(10-01-2018 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 02:57 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  If you have an argument to make, go ahead and make it. Use your words.

He doesnt. Ever.

His posts are to discussion what Raymond Joseph Teller is to stand up comedy.

Unfortunately, his little mutual admiration society gives him no reason to act otherwise.

I have a mutual admiration society of one as well. I do a great job patting myself on the back as well.

Too bad you broke the stream and I couldnt retort to myself either.

Like I said.

(10-01-2018 05:19 PM)At Ease Wrote:  I post what I can, when I can, given the infrequent work/family respites I enjoy, and years of experience evaluating the ROI of engaging certain posters or the type of characters politics-centered forums attract. So I generally post information that may not be readily seen or recognized, and steer clear of dissuading the self-owning efforts here to make the GOP and modern conservativism as unappealing as possible for the next generations.

If you guys have an issue with my posts, then there other options that are less disruptive to the thread-- you can contact me via PM, you can discuss their appropriateness with a moderator, or you can just put me on ignore.

Yep. And I give the value of the opinion and input of people who simply drop a link as to their part of a discussion as damn near zero as one can get. Just saying.

I am sure you value your input as pretty much the reciprocal of my value of that input.

Look Ease, I have no issue with one who disagrees with a viewpoint I hold. I hold 'drive by linkers' with a condescension that is probably only rivaled by that of which you most likely hold of people who act with "self-owning efforts ... to make the GOP and modern conservativism as unappealing as possible for the next generations."

You want to act like a whack a mole poster, be prepared to be called out as such. Life is simple at times.

(10-01-2018 05:19 PM)At Ease Wrote:  I post what I can, when I can, given the infrequent work/family respites I enjoy, and years of experience evaluating the ROI of engaging certain posters or the type of characters politics-centered forums attract. So I generally post information that may not be readily seen or recognized, and steer clear of dissuading the self-owning efforts here to make the GOP and modern conservativism as unappealing as possible for the next generations.

If you guys have an issue with my posts, then there other options that are less disruptive to the thread-- you can contact me via PM, you can discuss their appropriateness with a moderator, or you can just put me on ignore.

Lol. "I don't want to debate. I just want to talk about my pain."

Given the scarcity of your free time, you might want to also evaluate the ROI of simply posting beliefs/partisan hackery without any attempt to explain the bases therefor, although that presumes you have a nobler goal besides self-gratification.

If it's simply dopamine you're after, you could try Facebook. They have a "like" button that people who already agree with you can use to give validation to even the most vapid of posts. Scientifically proven to provide way more ROI than what you're doing here.

(09-28-2018 02:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think a week for the FBI to investigate will give one of the following results:

A. They conclude BK is guilty. Democrats are giddy. Probability: 0.0000000000000000000000000001%
B; They conclude Ford is lying or wrong: Democrats ask for more investigation, blaming the lack of results on the short time period. Probablity: 0.000000001%
C. They conclude they cannot prove Ford's story or disprove his: Democrats ask for more time: probability: 100 - (A+B)%.

Clearly just a ploy for time. Republicans might have to allow it to get Flake's vote.
(Aside: Has there ever been a better name for this kind of person than Flake?)

And when C occurs (and we have the same evidence as where we are now), the incessant beat for 'more' will keep on. Even in the light of zero corroborative evidence.

I have no problems with doing this to get Flake on. And, probably at this point Murkowski. Thats 50.

And watch the gnashing level rise.

It is amazing to me where we are with literally zero supporting evidence. But, sadly, I am not surprised. Especially in light of the historical lengths the Democrats will stretch personal destruction to get a SCOTUS seat. And it is amazing how many people are either happy or neutral wannabe with where this farce has brought us, or supportive of this process. And they are utterly oblivious to (or perhaps happy with) the methodology and process being utilized.

By the way, the Democrats wont *ask* for more time, it will be a demand.

And we're back with Robert (rejected by bipartisan consensus) Bork again! Unless this time you're talking about Harriet Miers? Let's see . . . 1) called a "disaster on every level" by none other than Bork, which is hilarious; 2) called out by Republican senators for not having strong enough anti-abortion views; described in wholly bland terms by the Wall Street Journal, no less. Can't wait to hear you pin this one on the Dems, too.

Or are you talking about Garland? Still waiting for that "pattern" to show up.

(10-01-2018 08:06 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think a week for the FBI to investigate will give one of the following results:

A. They conclude BK is guilty. Democrats are giddy. Probability: 0.0000000000000000000000000001%
B; They conclude Ford is lying or wrong: Democrats ask for more investigation, blaming the lack of results on the short time period. Probablity: 0.000000001%
C. They conclude they cannot prove Ford's story or disprove his: Democrats ask for more time: probability: 100 - (A+B)%.

Clearly just a ploy for time. Republicans might have to allow it to get Flake's vote.
(Aside: Has there ever been a better name for this kind of person than Flake?)

And when C occurs (and we have the same evidence as where we are now), the incessant beat for 'more' will keep on. Even in the light of zero corroborative evidence.

I have no problems with doing this to get Flake on. And, probably at this point Murkowski. Thats 50.

And watch the gnashing level rise.

It is amazing to me where we are with literally zero supporting evidence. But, sadly, I am not surprised. Especially in light of the historical lengths the Democrats will stretch personal destruction to get a SCOTUS seat. And it is amazing how many people are either happy or neutral wannabe with where this farce has brought us, or supportive of this process. And they are utterly oblivious to (or perhaps happy with) the methodology and process being utilized.

By the way, the Democrats wont *ask* for more time, it will be a demand.

And we're back with Robert (rejected by bipartisan consensus) Bork again! Unless this time you're talking about Harriet Miers? Let's see . . . 1) called a "disaster on every level" by none other than Bork, which is hilarious; 2) called out by Republican senators for not having strong enough anti-abortion views; described in wholly bland terms by the Wall Street Journal, no less. Can't wait to hear you pin this one on the Dems, too.

Or are you talking about Garland? Still waiting for that "pattern" to show up.

To a certain extent I could label pretty much every fing campaign versus Republican nominees as that. Some a lot more than others.

I guess I never saw the campaign of 'This is Ginsburg's America, an America where every person who wants a right made up out of whole cloth can get one'. Can you point that out to me in your o-so righteous defense?

Can you point out the campaign where 90 per cent+ of Republican Senators came out within 4 weeks of declaring matter of factly that the 'a wise Latina is wiser than most' in unfit and that they will not be voting that way?

Man, perhaps put on a German Wermacht Sgt's uniform and keep proclaiming 'I see nothink' some more dude.

Seriously, you think that that Democrats have been of-so fing accepting of the vast majority of Republican nominees. Got it. When you actually bother to look at the history of the personal slams (I guess the term 'borking' came about by sheer happenstance, correct?) and of the sheer obstructionism you see *no* Democratic history there?

Hey dude, at least I dont have 8 inch lenses on my rose colored glasses. Garland was a shut down. I recognize that. Funny that you kind of snidely bring that up as such a *horrible* outreach, and utterly fail in the fing slightest to even take into account anything in the last thirty years *except* Garland. Got it.

Tee up the whine about Garland in five.... four.... three... two....

(10-01-2018 08:06 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think a week for the FBI to investigate will give one of the following results:

A. They conclude BK is guilty. Democrats are giddy. Probability: 0.0000000000000000000000000001%
B; They conclude Ford is lying or wrong: Democrats ask for more investigation, blaming the lack of results on the short time period. Probablity: 0.000000001%
C. They conclude they cannot prove Ford's story or disprove his: Democrats ask for more time: probability: 100 - (A+B)%.

Clearly just a ploy for time. Republicans might have to allow it to get Flake's vote.
(Aside: Has there ever been a better name for this kind of person than Flake?)

And when C occurs (and we have the same evidence as where we are now), the incessant beat for 'more' will keep on. Even in the light of zero corroborative evidence.

I have no problems with doing this to get Flake on. And, probably at this point Murkowski. Thats 50.

And watch the gnashing level rise.

It is amazing to me where we are with literally zero supporting evidence. But, sadly, I am not surprised. Especially in light of the historical lengths the Democrats will stretch personal destruction to get a SCOTUS seat. And it is amazing how many people are either happy or neutral wannabe with where this farce has brought us, or supportive of this process. And they are utterly oblivious to (or perhaps happy with) the methodology and process being utilized.

By the way, the Democrats wont *ask* for more time, it will be a demand.

And we're back with Robert (rejected by bipartisan consensus) Bork again! Unless this time you're talking about Harriet Miers? Let's see . . . 1) called a "disaster on every level" by none other than Bork, which is hilarious; 2) called out by Republican senators for not having strong enough anti-abortion views; described in wholly bland terms by the Wall Street Journal, no less. Can't wait to hear you pin this one on the Dems, too.

Or are you talking about Garland? Still waiting for that "pattern" to show up.

To a certain extent I could label pretty much every fing campaign versus Republican nominees as that. Some a lot more than others.

I guess I never saw the campaign of 'This is Ginsburg's America, an America where every person who wants a right made up out of whole cloth can get one'. Can you point that out to me in your o-so righteous defense?

Can you point out the campaign where 90 per cent+ of Republican Senators came out within 4 weeks of declaring matter of factly that the 'a wise Latina is wiser than most' in unfit and that they will not be voting that way?

Man, perhaps put on a German Wermacht Sgt's uniform and keep proclaiming 'I see nothink' some more dude.

Seriously, you think that that Democrats have been of-so fing accepting of the vast majority of Republican nominees. Got it. When you actually bother to look at the history of the personal slams (I guess the term 'borking' came about by sheer happenstance, correct?) and of the sheer obstructionism you see *no* Democratic history there?

Hey dude, at least I dont have 8 inch lenses on my rose colored glasses. Garland was a shut down. I recognize that. Funny that you kind of snidely bring that up as such a *horrible* outreach, and utterly fail in the fing slightest to even take into account anything in the last thirty years *except* Garland. Got it.

Tee up the whine about Garland in five.... four.... three... two....

(10-01-2018 09:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 08:06 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think a week for the FBI to investigate will give one of the following results:

A. They conclude BK is guilty. Democrats are giddy. Probability: 0.0000000000000000000000000001%
B; They conclude Ford is lying or wrong: Democrats ask for more investigation, blaming the lack of results on the short time period. Probablity: 0.000000001%
C. They conclude they cannot prove Ford's story or disprove his: Democrats ask for more time: probability: 100 - (A+B)%.

Clearly just a ploy for time. Republicans might have to allow it to get Flake's vote.
(Aside: Has there ever been a better name for this kind of person than Flake?)

And when C occurs (and we have the same evidence as where we are now), the incessant beat for 'more' will keep on. Even in the light of zero corroborative evidence.

I have no problems with doing this to get Flake on. And, probably at this point Murkowski. Thats 50.

And watch the gnashing level rise.

It is amazing to me where we are with literally zero supporting evidence. But, sadly, I am not surprised. Especially in light of the historical lengths the Democrats will stretch personal destruction to get a SCOTUS seat. And it is amazing how many people are either happy or neutral wannabe with where this farce has brought us, or supportive of this process. And they are utterly oblivious to (or perhaps happy with) the methodology and process being utilized.

By the way, the Democrats wont *ask* for more time, it will be a demand.

And we're back with Robert (rejected by bipartisan consensus) Bork again! Unless this time you're talking about Harriet Miers? Let's see . . . 1) called a "disaster on every level" by none other than Bork, which is hilarious; 2) called out by Republican senators for not having strong enough anti-abortion views; described in wholly bland terms by the Wall Street Journal, no less. Can't wait to hear you pin this one on the Dems, too.

Or are you talking about Garland? Still waiting for that "pattern" to show up.

To a certain extent I could label pretty much every fing campaign versus Republican nominees as that. Some a lot more than others.

I guess I never saw the campaign of 'This is Ginsburg's America, an America where every person who wants a right made up out of whole cloth can get one'. Can you point that out to me in your o-so righteous defense?

Can you point out the campaign where 90 per cent+ of Republican Senators came out within 4 weeks of declaring matter of factly that the 'a wise Latina is wiser than most' in unfit and that they will not be voting that way?

Man, perhaps put on a German Wermacht Sgt's uniform and keep proclaiming 'I see nothink' some more dude.

Seriously, you think that that Democrats have been of-so fing accepting of the vast majority of Republican nominees. Got it. When you actually bother to look at the history of the personal slams (I guess the term 'borking' came about by sheer happenstance, correct?) and of the sheer obstructionism you see *no* Democratic history there?

Hey dude, at least I dont have 8 inch lenses on my rose colored glasses. Garland was a shut down. I recognize that. Funny that you kind of snidely bring that up as such a *horrible* outreach, and utterly fail in the fing slightest to even take into account anything in the last thirty years *except* Garland. Got it.

Tee up the whine about Garland in five.... four.... three... two....

Hey - you have the right to die on whatever hill you want, but I doubt anyone will call you a martyr for choosing this one. My point is not, and has never been, that Dems share no blame for the shitshow that now passes for the SCOTUS nomination process. My point has always been that your narrative that it's always and only the Dems' fault is simply untrue. There's historical context. There's personal context. There's political context. It's not enough to just count the votes and tally the obstruction points. That's my point.

Any my prescription is only -1.75, so my glasses aren't THAT thick. In any event, better to have rose-colored glasses than a blindfold.

(10-02-2018 11:39 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 08:06 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think a week for the FBI to investigate will give one of the following results:

A. They conclude BK is guilty. Democrats are giddy. Probability: 0.0000000000000000000000000001%
B; They conclude Ford is lying or wrong: Democrats ask for more investigation, blaming the lack of results on the short time period. Probablity: 0.000000001%
C. They conclude they cannot prove Ford's story or disprove his: Democrats ask for more time: probability: 100 - (A+B)%.

Clearly just a ploy for time. Republicans might have to allow it to get Flake's vote.
(Aside: Has there ever been a better name for this kind of person than Flake?)

And when C occurs (and we have the same evidence as where we are now), the incessant beat for 'more' will keep on. Even in the light of zero corroborative evidence.

I have no problems with doing this to get Flake on. And, probably at this point Murkowski. Thats 50.

And watch the gnashing level rise.

It is amazing to me where we are with literally zero supporting evidence. But, sadly, I am not surprised. Especially in light of the historical lengths the Democrats will stretch personal destruction to get a SCOTUS seat. And it is amazing how many people are either happy or neutral wannabe with where this farce has brought us, or supportive of this process. And they are utterly oblivious to (or perhaps happy with) the methodology and process being utilized.

By the way, the Democrats wont *ask* for more time, it will be a demand.

And we're back with Robert (rejected by bipartisan consensus) Bork again! Unless this time you're talking about Harriet Miers? Let's see . . . 1) called a "disaster on every level" by none other than Bork, which is hilarious; 2) called out by Republican senators for not having strong enough anti-abortion views; described in wholly bland terms by the Wall Street Journal, no less. Can't wait to hear you pin this one on the Dems, too.

Or are you talking about Garland? Still waiting for that "pattern" to show up.

To a certain extent I could label pretty much every fing campaign versus Republican nominees as that. Some a lot more than others.

I guess I never saw the campaign of 'This is Ginsburg's America, an America where every person who wants a right made up out of whole cloth can get one'. Can you point that out to me in your o-so righteous defense?

Can you point out the campaign where 90 per cent+ of Republican Senators came out within 4 weeks of declaring matter of factly that the 'a wise Latina is wiser than most' in unfit and that they will not be voting that way?

Man, perhaps put on a German Wermacht Sgt's uniform and keep proclaiming 'I see nothink' some more dude.

Seriously, you think that that Democrats have been of-so fing accepting of the vast majority of Republican nominees. Got it. When you actually bother to look at the history of the personal slams (I guess the term 'borking' came about by sheer happenstance, correct?) and of the sheer obstructionism you see *no* Democratic history there?

Hey dude, at least I dont have 8 inch lenses on my rose colored glasses. Garland was a shut down. I recognize that. Funny that you kind of snidely bring that up as such a *horrible* outreach, and utterly fail in the fing slightest to even take into account anything in the last thirty years *except* Garland. Got it.

Tee up the whine about Garland in five.... four.... three... two....

Hey - you have the right to die on whatever hill you want, but I doubt anyone will call you a martyr for choosing this one. My point is not, and has never been, that Dems share no blame for the shitshow that now passes for the SCOTUS nomination process. My point has always been that your narrative that it's always and only the Dems' fault is simply untrue. There's historical context. There's personal context. There's political context. It's not enough to just count the votes and tally the obstruction points. That's my point.

Any my prescription is only -1.75, so my glasses aren't THAT thick. In any event, better to have rose-colored glasses than a blindfold.

Your point is, funny enough, that the term 'borking' should never be a word. Are you going for a history, lexicology, or political science PhD with that rather interesting thesis?

I agree there is 'political context' -- no doubt. The progressives will play their version of Bastogne against the evil onslaught of 'textualists' and their sub-minion of 'originalists' who dare threaten their touchstone of existence.

They have done this historically, continue to do this, and I guess will pretty much always do this. Their record is pretty much unblemished on that point. Please point out where I have ever disagreed with this?

The other political context is that they now have their 'wailing wall' of Garland. Kind of rude fing wakeup call from the 90+ votes that the General Counsel of the ACLU that they garnered before, but tfb. Bummer.

I cant wait for the shitshow that any next Trump pick might be.

Edited to add:

Senator Coons says it needs to be routine again for lawmakers to vote for qualified officials, even if they identify more closely with the other party. (Coons, I should note, did not vote for Gorsuch.) Look at the vote totals. I guess Senator Coons is knee jerk characterizing the routine now is *not* to vote for qualifications, and instead vote party. All you have to do is compare vote totals of Kagan, Sotamayor, and the notorious RBG compared to the catfight over Alito to know what the hell he is talking about. But the Democrats 'share no blame' in the process.

I guess you vehemently deny that Coons is actually correct then.

(10-02-2018 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 11:39 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 08:06 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And when C occurs (and we have the same evidence as where we are now), the incessant beat for 'more' will keep on. Even in the light of zero corroborative evidence.

I have no problems with doing this to get Flake on. And, probably at this point Murkowski. Thats 50.

And watch the gnashing level rise.

It is amazing to me where we are with literally zero supporting evidence. But, sadly, I am not surprised. Especially in light of the historical lengths the Democrats will stretch personal destruction to get a SCOTUS seat. And it is amazing how many people are either happy or neutral wannabe with where this farce has brought us, or supportive of this process. And they are utterly oblivious to (or perhaps happy with) the methodology and process being utilized.

By the way, the Democrats wont *ask* for more time, it will be a demand.

And we're back with Robert (rejected by bipartisan consensus) Bork again! Unless this time you're talking about Harriet Miers? Let's see . . . 1) called a "disaster on every level" by none other than Bork, which is hilarious; 2) called out by Republican senators for not having strong enough anti-abortion views; described in wholly bland terms by the Wall Street Journal, no less. Can't wait to hear you pin this one on the Dems, too.

Or are you talking about Garland? Still waiting for that "pattern" to show up.

To a certain extent I could label pretty much every fing campaign versus Republican nominees as that. Some a lot more than others.

I guess I never saw the campaign of 'This is Ginsburg's America, an America where every person who wants a right made up out of whole cloth can get one'. Can you point that out to me in your o-so righteous defense?

Can you point out the campaign where 90 per cent+ of Republican Senators came out within 4 weeks of declaring matter of factly that the 'a wise Latina is wiser than most' in unfit and that they will not be voting that way?

Man, perhaps put on a German Wermacht Sgt's uniform and keep proclaiming 'I see nothink' some more dude.

Seriously, you think that that Democrats have been of-so fing accepting of the vast majority of Republican nominees. Got it. When you actually bother to look at the history of the personal slams (I guess the term 'borking' came about by sheer happenstance, correct?) and of the sheer obstructionism you see *no* Democratic history there?

Hey dude, at least I dont have 8 inch lenses on my rose colored glasses. Garland was a shut down. I recognize that. Funny that you kind of snidely bring that up as such a *horrible* outreach, and utterly fail in the fing slightest to even take into account anything in the last thirty years *except* Garland. Got it.

Tee up the whine about Garland in five.... four.... three... two....

Hey - you have the right to die on whatever hill you want, but I doubt anyone will call you a martyr for choosing this one. My point is not, and has never been, that Dems share no blame for the shitshow that now passes for the SCOTUS nomination process. My point has always been that your narrative that it's always and only the Dems' fault is simply untrue. There's historical context. There's personal context. There's political context. It's not enough to just count the votes and tally the obstruction points. That's my point.

Any my prescription is only -1.75, so my glasses aren't THAT thick. In any event, better to have rose-colored glasses than a blindfold.

Your point is, funny enough, that the term 'borking' should never be a word. Are you going for a history, lexicology, or political science PhD with that rather interesting thesis?

I agree there is 'political context' -- no doubt. The progressives will play their version of Bastogne against the evil onslaught of 'textualists' and their sub-minion of 'originalists' who dare threaten their touchstone of existence.

They have done this historically, continue to do this, and I guess will pretty much always do this. Their record is pretty much unblemished on that point. Please point out where I have ever disagreed with this?

The other political context is that they now have their 'wailing wall' of Garland. Kind of rude fing wakeup call from the 90+ votes that the General Counsel of the ACLU that they garnered before, but tfb. Bummer.

I cant wait for the shitshow that any next Trump pick might be.

Edited to add:

Senator Coons says it needs to be routine again for lawmakers to vote for qualified officials, even if they identify more closely with the other party. (Coons, I should note, did not vote for Gorsuch.) Look at the vote totals. I guess Senator Coons is knee jerk characterizing the routine now is *not* to vote for qualifications, and instead vote party. All you have to do is compare vote totals of Kagan, Sotamayor, and the notorious RBG compared to the catfight over Alito to know what the hell he is talking about. But the Democrats 'share no blame' in the process.

I guess you vehemently deny that Coons is actually correct then.

I need to trade out the rose-colored glasses for some rose-colored beer goggles to figure out exactly what you're trying to say here. I can say for sure, however, that this:

Quote:But the Democrats 'share no blame' in the process.

Is approximately 170 degrees from what I actually said.

As for the term "borking," I don't think it should never be used. I just think it should be used correctly. But I'd say it plays approximately the same role in the lexicon that the phrase "The War of Northern Aggression" did (does?).

I think the Democrats should carry 100% of the blame for the shitshow. They have shown a willingness to smear a man in front of his 10 year old daughter, just to stop the nomination. They dig up the most unsavory and mentally deranged "witnesses" from 35 years ago to impugn him. No personal attacks were used on Merrick Garland. This is not tit for tat - this is **** for tat.

I thought Feinstein was one of the better lefties. No more. Unless you want to consider her as better than most of a really bad lot.

Anybody defending the left's tactics on this is just showing a moral depravity that subjugates decency to politics.

(10-02-2018 09:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Democrats should carry 100% of the blame for the shitshow. They have shown a willingness to smear a man in front of his 10 year old daughter, just to stop the nomination. They dig up the most unsavory and mentally deranged "witnesses" from 35 years ago to impugn him. No personal attacks were used on Merrick Garland. This is not tit for tat - this is **** for tat.

I thought Feinstein was one of the better lefties. No more. Unless you want to consider her as better than most of a really bad lot.

Anybody defending the left's tactics on this is just showing a moral depravity that subjugates decency to politics.

There’s evidence that Dems dug up Ford, and not that she came forward willingly?

Also, there was no character assasination with Gorsuch - so why would Dems start making those type of things up now?

I think you can blame Feinstein for sitting on the allegations, but that’s about it.

(10-02-2018 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 09:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Democrats should carry 100% of the blame for the shitshow. They have shown a willingness to smear a man in front of his 10 year old daughter, just to stop the nomination. They dig up the most unsavory and mentally deranged "witnesses" from 35 years ago to impugn him. No personal attacks were used on Merrick Garland. This is not tit for tat - this is **** for tat.

I thought Feinstein was one of the better lefties. No more. Unless you want to consider her as better than most of a really bad lot.

Anybody defending the left's tactics on this is just showing a moral depravity that subjugates decency to politics.

There’s evidence that Dems dug up Ford, and not that she came forward willingly?

Also, there was no character assasination with Gorsuch - so why would Dems start making those type of things up now?

I think you can blame Feinstein for sitting on the allegations, but that’s about it.

Nah, I have been watching the Dems, and I would be ashamed if one of my sons acted like that.

She did NOT come forth willingly. she came forth reluctantly AFTER her name was leaked to the press. She testified to that under oath.

Are you proud of the Dems?

(10-02-2018 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 09:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Democrats should carry 100% of the blame for the shitshow. They have shown a willingness to smear a man in front of his 10 year old daughter, just to stop the nomination. They dig up the most unsavory and mentally deranged "witnesses" from 35 years ago to impugn him. No personal attacks were used on Merrick Garland. This is not tit for tat - this is **** for tat.

I thought Feinstein was one of the better lefties. No more. Unless you want to consider her as better than most of a really bad lot.

Anybody defending the left's tactics on this is just showing a moral depravity that subjugates decency to politics.

There’s evidence that Dems dug up Ford, and not that she came forward willingly?

Also, there was no character assasination with Gorsuch - so why would Dems start making those type of things up now?

I think you can blame Feinstein for sitting on the allegations, but that’s about it.

Gorsuch is already on the court, and that is the problem with Kavanaugh. Come now, every Democrat vowed to vote against him from the git-go. As the nomination got closer and closer to fruition, they got more and more desperate. Now they will grasp at any straw, regardless of who it hurts.

They will call for investigations of him being in league with Russia if it will delay him more. Also, maybe they have found somebody who can testify that perhaps Kavanaugh cheated on a history quiz in 7th grade.

In any event, it is the Dems acting badly, and you defending their actions.

polygraph

How to beat a polygraph test

Guess there is a good reason they are not admissible in court.

Grassley

Jobs data

This must be stopped, before happy, employed people start voting Republican.

(10-03-2018 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Jobs data

This must be stopped, before happy, employed people start voting Republican.

Hopefully Amazon's move is actually indicative of coming increases in wages.

Wages have stayed stubbornly stagnant during the stock market boom and need to catch up.

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

(10-03-2018 10:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

A Rice professor gave a talk this spring about trends in labor force participation. He looked at the historical data for the last 50+ years, zeroing in on the participation rate for white males of prime working age (since that is the demographic whose ability to access to the labor market has been consistent during that time). The dropoff in the last 10-15 years has been startling.

Politically and economically, it's kind of scary: since our founding, one of America's great strengths has been the nearly complete absence of a large "lumpenproletariat" of prime-age people who are consumers rather than producers of wealth and who have little or no stake in the market economy.