what I want in government, in my country. I can’t support using any means necessary to get there. The party as a whole has endorsed these tactics. If not directly, with silence and minimizing the violence and destruction. I can see how you consider that mindlessly Manichean. But I respectfully disagree. 

[alexava 6,973]

It’s all about the numbers. Plain and simple. The senate (gop)had the majority to pause the Garland approval. They could so they did. They had mindless justifications which are looking very hypocritical now. Now those justifications don’t matter because again they have the numbers they need to do it. Correct me if I’m overlooking something. It just seems really simple to me. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

11 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Both parties want an appointment made while their guy is in. Both parties gripe about an appointment when their guy isn't in. It's called politics and that consistency you'd like to see isn't forthcoming, now or into the distant future.

Remember, it was Harry Reid and the Dems who undid 220 years of consistency and invoked the nuclear option. It's come back to bite them more than once and hopefully it's going to happen again very soon.

OK.  I want you to remember what you said when Dems decide to add Puerto Rico and D.C. as states plus expand the Supreme Court.  It's all just a part of "politics", right?

[homersapien 11,367]

48 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

OK.  I want you to remember what you said when Dems decide to add Puerto Rico and D.C. as states plus expand the Supreme Court.  It's all just a part of "politics", right?

Heck we can get at least 1-2 more states out of California.

[homersapien 11,367]

54 minutes ago, alexava said:

Homer, you know I’ve been a democrat for years. The only change I have had in philosophy is gun control. I’m 100% 2a supporter now. Every thing else is basically the same. The whole police killing black people has been a complete farce. If you really examine the numbers with an objective mind you will see it’s a lie. BLM is a lie. Confessed marxists with stated agendas  creating divisions that shouldn’t exist. Selective journalism to appeal to emotions without context or logic. Opposition arguments or simply facts get shutdown to Keep the angry, violent mob appeased. Hardly a word from democrats until the polls start showing Negative  results. Hell they don’t care what damages they have to endure as long as they have power. 
       I’m still a democrat in what I want in government, in my country. I can’t support using any means necessary to get there. The party as a whole has endorsed these tactics. If not directly, with silence and minimizing the violence and destruction. I can see how you consider that mindlessly Manichean. But I respectfully disagree. 

I am assuming you meant Democrats when you wrote democrats in your subject post.  Implying Democrats are responsible for the violence is clearly Manichean.  Likewise your generalization about BLM as a movement is Manichean.

And please, don't tell me only Democrats are playing the "any means necessary" to get their political objectives accomplished after what the Republicans have done over the last 6 years (and continue to do.)

Finally, describing the issue of police killing black people unnecessarily as a "farce", clearly falls on the racist side of reality and demonstrates a lack of common sense empathy. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Heck we can get at least 1-2 more states out of California.

Not really.  Any territory within a current state's borders must get the agreement of that state in order to become it's own thing.  Its why D.C. and Puerto Rico are always brought up.  Being independent territories not tied to states, they can be admitted without issue.

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

You act like this is some widespread problem.  It's not.  Get in your car and drive to major city after major city.  You'll find quickly that America is not on fire.

35 people at least have been killed. Billions of dollars in damages. Hundreds injuries to police and civilians. Mostly over a guy (life long criminal) who had a lethal amount of fetynol in his system. And 3-4 JUSTIFIED shootings and one f——-g suicide. Yes I’m glad you point out that the entire country is not on fire. That’s very true and I’m glad it’s so. My point is that democrats were not interested in slowing it down until it caused a swing in the polls. 

[homersapien 11,367]

14 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Not really.  Any territory within a current state's borders must get the agreement of that state in order to become it's own thing.  Its why D.C. and Puerto Rico are always brought up.  Being independent territories not tied to states, they can be admitted without issue.

I was being somewhat tongue in cheek.  (Note the "")

I appreciate the fact California would have to agree to splitting which is problematic.  But the geography would conceivably make that possible.  Perhaps a better example - from a political standpoint - would be Florida diving into  northern and southern states.

(Of course, when the pendulum swung back, we'd have to worry about the Rethugs splitting Texas splitting into 3 or 4 states -only one of which would contain Austin).  

[alexava 6,973]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am assuming you meant Democrats when you wrote democrats in your subject post.  Implying Democrats are responsible for the violence is clearly Manichean.  Likewise your generalization about BLM as a movement is Manichean.

And please, don't tell me only Democrats are playing the "any means necessary" to get their political objectives accomplished after what the Republicans have done over the last 6 years (and continue to do.)

Finally, describing the issue of police killing black people unnecessarily as a "farce", clearly falls on the racist side of reality and demonstrates a lack of common sense empathy. 

 

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am assuming you meant Democrats when you wrote democrats in your subject post.  Implying Democrats are responsible for the violence is clearly Manichean.  Likewise your generalization about BLM as a movement is Manichean.

And please, don't tell me only Democrats are playing the "any means necessary" to get their political objectives accomplished after what the Republicans have done over the last 6 years (and continue to do.)

Finally, describing the issue of police killing black people unnecessarily as a "farce", clearly falls on the racist side of reality and demonstrates a lack of common sense empathy. 

No one has more empathy for deaths of human beings than I do. The difference I see them in the proper perspective. We have 330 million plus population. We extract less than a handful every year and misrepresent facts around them to intentionally stir up emotions for a political agenda. This is fact. 

[homersapien 11,367]

18 minutes ago, alexava said:

35 people at least have been killed. Billions of dollars in damages. Hundreds injuries to police and civilians. Mostly over a guy (life long criminal) who had a lethal amount of fetynol in his system. And 3-4 JUSTIFIED shootings and one f——-g suicide. Yes I’m glad you point out that the entire country is not on fire. That’s very true and I’m glad it’s so. My point is that democrats were not interested in slowing it down until it caused a swing in the polls. 

Absurd

Man, you really have fallen off into the deep end.