My mother used say “If you can’t say something good about a person, say nothing at all.”
The older I get, the more I understand how wise my parents were.
(10-07-2018 08:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]My mother used tpsay “If you can’t say something good about a person, say nothing at all.”
The older I get, the more I understand how wise my parents were.
To paraphrase Mark Twain: it's amazing how much our parents learn as we age.
(10-07-2018 10:45 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2018 08:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]My mother used tpsay “If you can’t say something good about a person, say nothing at all.”
The older I get, the more I understand how wise my parents were.
To paraphrase Mark Twain: it's amazing how much our parents learn as we age.
Unless you are a drama queen.
I have to think of a way to include that I am a lawyer in this post, since this ostensibly pisses off Barrett about me per his rep comment on me. Heh.
(10-07-2018 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2018 10:45 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2018 08:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]My mother used tpsay “If you can’t say something good about a person, say nothing at all.”
The older I get, the more I understand how wise my parents were.
To paraphrase Mark Twain: it's amazing how much our parents learn as we age.
Unless you are a drama queen.
I have to think of a way to include that I am a lawyer in this post, since this ostensibly pisses off Barrett about me per his rep comment on me. Heh.
A lot of our Comgressmen and Senators are lawyers, as was the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2016,
(10-07-2018 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2018 10:45 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2018 08:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]My mother used to say “If you can’t say something good about a person, say nothing at all.”
The older I get, the more I understand how wise my parents were.
To paraphrase Mark Twain: it's amazing how much our parents learn as we age.
Unless you are a drama queen.
I have to think of a way to include that I am a lawyer in this post, since this ostensibly pisses off Barrett about me per his rep comment on me. Heh.
Yes, you are a lawyer, as are George and I.
And does anyone really care about rep points?
This whole issue is a great case study for bias.
No one can say for certain what happened in the summer of 1982, perhaps even the people who did (or did not) participate. The democrats could not even come up with a plausible scenario in which Kavanaugh would have participated in such actions outside of immature recollections in a high school yearbook. The only thing that is certain is that both people involved appeared to enjoy alcohol to excess when they were in their late teens since neither of them can remember a damn thing.
This whole thing is almost too perfect for a case study. We have a compelling witness and a evil villain proffered up for inspection by the masses. We have a generic and amorphous story where almost no details are offered except for the accused. I would say there is no corroborating evidence (as there is none), but how can you even corroborate such a story? All we are left with is who to believe in this he said she said. There was nothing for the FBI to investigate.
How did the people at large handle this? Not very well. I'm happy if you agree with Ford or Kavanaugh, but the simple fact of the matter is that people are lying to themselves when they say they strongly believe either one of them because the congruence between who to believe and their political affiliation is very high. The rational, un-biased person who has a single neuron dedicated to human behavior would say "hard to tell with any confidence if either one of them is accurately representing themselves given the circumstances."
It is fascinating to me see this whole thing devolve into who believes who. Everyone came into this story with their own set of protagonists and antagonists and this situation has enough holes for people to fill in the blanks with their own bias.
Things that should have mattered but no one talks about:
- There were brief discussions about the obvious alcohol abuse of a young Kavanuagh. Is this a disqualification? He definitely was close to the line, but I seriously doubt anyone would oppose a SCOTUS nominee because he got blacked out drunk when he was in school. If there was evidence of this happening outside of school or other detrimental stories like drunk driving (Beto and Ted Kennedy, howya doing?) then maybe there is a fingerhold in this theme. But we didn't get to that point, so you can't say this disqualifies him.
- With the balance of evidence, was/is Kavanaugh a sexual predator? Outside of the one data point based on belief, no other credible evidence was presented.
- What was his judicial record? Literally no one on the street (less than 1%) can offer a single statement for or against this other than the impossible claim that he can overturn Roe v. Wade. Americans are as dumb as every other person inhabiting **** hole countries around the globe. Exceptionalism is a myth.
Finally, working under the (only rational) assumption that you can't believe either person over the Ford/Kavanaugh accusations, how do you move forward when determining Kavanaugh's fitness for the high court? Probably like every other nominee in which case he is approved easily.
It was a horrid distraction, but at the end of the day you have to ignore the noise. You can ask yourself, is it possible that Kavanaugh did this to Ford? The answer is yes. If that answer is a disqualification, how do we vet future nominees to the high court? Do they need a bulletproof, third party validated accounting for all of their actions 24 hours a day since they were in grade school? Even if we decided that was the only way to keep rapists and other miscreants off the high court, is that the proper way to vet judges or anyone for that matter?
It is mind blowing to me see supposedly smart people so drastically allow emotional bias to outweigh logic in their decision making process, but here we are.
(10-03-2018 10:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Lad,
the reason for wage stagnation isnt just the unemployment rate.
There was a massive overhang in the participation rate that had/has to be addressed. Once the complete supply issues of labor are dealt with, then you will see real wage growth.
So yes, wages have remained stagnant during the current 'stock market' boom (btw, somewhat unrelated.) But the boom has indeed been present in the GDP rates which is more closely coupled with job creation.
And the overhang that was embedded in a historically low participation rate has finally been eroded at least partially
This... and part of the problem is that some of the drivers of the reduction in the participation rate were things like subsidized health care and greater access to assistance... which now necessitate and even higher wage to put people back into the marketplace.
This is the same sort of issue that has been a problem for decades.... that wage increases are often offset by decreases in support. I've literally had people who work for me turn down raises or insist on fewer hours to keep from losing their assistance here in California.
(10-03-2018 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I distinctly remember who was in the car with me when I got in my first car accident. I don't remember exactly what building it was in front of, but the general part of town.
I remember what I was doing at the time of the accident, but I don't remember the make and model of the car I hit.
Since I don't remember other details about that event, should I not be believed when I say I rear ended another car because I was looking at a gas-powered scooter that was for sale?
No, but if you named those people and they didn't have the same recollection that you do, then which one of you is 'misremembering'?
This would be problematic if your claim was that it was 'John's' scooter that you were surprised to see for sale, and John vehemently denied ever putting his scooter up for sale
The issue isn't whether or not you should be believed... You remember what you remember...
The issue is whether or not your unsubstantiated (other than generally circumstantial) memory should be given more deference than John's... or said better, that your recollection should keep John from getting a job for which he is qualified, but your memory could impede.
If this were simply the court of popular opinion, that would be fine. You believe her or you believe him.,.. no big deal... but it's not. Decisions that impact people's lives are being made on this.
(10-03-2018 10:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Lad,
the reason for wage stagnation isnt just the unemployment rate.
There was a massive overhang in the participation rate that had/has to be addressed. Once the complete supply issues of labor are dealt with, then you will see real wage growth.
So yes, wages have remained stagnant during the current 'stock market' boom (btw, somewhat unrelated.) But the boom has indeed been present in the GDP rates which is more closely coupled with job creation.
And the overhang that was embedded in a historically low participation rate has finally been eroded at least partially
This... and part of the problem is that some of the drivers of the reduction in the participation rate were things like subsidized health care and greater access to assistance... which now necessitate and even higher wage to put people back into the marketplace. Not saying these are de facto bad things... just that it raises the bar.
This is the same sort of issue that has been a problem for decades.... that wage increases are often offset by decreases in support. I've literally had people who work for me turn down raises or insist on fewer hours to keep from losing their assistance here in California.
IMO, the time to increase support is when things are GOOD and these sorts of things don't impact many people.
(10-03-2018 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I distinctly remember who was in the car with me when I got in my first car accident. I don't remember exactly what building it was in front of, but the general part of town.
I remember what I was doing at the time of the accident, but I don't remember the make and model of the car I hit.
Since I don't remember other details about that event, should I not be believed when I say I rear ended another car because I was looking at a gas-powered scooter that was for sale?
No, but if you named those people and they didn't have the same recollection that you do, then which one of you is 'misremembering'?
This would be problematic if your claim was that it was 'John's' scooter that you were surprised to see for sale, and John vehemently denied ever putting his scooter up for sale
The issue isn't whether or not you should be believed... You remember what you remember... It's true as far as your memory goes.... and I suspect you'd pass a poly on it...
The issue is whether or not your unsubstantiated (other than generally circumstantial) memory should be given more deference than John's... or said better, that your recollection should keep John from getting a job for which he is qualified, but your memory could impede.
If this were simply the court of popular opinion, that would be fine. You believe her or you believe him.,.. no big deal... but it's not. Decisions that impact people's lives are being made on this.
(10-07-2018 11:33 AM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]You can ask yourself, is it possible that Kavanaugh did this to Ford? The answer is yes. If that answer is a disqualification, how do we vet future nominees to the high court? Do they need a bulletproof, third party validated accounting for all of their actions 24 hours a day since they were in grade school? Even if we decided that was the only way to keep rapists and other miscreants off the high court, is that the proper way to vet judges or anyone for that matter?
It is mind blowing to me see supposedly smart people so drastically allow emotional bias to outweigh logic in their decision making process, but here we are.
Further to your point,
this op-ed by Cass Sunstein (law professor, former Obama White House advisor) attempted expressly to argue for a decision-making standard of
less than the preponderance of evidence. He argued that even if the evidence, fully and properly weighed, made it, say, 70% likely that Kavanaugh was innocent, he nevertheless should not be confirmed because there still remained a "significant chance" (i.e., 30%) that he was guilty.
It seems not to have occurred to the esteemed scholar that the effect of adopting such a flatly illogical decision-making standard would simply be to weaponize nearly all allegations, no matter how stale, gauzy, or unprovable.
(10-08-2018 12:52 AM)illiniowl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2018 11:33 AM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]You can ask yourself, is it possible that Kavanaugh did this to Ford? The answer is yes. If that answer is a disqualification, how do we vet future nominees to the high court? Do they need a bulletproof, third party validated accounting for all of their actions 24 hours a day since they were in grade school? Even if we decided that was the only way to keep rapists and other miscreants off the high court, is that the proper way to vet judges or anyone for that matter?
It is mind blowing to me see supposedly smart people so drastically allow emotional bias to outweigh logic in their decision making process, but here we are.
Further to your point, this op-ed by Cass Sunstein (law professor, former Obama White House advisor) attempted expressly to argue for a decision-making standard of less than the preponderance of evidence. He argued that even if the evidence, fully and properly weighed, made it, say, 70% likely that Kavanaugh was innocent, he nevertheless should not be confirmed because there still remained a "significant chance" (i.e., 30%) that he was guilty.
It seems not to have occurred to the esteemed scholar that the effect of adopting such a flatly illogical decision-making standard would simply be to weaponize nearly all allegations, no matter how stale, gauzy, or unprovable.
No offense, but try to argue that to a true progressive. In this matter, it does not matter that there is no corroboration. When presented with that matter, the retreat is to the 'this is a job interview' mantra and no balancing of evidence at all should be undertaken.
The answer to flash's question of is it possible Kavanaugh did this, it is of course yes. The major problem is that what backs that assertion is the allegation, with no, evidence, no corroboration, and in some cases refutation of the allegation.
That is precisely the same level of preponderance and balance that proponents of a 7-day creation have. Which, I have found, is quite the analogy to make in Austin..... (which I am coming to believe is the center of the Kavanaugh is obviously guilty faith....)
(10-08-2018 09:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2018 12:52 AM)illiniowl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2018 11:33 AM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]You can ask yourself, is it possible that Kavanaugh did this to Ford? The answer is yes. If that answer is a disqualification, how do we vet future nominees to the high court? Do they need a bulletproof, third party validated accounting for all of their actions 24 hours a day since they were in grade school? Even if we decided that was the only way to keep rapists and other miscreants off the high court, is that the proper way to vet judges or anyone for that matter?
It is mind blowing to me see supposedly smart people so drastically allow emotional bias to outweigh logic in their decision making process, but here we are.
Further to your point, this op-ed by Cass Sunstein (law professor, former Obama White House advisor) attempted expressly to argue for a decision-making standard of less than the preponderance of evidence. He argued that even if the evidence, fully and properly weighed, made it, say, 70% likely that Kavanaugh was innocent, he nevertheless should not be confirmed because there still remained a "significant chance" (i.e., 30%) that he was guilty.
It seems not to have occurred to the esteemed scholar that the effect of adopting such a flatly illogical decision-making standard would simply be to weaponize nearly all allegations, no matter how stale, gauzy, or unprovable.
No offense, but try to argue that to a true progressive. In this matter, it does not matter that there is no corroboration. When presented with that matter, the retreat is to the 'this is a job interview' mantra and no balancing of evidence at all should be undertaken.
The answer to flash's question of is it possible Kavanaugh did this, it is of course yes. The major problem is that what backs that assertion is the allegation, with no, evidence, no corroboration, and in some cases refutation of the allegation.
That is precisely the same level of preponderance and balance that proponents of a 7-day creation have. Which, I have found, is quite the analogy to make in Austin..... (which I am coming to believe is the center of the Kavanaugh is obviously guilty faith....)
I did not assassinate Kennedy, and I am sure there are people who will remember as clearly as I do that I was in Houston that day.
However, if that leaves even a 0.000000000001% doubt, then I must be treated as guilty.
It wasn't a job interview, nor was it even a trial on the part of the left - it was a grilling, of the type a detective gives a suspect he knows is guilty.
What made me wonder was all the people chanting "We believe victims" or "we believe survivors".. Well, they are not victims/survivors unless you believe them, so classifying them as victims is sort of belief in advance.
You must be very popular in Austin, with your silly views on the Constitution and all.
Maybe you should adopt Chuy as your nickname and run for office.
(10-08-2018 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2018 09:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2018 12:52 AM)illiniowl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2018 11:33 AM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]You can ask yourself, is it possible that Kavanaugh did this to Ford? The answer is yes. If that answer is a disqualification, how do we vet future nominees to the high court? Do they need a bulletproof, third party validated accounting for all of their actions 24 hours a day since they were in grade school? Even if we decided that was the only way to keep rapists and other miscreants off the high court, is that the proper way to vet judges or anyone for that matter?
It is mind blowing to me see supposedly smart people so drastically allow emotional bias to outweigh logic in their decision making process, but here we are.
Further to your point, this op-ed by Cass Sunstein (law professor, former Obama White House advisor) attempted expressly to argue for a decision-making standard of less than the preponderance of evidence. He argued that even if the evidence, fully and properly weighed, made it, say, 70% likely that Kavanaugh was innocent, he nevertheless should not be confirmed because there still remained a "significant chance" (i.e., 30%) that he was guilty.
It seems not to have occurred to the esteemed scholar that the effect of adopting such a flatly illogical decision-making standard would simply be to weaponize nearly all allegations, no matter how stale, gauzy, or unprovable.
No offense, but try to argue that to a true progressive. In this matter, it does not matter that there is no corroboration. When presented with that matter, the retreat is to the 'this is a job interview' mantra and no balancing of evidence at all should be undertaken.
The answer to flash's question of is it possible Kavanaugh did this, it is of course yes. The major problem is that what backs that assertion is the allegation, with no, evidence, no corroboration, and in some cases refutation of the allegation.
That is precisely the same level of preponderance and balance that proponents of a 7-day creation have. Which, I have found, is quite the analogy to make in Austin..... (which I am coming to believe is the center of the Kavanaugh is obviously guilty faith....)
I did not assassinate Kennedy, and I am sure there are people who will remember as clearly as I do that I was in Houston that day.
However, if that leaves even a 0.000000000001% doubt, then I must be treated as guilty.
It wasn't a job interview, nor was it even a trial on the part of the left - it was a grilling, of the type a detective gives a suspect he knows is guilty.
What made me wonder was all the people chanting "We believe victims" or "we believe survivors".. Well, they are not victims/survivors unless you believe them, so classifying them as victims is sort of belief in advance.
You must be very popular in Austin, with your silly views on the Constitution and all.
Maybe you should adopt Chuy as your nickname and run for office.
'Chuy'? Nfw dude.
Geraldo. All the way.
I thought about 'Huerito' as well.... and on top of it I do have a picture of me as a toe-headed blonde (had hair then...) of 5 with that emblazoned on the front as well. Should pass for absolute proof these days in the Democratic Party.
And yes, being a textualist in Austin is akin to to saying I have penicillin-resistant chlymidia/gonhorrea chimera which is passed by breath. I think the dead giveaway is that I dont have a pitchfork in the garage at the ready.
(10-08-2018 09:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2018 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2018 09:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2018 12:52 AM)illiniowl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2018 11:33 AM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]You can ask yourself, is it possible that Kavanaugh did this to Ford? The answer is yes. If that answer is a disqualification, how do we vet future nominees to the high court? Do they need a bulletproof, third party validated accounting for all of their actions 24 hours a day since they were in grade school? Even if we decided that was the only way to keep rapists and other miscreants off the high court, is that the proper way to vet judges or anyone for that matter?
It is mind blowing to me see supposedly smart people so drastically allow emotional bias to outweigh logic in their decision making process, but here we are.
Further to your point, this op-ed by Cass Sunstein (law professor, former Obama White House advisor) attempted expressly to argue for a decision-making standard of less than the preponderance of evidence. He argued that even if the evidence, fully and properly weighed, made it, say, 70% likely that Kavanaugh was innocent, he nevertheless should not be confirmed because there still remained a "significant chance" (i.e., 30%) that he was guilty.
It seems not to have occurred to the esteemed scholar that the effect of adopting such a flatly illogical decision-making standard would simply be to weaponize nearly all allegations, no matter how stale, gauzy, or unprovable.
No offense, but try to argue that to a true progressive. In this matter, it does not matter that there is no corroboration. When presented with that matter, the retreat is to the 'this is a job interview' mantra and no balancing of evidence at all should be undertaken.
The answer to flash's question of is it possible Kavanaugh did this, it is of course yes. The major problem is that what backs that assertion is the allegation, with no, evidence, no corroboration, and in some cases refutation of the allegation.
That is precisely the same level of preponderance and balance that proponents of a 7-day creation have. Which, I have found, is quite the analogy to make in Austin..... (which I am coming to believe is the center of the Kavanaugh is obviously guilty faith....)
I did not assassinate Kennedy, and I am sure there are people who will remember as clearly as I do that I was in Houston that day.
However, if that leaves even a 0.000000000001% doubt, then I must be treated as guilty.
It wasn't a job interview, nor was it even a trial on the part of the left - it was a grilling, of the type a detective gives a suspect he knows is guilty.
What made me wonder was all the people chanting "We believe victims" or "we believe survivors".. Well, they are not victims/survivors unless you believe them, so classifying them as victims is sort of belief in advance.
You must be very popular in Austin, with your silly views on the Constitution and all.
Maybe you should adopt Chuy as your nickname and run for office.
'Chuy'? Nfw dude.
Geraldo. All the way. I thought about 'huerito' as well....
I'd vote for you, Aldo. I always support the Hispanic candidates.
Post related to thread title: Nikki Haley resigns as UN Ambassador.
Anyone seen speculation as to why?
(10-09-2018 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Post related to thread title: Nikki Haley resigns as UN Ambassador.
Anyone seen speculation as to why?
I don't know if this counts as speculation, but what I heard was that she was exhausted, that she was not going to run for Prez in 2020, and that she would support Trump.
Not the speculation you wanted, eh?
Here's some speculation for ya
But she said on Tuesday she would not be running in 2020 and would campaign for Trump.
Echoing previous statements from Trump, Haley said the United States under his presidency is now respected around the world.
(10-09-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2018 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Post related to thread title: Nikki Haley resigns as UN Ambassador.
Anyone seen speculation as to why?
I don't know if this counts as speculation, but what I heard was that she was exhausted, that she was not going to run for Prez in 2020, and that she would support Trump.
Not the speculation you wanted, eh?
Oh Jesus Christ.
I honestly don't think there's anything juicy to this - if I had I would have posted something. My guess is something along what you said, or that she didn't feel like she had been receiving enough support on positions (I know there have been issues with things like the Russian sanctions [https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/16/trump-nikki-haley-russia-sanctions-526856] but that was months ago).
How did that post, which was made without any pretense, devolve into you trying to pick a fight?
(10-09-2018 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2018 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Post related to thread title: Nikki Haley resigns as UN Ambassador.
Anyone seen speculation as to why?
I don't know if this counts as speculation, but what I heard was that she was exhausted, that she was not going to run for Prez in 2020, and that she would support Trump.
Not the speculation you wanted, eh?
Oh Jesus Christ.
I honestly don't think there's anything juicy to this - if I had I would have posted something. My guess is something along what you said, or that she didn't feel like she had been receiving enough support on positions (I know there have been issues with things like the Russian sanctions [https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/16/trump-nikki-haley-russia-sanctions-526856] but that was months ago).
How did that post, which was made without any pretense, devolve into you trying to pick a fight?
Because today is one of the days he is PassiveAggressiveOwl