View Full Version : Filibuster fails.
72-25 (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/30/alito/index.html) in cloture vote on Alito. Voting for full confirmation likely to be done tomorrow morning, and likely to see him confirmed.
Discuss (let's all (yes, even me) try to keep it friendly, this time, eh?).
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
30-01-2006, 23:39
Nah, it's more fun rubbing it in that the Democrats are a bunch of losers.
Too bad about the filibuster though. It would have been great fun watching the Democrats get blown out of the water.
He's certainly qualified. If the hearings had been more than a dog and pony show, maybe we could say more. Smeg saying something dumb in 3, 2, 1.
Edit: wow, even beat the countdown. Your boss on-site today, Smeggy?
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
30-01-2006, 23:40
Who made it a dog and pony show?
Module88
30-01-2006, 23:41
Although he kind of scares me, there's really no good reason for him to not be confirmed. Simply disagreeing with his views isn't good enough. Democracy shouldn't be about being rejected because someone disagrees with you. Aside from that, Judges have a history of switching their ideologies (or showing their true ideology) once on the Court. You really don't know what's going to happen. But, at the very least, he sounds a hell of a lot better than Scalia, who I think does not know English or the Constitution very well.
LukeJames
30-01-2006, 23:41
You know you haven't the faintest clue about politics when you think this thread is about the Dairy Queen treat. Me.
Who made it a dog and pony show?
Alito and the senators. Yes from both parties. They pretended to ask questions and he pretended to answer them.
My only knock on Alito is that he willingly chooses to live in New Jersey.
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
30-01-2006, 23:43
That's ok, most people in here are clueless to politics. That's why they keep voting for losers:jig:
SuggestiveName
30-01-2006, 23:47
That's ok, most people in here are clueless to politics. That's why they keep voting for losers:jig:I know this is just flamebait, but it strikes me that you are making a point that you don't want to be making:
I take it as rather uncontentious that a large majority of the US population is ignorant about politics. A majority of the population voted for Republicans in the last 2 elections (presidential, for the sake of this argument.) It should then follow (at least to some degree) that being ignorant and voting for republicans coincides. At least that's the point I took from your comment.
Module88
30-01-2006, 23:51
I know this is just flamebait, but it strikes me that you are making a point that you don't want to be making:
I take it as rather uncontentious that a large majority of the US population is ignorant about politics. A majority of the population voted for Republicans in the last 2 elections (presidential, for the sake of this argument.) It should then follow (at least to some degree) that being ignorant and voting for republicans coincides. At least that's the point I took from your comment.
It also follows then, that being ignorant and voting for Democrats coincide because Democrats have also won presidential elections and the ignorance has lasted a little more than six or so years.
And when we add 1 and 1, we see that voting for either party is a sign of ignorance. At least with regards to the tossers they put up as presidential candidates. I've voted NOTA since 1992 and I will continue to do so.
Module88
30-01-2006, 23:57
And when we add 1 and 1, we see that voting for either party is a sign of ignorance. At least with regards to the tossers they put up as presidential candidates. I've voted NOTA since 1992 and I will continue to do so.
Under the assumption that what SN said is true, of course. But that's not accurate, so neither is this.
SirKnightmare
30-01-2006, 23:59
That's ok, most people in here are clueless to politics. That's why they keep voting for losers:jig:
Hence they keep voting for Republicans because Democrats kill babies. You seem to have gotten a lot more venemous since the last time I saw you. Maybe it has something to do with Abramoff getting busted, maybe Tom Delay...
SuggestiveName
30-01-2006, 23:59
It also follows then, that being ignorant and voting for Democrats coincide because Democrats have also won presidential elections and the ignorance has lasted a little more than six or so years.I wasn't trying to argue that Democrats aren't also ignorant, but if you wanted to get technical about things I would just point out that educated people tend to be liberal. Perhaps education doesn't preclude ignorance, but that would be up to quite some debate.
But to approach this in a totally different way: If I am ignorant to politics then I will vote for a loser. I take it this is the core of smeg's post. This would mean that informed voters may vote for the winner or the loser. Hence anyone who voted for the winner must have been an informed voter. Hence everyone who voted for Bush is an informed voter.
Ah, now the logic makes sense. All you have to do is re-define "informed" as "voted for the winner" and it all follows. Perfect.
Simply disagreeing with his views isn't good enough. Democracy shouldn't be about being rejected because someone disagrees with you.
That has been my one big gripe in every debate over this issue that I've seen. For God knows how long, the party in the minority have voted against candidates based on political views rather than judicial skills.
Dem: He's a Conservative, he can't serve on the SCOTUS! He'll take away your right to an abortion, and make black people illegal!
Rep: He's a Liberal, he can't serve on the SCOTUS! He'll take away your right to bear arms and allow 3-year olds to have abortions!
It's utterly ridiculous. I don't care what Alito's views are on abortion;I care about whether he'll use the Constitution as a basis for any decision he makes. Same goes for any of the libs on the court.
Module88
31-01-2006, 00:06
I wasn't trying to argue that Democrats aren't also ignorant, but if you wanted to get technical about things I would just point out that educated people tend to be liberal. Perhaps education doesn't preclude ignorance, but that would be up to quite some debate.
Perhaps, but I could make several similar connections as well. Just because that happens to be true doesn't mean that education is a major reason for it (directly, anyway).
But to approach this in a totally different way: If I am ignorant to politics then I will vote for a loser. I take it this is the core of smeg's post. This would mean that informed voters may vote for the winner or the loser. Hence anyone who voted for the winner must have been an informed voter. Hence everyone who voted for Bush is an informed voter.
Ah, now the logic makes sense. All you have to do is re-define "informed" as "voted for the winner" and it all follows. Perfect.
I'm just not sure why you even had to expand on it, is all. I'm pretty sure all of us know Smeg and Llad are both fanatics for their respective sides. Don't waste your breathe man. Not gonna change a thing, although I suppose it is amusing.
SuggestiveName
31-01-2006, 00:08
I'm just not sure why you even had to expand on it, is all. I'm pretty sure all of us know Smeg and Llad are both fanatics for their respective sides. Don't waste your breathe man. Not gonna change a thing, although I suppose it is amusing.I'm not trying to change a thing, I'm just trying to apply logic to politics - an inherantly amusing activity.:scratch:
For God knows how long, the party in the minority have voted against candidates based on political views rather than judicial skills.
That's a good point, because that damn hippie abortion loving commie Scalia was confirmed by a 98-0 vote.
This is a sorta neat link. (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm)
Module88
31-01-2006, 00:12
I'm not trying to change a thing, I'm just trying to apply logic to politics - an inherantly amusing activity.:scratch:
I'll give you that, but doing it with fanatics from either side is just a waste of time.
That's a good point, because that damn hippie abortion loving commie Scalia was confirmed by a 98-0 vote.
This is a sorta neat link. (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm)
I shouldn't have said "vote", but rather "argued against", or "opposed in debates". The lead-up to the actual vote is where the actual lunatic behavior is carried out.
SuggestiveName
31-01-2006, 00:14
I'll give you that, but doing it with fanatics from either side is just a waste of time.Pff...arguing with moderates is about as entertaining as a game of tetris with only 4x1 blocks. Fanatics are where it's at, man.
buttershug
31-01-2006, 00:16
You know you haven't the faintest clue about politics when you think this thread is about the Dairy Queen treat. Me.
Not enough people in your city know enough. Otherwise why would you have the mayor you do. She was excited Loblaws was going to open a new store in her city then was not happy when it turned out it was a No Frills. She didn't want to attract the kind of people who would shop there.
Module88
31-01-2006, 00:17
Pff...arguing with moderates is about as entertaining as a game of tetris with only 4x1 blocks. Fanatics are where it's at, man.
Arguing with fanatics is like watching a duel between two Zealots in that wretched game. Moderates are where it's at.
I shouldn't have said "vote", but rather "argued against", or "opposed in debates". The lead-up to the actual vote is where the actual lunatic behavior is carried out.
Agreed, somehow my edit didn't get through. Lemme try again.
What you hear is vote pandering, Bortaz. Inside it's business as usual. That's what makes it (the pandering) even more infuriating, at least to me. Again, ask a real question, don't posture. Well, that and people - not to name names here in the OTF - buy it hook, line, and sinker. Especially when you consider the Congressional reelection rate is about 98%.
Hence they keep voting for Republicans because Democrats kill babies. You seem to have gotten a lot more venemous since the last time I saw you. Maybe it has something to do with Abramoff getting busted, maybe Tom Delay...
If I were a Liberal, I wouldn't get too smug about the Abramoff thing, till we hear for sure whether Harry Reid (the Democratic Leader in the Senate) took $60,000 from clients of Abramoff, at Abramoff's request. Word on the radio today is that Dingy Harry might even be stepping down from his post over this.
KillerAim
31-01-2006, 01:55
Module88:
But, at the very least, he sounds a hell of a lot better than Scalia, who I think does not know English or the Constitution very well.
Not even his most ardent detractors would argue that Scalia has trouble with English or that he doesn’t understand the Constitution. Yes, he’s bullheaded and abrasive as hell and he doesn’t suffer fools too well, but there’s nobody on the Court that can match his legal acumen.
SuggestiveName:
I take it as rather uncontentious that a large majority of the US population is ignorant about politics…
I'm not trying to change a thing, I'm just trying to apply logic to politics - an inherantly amusing activity.
You can apply logic to politics, just look up “Public Choice Theory”. It has a very commonsensical (yea, I used it again, Dondrei) argument that explains why many people do not vote nor take the time to study politics and politicians. Voters practice what they call a “rational ignorance” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory).
Each voter is faced with an infinitesimally small probability that his vote will change the result of the elections, while gathering the relevant information necessary for a well-informed voting decision requires substantial time and effort. Therefore, the rational decision for each voter is to be generally ignorant of politics and perhaps even abstain from voting.
- - -
I would just point out that educated people tend to be liberal.
I would argue that over-educated people tend to be liberal along with under-educated people. :rolleyes:
The studies I’ve seen show that liberal voters tend to monopolize both ends of the educational scale: those with less than a high school education and those with a postgraduate degree. And since a large percentage of postgraduate degrees are in the field of education or science, a rational argument can be made that they tend to look at politics and life itself in the abstract rather than looking at reality.
Module88
31-01-2006, 02:38
Module88:
Not even his most ardent detractors would argue that Scalia has trouble with English or that he doesn’t understand the Constitution. Yes, he’s bullheaded and abrasive as hell and he doesn’t suffer fools too well, but there’s nobody on the Court that can match his legal acumen.
Here's the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Here's what Scalia thinks:
"How can the court possibly assert that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and nonreligion? Who says so? Surely not the words of the Constitution."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week844/cover.html
I know our government has a lot of religious things associated with it. But if "no law respecting or abridging" doesn't scream neutral, I don't know what does. Maybe it's my personal bias, but as far as I'm concerned, that pretty much exactly yells neutrality.
Well, I thought this might happen. I have misgivings about Alito, but it's just my gut feeling. After all, he was deliberately chosen so we'd have nothing else to go on. Hope I'm wrong.
Who made it a dog and pony show?
Everyone.
That has been my one big gripe in every debate over this issue that I've seen. For God knows how long, the party in the minority have voted against candidates based on political views rather than judicial skills.
Please, like the two aren't related.
Pff...arguing with moderates is about as entertaining as a game of tetris with only 4x1 blocks. Fanatics are where it's at, man.
ROFLHOVERCRAFT! Exactly.
It has a very commonsensical (yea, I used it again, Dondrei)
There's a special place in hell reserved for people who use awkward sentence constructs. If I remember my Dante, it's between the third and fourth circles...
72-25 (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/30/alito/index.html) in cloture vote on Alito. Voting for full confirmation likely to be done tomorrow morning, and likely to see him confirmed.
Just to incense Dondrei, I will employ the double negative: The outcome of the cloture vote was not unexpected.
You can apply logic to politics, just look up “Public Choice Theory”.
We learned about that today in AP Econ. Makes a hell of a lot of sense.
SuggestiveName
31-01-2006, 07:39
SuggestiveName:
I would argue that over-educated people tend to be liberal along with under-educated people. :rolleyes:
The studies I’ve seen show that liberal voters tend to monopolize both ends of the educational scale: those with less than a high school education and those with a postgraduate degree. And since a large percentage of postgraduate degrees are in the field of education or science, a rational argument can be made that they tend to look at politics and life itself in the abstract rather than looking at reality.I would argue that the concept of "over-educated" is incoherant. Mis-educated perhaps, educated in a biased manner perhaps, but not over-educated. Education is a good thing, and you can never have too much.
I really should not argue numbers when I'm too lazy to look them up, but I remember that liberals (or rather Dems) dominate post-grads, college and HS grads are a mixed bad, and non-HS grads are split sharply between Republican and Democrat. But I could be wrong, my memories are a couple years old.
SirKnightmare
31-01-2006, 20:17
If I were a Liberal, I wouldn't get too smug about the Abramoff thing, till we hear for sure whether Harry Reid (the Democratic Leader in the Senate) took $60,000 from clients of Abramoff, at Abramoff's request. Word on the radio today is that Dingy Harry might even be stepping down from his post over this.
Yeh and if I were a conservative I'd get a brain transplant. By the way, Rush Limbaugh isn't a reliable source of news.
Necrochild313
31-01-2006, 20:41
Yeh and if I were a conservative I'd get a brain transplant.
If I were a liberal I'd have a brain abortion.
couldn't resist
If I were a liberal I'd have a brain abortion.
couldn't resist
Wouldn't that make you a conservative?
me neither.
Necrochild313
31-01-2006, 23:32
Wouldn't that make you a conservative?
me neither.
No, it'd make me far left.
I see the right-left insults are in full swing again and just in nick of time for tonight's State of the Union message from our glorious leader.
WASHINGTON - President Bush, pushing to take charge of an election-year agenda, was expected to tell the nation Tuesday night that “America is addicted to oil”
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11110276/)
Hehe ... C'mon over here kiddies, the first one is on me. :evil:
I see the right-left insults are in full swing again and just in nick of time for tonight's State of the Union message from our glorious leader.
I've laid in a supply of beer in anticipation. (http://www.drinkinggame.us/)
EliManning
01-02-2006, 00:58
A majority of the population voted for Republicans in the last 2 elections (presidential, for the sake of this argument.)
No offense but that statement is patently false even if you restrict the definition of population to "people who voted." Unless you were trying to get a Republican to refute that, in which case I'd say nice effort. *butt slap*
I shouldn't have said "vote", but rather "argued against", or "opposed in debates". The lead-up to the actual vote is where the actual lunatic behavior is carried out.
If minority parties didn't oppose majority candidates in debates, we might as well go ahead and overtly abandon what few shreds of pretense to democracy we have left. None of this, by the way, should be construed to mean that I believe that either party ever wins an actual majority of votes.
Yeh and if I were a conservative I'd get a brain transplant.
Would it be a brain transplant or a body transplant? I just blew my own mind.
Haha teh othur side is stoopid.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.