While Congress is Away, the Mouse Brain will play

Locked
Ted

While Congress is Away, the Mouse Brain will play

Post by Ted » Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:22 pm

The thread title is in reference to Bush’s Recess Appointment of Bolton.
Yes, Recess Appointments are nothing new
Of course, this is the first UN appointment done in this fashion…Typical of Bush to set this kind of precedent…
..Speaking of precedents
George Washington appointed John Rutledge of South Carolina as chief justice during a 1795 recess. The Senate rejected the nomination and his appointment expired after he served one term.
Hopefully Democrats will retaliate with extreme prejudice and use the filibuster to impede the Roberts conformation process—which will no doubt lead to the nuclear option, but let the games begin!

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: While Congress is Away, the Mouse Brain will play

Post by Corlyss_D » Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:10 pm

Ted wrote:The thread title is in reference to Bush’s Recess Appointment of Bolton.
Yes, Recess Appointments are nothing new
Of course, this is the first UN appointment done in this fashion…Typical of Bush to set this kind of precedent…
..Speaking of precedents
George Washington appointed John Rutledge of South Carolina as chief justice during a 1795 recess. The Senate rejected the nomination and his appointment expired after he served one term.
Welll, if the Dems hadn't been so stupid, it wouldn't have had to be this way.

And if others have done it, why is it "typical" of Bush to do it?
Hopefully Democrats will retaliate with extreme prejudice and use the filibuster to impede the Roberts conformation process—which will no doubt lead to the nuclear option, but let the games begin!
They were cranking up to a filibuster anyway, to earn money for their pacs, to cause trouble for Bush, to compromise Roberts, why, there were no ends of benefits for them. Talk about mouse-brains!

And come Dec. 2006, the majority Republicans will confirm him over the continued moronic whining of the smaller Democratic forces under the leadership of someone else besides Harry Reid.
Last edited by Corlyss_D on Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Ted

Post by Ted » Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:21 pm

And if others have done it, why is it "typical" of Bush to do it?
No one has ever appointed a UN Ambassador in “Recess”
Anything that no other President has done is “So Typical” of Bush
But “I Kid the President”

Haydnseek
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 7:59 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Post by Haydnseek » Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:23 pm

A Voting Issue
Filibustering judges has only hurt Democrats.

BY MANUEL MIRANDA
Monday, August 1, 2005 12:01 a.m.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/nextjustice/?id=110007041

Just one week before the 2002 midterms, the president invited leaders in the fight for his judicial nominees to the White House to a lunch reception. A Clinton administration adviser who'd gotten wind of the event and thought it a waste of time had been overheard saying, "What does that rate as an issue with American voters--somewhere below campaign-finance reform?"

The answer, in fact, is that the issue of the judicial nominees mattered--and matters--a lot; you might even say it explains the current Republican margin in the Senate. Allow me to explain why.

Back in 2002, the conventional Beltway wisdom was that the American public simply did not take notice of a president's judicial nominees (except, of course, to the Supreme Court). As a result, Senate Democrats calculated that they could stall several nominees endlessly without having to pay a political price.

Republicans, however, saw it differently. After Democrats used scurrilous allegations to block federal District Judge Charles Pickering of Mississippi from the appellate bench in March 2002, Republicans noticed something new in their polls tracking the Democrats' "negatives": obstruction of judges.

By November of that year, Democrats had blocked Judge Pickering for being insensitive to civil rights; Texas Justice Priscilla Owen for being unfriendly to abortion rights; Judge Dennis Shedd of South Carolina for being unfriendly to trial lawyers; and Miguel Estrada for being, well, Hispanic--as would later become evident from Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin's memos.

In the meantime, the president was doing more to put the spotlight on Democratic obstructionism. In May 2002, he spoke to his supporters on judicial confirmations in an auditorium in the Eisenhower Building, next door to the executive mansion. A few months later it was in the East Room. (By April 2003, it would be getting Rose Garden-level attention.) When the president hit the stump, it was the issue of "blocked judicial nominees" that received the most sustained applause.

That November, something new happened. In three states, Missouri, Minnesota, and Georgia, single-issue, pro-life voters came out to vote in unusually large numbers in a mid-term election. Their margin was, in fact, larger than the Republican margin of victory in all three states.

In an election framed around national security and lower taxes, only one issue moved these marginal voters to the polls: judges.

Meanwhile in Texas, John Cornyn's run against Ron Kirk, the popular mayor of Dallas, was on the ropes, his funds depleted. But in mid-September, Senate Democrats voted to block Justice Owen, whom Texans had elected to their high court with 83% of the vote. Mr. Kirk defended Senate Democrats--and Mr. Cornyn's fund-raising boomed. Mr. Cornyn went on to win the race easily.

In Colorado, Republican incumbent Wayne Allard decided he would spend resources reaching out to Hispanics. When Democrats refused to move Mr. Estrada, Mr. Allard used it as an issue against Democrats, increasing his Hispanic vote by over 20%. Mr. Allard won in a squeaker.

Then came 2003 and 2004, and another 10 judicial filibusters. Last November, Republican Senate candidates swept the South, ousted Tom Daschle, and won by bringing out "moral-issues" voters, all concerned by the matter of judges.

Of course, no Democrat would make the mistake of thinking that a Supreme Court nomination is an issue that will fly below the radar screen. But the history of the past few years ought to give Senate Democrats pause to think before picking an ideological fight over John Roberts' nomination.

Mr. Miranda, former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, is founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of grassroots organizations following judicial issues. His column appears on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
"The law isn't justice. It's a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer. A mechanism is all the law was ever intended to be." - Raymond Chandler

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:27 pm

Corlyss,

Do you know why the Senate rejected Rutledge? He was, as we say in academia, nuts.

The President's power to make recess appointments is clear but this was the wrong one. And for a President with little regard for the U.N., justified or not, to say the post was too important to leave vacant is ludicrous.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Ted

Post by Ted » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:16 pm

And for a President with little regard for the U.N., justified or not, to say the post was too important to leave vacant is ludicrous.
Nicely said Ralph.
That’s what irks me so about Bush, his arrogance is palpable.

Ted

Post by Ted » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:39 pm

Reaction to Bolton's U.N. Appointment

By The Associated Press2 hours, 5 minutes ago

Reaction to President Bush's recess appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations:

___

"At a time when we need to reassert our diplomatic power in the world, President Bush has decided to send a seriously flawed and weakened candidate to the United Nations. It's an unnecessary result, and the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House. ... Bolton arrives at the United Nations with a cloud hanging over his head." — Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

___

"The president did the right thing by sending Mr. Bolton to the U.N. He is a smart, principled and straightforward candidate, and will represent the president and America well on the world stage." — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

___

"We look forward to working with him as I do with the other 190 ambassadors and we will welcome him at a time when we are in the midst of major reform. I think it is the president's prerogative, and the president has decided to appoint him through this process." — U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan

___

"Let's not prejudge his behavior. Let's wait for how he comes and what he says here. ... The tendency here at the United Nations is for us to work together. So I hope that this general tendency will prevail." — Brazil's U.N. Ambassador Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg

___

"The president has taken an action that is fully within his authority, is in concert with a clear majority of the Senate, and is in the interest of achieving constructive reform of the United Nations." — Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar, R-Ind.

___

"The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues. ... It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N." — Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.

___

"I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton's baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations. That said, the president has made this decision, and I will do everything in my power to support Mr. Bolton as he takes this new position." — Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio

___

"John Bolton has placed his faith in a unilateral, go-it-alone foreign policy that has stretched our military thin, and I believe his inability to be an effective and constructive ambassador could produce dire consequences for American foreign policy." _Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

___

"I accept and understand why the president had to do this. I think it's unfortunate that he had to use this option because John Bolton was denied the fairness of an up-or-down vote. I think John Bolton is well qualified. He is principled. And he will advocate for the U.S. taxpayers." — Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record), R-Va.

___

"Making this recess appointment is certainly the president's right, but it is not right for America. Appointing John Bolton to the United Nations sends a terrible message to our intelligence professionals. It is the wrong signal for our intelligence reform efforts." — Sen. Barbara Mikulski (news, bio, voting record), D-Md.

___

"John Bolton is the wrong person for the job and the decision to appoint him today will not serve American foreign policy well at all. ... His history of inflammatory statements about the U.N. will also make it difficult for him to effectively advance U.S. security interests in New York and bring about necessary reforms to that institution." — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

___

"The president has the right to make this recess appointment, but it's the wrong decision. It only diminishes John Bolton's validity and leverage to secure America's goals at the U.N. John Bolton has been rejected twice by the Senate to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations. This is not the way to fill our most important diplomatic jobs." — Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

___

"We filibustered the nomineee. We exercised our perogative under the law. He exercised his perogative under the law." Sen. Lincoln Chafee (news, bio, voting record), R-R.I.

___

"He is exactly the wrong person to send to the United Nations at a time when we are trying to rebuild our credibility around the world. ... I now fear that we have lost an important opportunity to help re-establish the United States' global role as a moral and responsible leader." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

___

"It's sad that even while the president preaches democracy around the world, he bends the rules and circumvents the will of Congress in appointing our representative to the United Nations." — Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J.

Alban Berg

Post by Alban Berg » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:51 am

"Welll, if the Dems hadn't been so stupid, it wouldn't have had to be this way."

Given the legitimate concerns attributed to Democrats in the post above, I think one should be careful about using a word like "stupid." But then, one learns to expect such things from our immoderate "Moderator."

I suspect this little bit of thumbing his nose at the Democrats, if not the UN itself, will just prove a Pyrrhic victory for "I'm a divider, not a uniter" Shrub.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:29 pm

Ralph wrote:Corlyss,

Do you know why the Senate rejected Rutledge? He was, as we say in academia, nuts.

The President's power to make recess appointments is clear but this was the wrong one. And for a President with little regard for the U.N., justified or not, to say the post was too important to leave vacant is ludicrous.
So he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't?

And everything you know about Bolton you got from Joe Biden's webpage, right?
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:35 pm

Alban Berg wrote:"Welll, if the Dems hadn't been so stupid, it wouldn't have had to be this way."

Given the legitimate concerns attributed to Democrats in the post above, I think one should be careful about using a word like "stupid."
The only concern the Dems have about Bolton is that he was the President's mole in a State Department that thinks it makes US foreign policy and resents a president who disabuses them of that self-aggrandizing notion.

I have a lot of experience with Dems - I used to be one, and I have watched them self-destruct now for almost 30 years. That's plenty of experience to recognize them for what they are. "Stupid" and "inept" are the kindest characterizations their behavior merits.

What's your experience with Dems, Al? Wishin' and a hopin' from a distance that they will take power and make the US more like Europe? Highly unlikely because then no adults would be in charge.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Alban Berg

Post by Alban Berg » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:44 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
Alban Berg wrote:"Welll, if the Dems hadn't been so stupid, it wouldn't have had to be this way."

Given the legitimate concerns attributed to Democrats in the post above, I think one should be careful about using a word like "stupid."
The only concern the Dems have about Bolton is that he was the President's mole in a State Department that thinks it makes US foreign policy and resents a president who disabuses them of that self-aggrandizing notion.

I have a lot of experience with Dems - I used to be one, and I have watched them self-destruct now for almost 30 years. That's plenty of experience to recognize them for what they are. "Stupid" and "inept" are the kindest characterizations their behavior merits.

What's your experience with Dems, Al? Wishin' and a hopin' from a distance that they will take power and make the US more like Europe? Highly unlikely because then no adults would be in charge.
As it happens, Immoderate Moderator, I am now an American citizen living in New York, and a registered Democrat. Much as I appreciate your characterization of me as stupid and inept, I am neither, and neither are many Democrats I know. It is a serious mistake to confuse disagreement with stupidity. And I have no wish to see the US more like Europe. I simply do not want this country to lose sight of its core values.

As for the Bolton nomination, he was hardly the only qualified person for the job, and there are a number of alternative candidates who would have won support from both parties. George HW Bush and James A Baker come first to mind, and had W nominated either, they would have been confirmed with relief from Democrats and Republicans alike. But Bush simply wanted to grind Democrats' noses in the dirt by sneaking around the customary "advise and consent" and elevating a candidate about whom many legitimate questions have been raised. In this he succeeded, and in a way I would hardly call "adult." However, if one wants to play partisan politics as Bush always does and take down the loyal opposition, there are basically two strategies: you either pummel your opponent in order to humiliate him, or you disarm him in order to win him over - thus showing that you are truly a uniter and not a divider. Pummelling is more satisfying to the pummeler, but in the long term it is a weaker strategy. Had Bush II nominated Bush I, he would have disarmed all criticism and made friends of the loyal opposition, just as Bush I was able to disarm all criticism when he went into Kuwait. Bush II, however, chose to pummel.

And given your last paragraph, frankly, were you not the (cough) Moderator of this forum, I would report you for blatant abuse of the rules of civility that participants are supposed to obey.

Ted

Post by Ted » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:44 pm

were you not the (cough) Moderator of this forum, I would report you for blatant abuse of the rules of civility
Ironically the “blatant abuse of the rules of civility”
headed the list of qualifications for the Moderator job.
While I don’t think Corlyss is the best choice on that basis, I am content with her patient improvement. :roll:

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:17 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
Ralph wrote:Corlyss,

Do you know why the Senate rejected Rutledge? He was, as we say in academia, nuts.

The President's power to make recess appointments is clear but this was the wrong one. And for a President with little regard for the U.N., justified or not, to say the post was too important to leave vacant is ludicrous.
So he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't?

And everything you know about Bolton you got from Joe Biden's webpage, right?
*****

No-and I've never been to Biden's webpage.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:20 pm

On two or three occasions in the last six months I met Alban for dinner in New York and he's hardly "inept" or "stupid." He's actually brilliant and I wish he'd post more often. But with ad hominem responses that seem to be okay in Corlyss's view when they deal with political subjects I'm not surprised that he doesn't.

Take a leaf from my page, Cor, and follow my maxim of many decades: "One can disagree without being disagreeable." CMG is on a roll and I hope it continues to build. Don't you?
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

herman
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:00 am
Location: Dutch Sierra

Post by herman » Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:32 pm

I'm with Ralph and A.B. on this.

There are millions of quote unquote Conservative rant sites. There is only one CMG.

I don't think a moderator should bombard the board with partisan material and treat anyone who thinks for him or herself with derision.

The constant anti-European references (to name just one obsessive issue) have become just too bizarre, and being treated like a dangerous lunatic just because I happen to live there has over time lost its charm for me.

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:37 pm

I have no problem with Corlyss or anyone else using the site to advocate his/her partisan beliefs. I do think courtesy is paramount if for no better reason than there's a long history of people leaving because of personal attacks.

And when there's a fairly insular group dominating non-musical threads, as is clearly the reality here, surfers and new members may well feel excluded. I want MORE posters!
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:32 pm

Alban Berg wrote:Much as I appreciate your characterization of me as stupid and inept, I am neither, and neither are many Democrats I know.
I was referring specifically to the leadership of the party, or what passes for leadership of the party. I guess you must be thrilled with the state they have driven the party to, i.e., right into the ground, or you would be trying to distinguish yourself from them. Or better yet, trying to do something about the leadership instead of watching as it trivializes and marginalizes itself.
It is a serious mistake to confuse disagreement with stupidity.
Oh, you're absolutely right. Thank goodness I don't. The Dems could disagree with Republicans on process but not on fundamentals, as they have for quite sometime now. It's sheer stupidity to get so far away from the fundamental beliefs of the public so determinedly.
And I have no wish to see the US more like Europe. I simply do not want this country to lose sight of its core values.
Perhaps that's your aim. That's not the aim of the Democratic party.
As for the Bolton nomination, he was hardly the only qualified person for the job, and there are a number of alternative candidates who would have won support from both parties. George HW Bush and James A Baker come first to mind,
It's not a matter of who's merely qualified. That twit who leaked the Intelligence Estimate that Iran was 10 years away from a nuclear cabability, the one who is a protege of John Kerry's, was probably "qualified." John Danforth was "qualified." It's a matter of who has the stones to deal with the issues that are soon to be on the UN's plate. None of the above mentioned have the stones for the job. Not Bush I, not Baker (had he wanted the job), not Danforth, and certainly not any one cultivated out of the Democratic camp.
But Bush simply wanted to grind Democrats' noses in the dirt by sneaking around the customary "advise and consent" and elevating a candidate about whom many legitimate questions have been raised.
I don't agree they were legitimate.
And given your last paragraph, frankly, were you not the (cough) Moderator of this forum, I would report you for blatant abuse of the rules of civility that participants are supposed to obey.
Gregory, you follow me around here in the Pub and post on politics. You make snide comments about me as a moderator. You gird up for battle on politics, and when I bite back, you whine. You can post on anything you want. But if you post on politics, I'm going to respond. You just tell me what of that last paragraph violates the rules of civility. Here, let me quote it for you:
Corlyss wrote:What's your experience with Dems, Al? Wishin' and a hopin' from a distance that they will take power and make the US more like Europe? Highly unlikely because then no adults would be in charge.
Were you offended that I assumed you were a European? The "Vienna" had me fooled, I admit.
Last edited by Corlyss_D on Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:39 pm

Ralph wrote: But with ad hominem responses that seem to be okay in Corlyss's view when they deal with political subjects I'm not surprised that he doesn't.
It's not an ad hominem attack to question the credentials of a poster to speak to issues. In the instant case, I challenged what I thought was a European's assessment of something I'm convinced they know nothing about but which they harrangue about constantly.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:47 pm

herman wrote:I'm with Ralph and A.B. on this.
Okay.
There are millions of quote unquote Conservative rant sites. There is only one CMG.
Herman, if you think this is a conservative rant site, you need to hang here more. We conservatives are far outnumbered by you liberals here. And as you know, you can post on anything you want to here. It's not my fault if all you want to talk about is politics. If you do talk about politics, and I think you express a typically European misconception, I'm going to respond. Why don't you talk about something else for a welcome change?
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:08 am

Ralph wrote:there's a long history of people leaving because of personal attacks.
The personal attacks and the vast exodus had more to do with the music side of the house, where much is indeed merely a matter of opinion and one opinion is pretty much no better than another.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:14 am

Corlyss_D wrote:
Ralph wrote: But with ad hominem responses that seem to be okay in Corlyss's view when they deal with political subjects I'm not surprised that he doesn't.
It's not an ad hominem attack to question the credentials of a poster to speak to issues. In the instant case, I challenged what I thought was a European's assessment of something I'm convinced they know nothing about but which they harrangue about constantly.
*****


"Credentials?" The only time credentials are relevant on a board like this is when a poster relies on or refers to his/her actual education/experiences/job to support a viewpoint. So your comments on federal bureaucracy reflect your stated credentials as a former government lawyer. My credentials in Constitutional Law are beyond dispute which doesn't mean beyond fervid disagreement with my comments. Similarly Jack C and Pizza have relevant and important legal credentials as Teresa does with her long experience as an M.D.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:17 am

Corlyss_D wrote:
herman wrote:I'm with Ralph and A.B. on this.
Okay.
There are millions of quote unquote Conservative rant sites. There is only one CMG.
Herman, if you think this is a conservative rant site, you need to hang here more. We conservatives are far outnumbered by you liberals here. And as you know, you can post on anything you want to here. It's not my fault if all you want to talk about is politics. If you do talk about politics, and I think you express a typically European misconception, I'm going to respond. Why don't you talk about something else for a welcome change?
*****

Well, again I think the constant labelling of posters as liberals or conservatives is misleading and dilutes real conversation but, of course, if someone wants to use that shorthand, so be it.

And I think there are more posters who view the world as Corlyss does - well, maybe not quite to that extremity - than there are those who think like Barry.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:08 am

Corlyss_D wrote:
Ralph wrote:there's a long history of people leaving because of personal attacks.
The personal attacks and the vast exodus had more to do with the music side of the house, where much is indeed merely a matter of opinion and one opinion is pretty much no better than another.
Honestly, you know I like you, but your constant going beyond the issues to "you guys are all losers and prepare to be losers for years to come" (paraphrasing of course) gets old, and I can see it driving some people from the board (it even gives me reason to take a break on ocassion). I can see it driving some people away from the board; although it may bring others in. That sort of controntational aggression sells now days (just turn on the tv).

I recall feeling the same way a number of years back (maybe before the 2000 election) when on one of our former boards, Susan C. would hit us with about 10 conservative/liberal bashing articles per day. It simply made coming onto the board more unpleasant than it should be. I think I stopped posting on that board after a while for that reason if I recall correctly.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:00 am

Ralph wrote:"Credentials?" The only time credentials are relevant on a board like this is when a poster relies on or refers to his/her actual education/experiences/job to support a viewpoint. So your comments on federal bureaucracy reflect your stated credentials as a former government lawyer. My credentials in Constitutional Law are beyond dispute which doesn't mean beyond fervid disagreement with my comments. Similarly Jack C and Pizza have relevant and important legal credentials as Teresa does with her long experience as an M.D.
I don't view it so narrowly, esp. when it comes to Europeans lecturing Americans on their moral and intellectual failings, which goes on constantly here and elsewhere. If they want a space where they can do that without being challenged, then they can go elsewhere.
Well, again I think the constant labelling of posters as liberals or conservatives is misleading and dilutes real conversation but, of course, if someone wants to use that shorthand, so be it
It's a useful shorthand. It don't take all that long to figure out who's where on the spectrum. The "real conversation" don't happen outside that context.
Last edited by Corlyss_D on Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:18 am

Barry Z wrote:Honestly, you know I like you,
Thanks, but for the honor of it . . . It's not about personalities. It's about content.
but your constant going beyond the issues to "you guys are all losers and prepare to be losers for years to come" (paraphrasing of course) gets old,
What's happened to the Democratic party is one of the signal events on the political landscape in the last 40 years, an endlessly fascinating topic. It's like watching a prize automobile being driven off a cliff in slo-mo. For some 100 years there were two reasonably effective political parties who were effective because they both paid attention to the middle class. Since the late 60s one party has gradually ceded the playing field to the other, less thru occasional misfortune than thru deliberate, conscious policies that have separated it from the majority of voters. If that ain't a picture of willful self-destruction, if that ain't a topic worthy of plumbing, I don't know what is. I am perpetually puzzled and amazed by the process, which is due less to Republican smarts than it is to Democratic stupidity. The party cannot win by continuing to do the same things over and over while expecting different results. See Einstein's quote. I'm not making up the stuff I post here. I don't get it from exclusively conservative sites, either, unless you want to call the WSJ and Atlantic and Commentary and National Interest and Washington Quarterly and US News, and Foriegn Affairs exclusively conservative sites.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:42 am

Corlyss_D wrote: What's happened to the Democratic party is one of the signal events on the political landscape in the last 40 years, an endlessly fascinating topic. It's like watching a prize automobile being driven off a cliff in slo-mo. For some 100 years there were two reasonably effective political parties who were effective because they both paid attention to the middle class. Since the late 60s one party has gradually ceded the playing field to the other, less thru occasional misfortune than thru deliberate, conscious policies that have separated it from the majority of voters. If that ain't a picture of willful self-destruction, if that ain't a topic worthy of plumbing, I don't know what is. I am perpetually puzzled and amazed by the process, which is due less to Republican smarts than it is to Democratic stupidity. The party cannot win by continuing to do the same things over and over while expecting different results. See Einstein's quote. I'm not making up the stuff I post here. I don't get it from exclusively conservative sites, either, unless you want to call the WSJ and Atlantic and Commentary and National Interest and Washington Quarterly and US News, and Foriegn Affairs exclusively conservative sites.
I agree that the Dems have been out in the wilderness on foreign policy and defense, and need to change in that regard. But if you're also referring to the domestic cultural issues that we sometimes discuss on here, the church/state, abortion, religion in schools, etc, then I don't want the Dems changing on those issues just to get closer to where most Americans may be. I happen to think most Americans are wrong on these types of issues and don't want to be part of a party that takes stances I hate just to win over John Q. Public. I accept that this may result in more election losses. But that doesn't mean I (and I'm sure others who feel as I do) want to be pounded on the head and called losers every day on here, or anywhere else. I'm aware of the political situation and that I'm in the minority on many domestic issues. I want the Dems to change in some respects, but not others, even if it's not politically wise.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests