LawTalkers
Page 17 of 77 « First 71516 17 18192767 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years! (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=885)

Tyrone Slothrop 03-02-2022 03:59 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Trump and Russia, for those who want to see so much of it in one place.

Icky Thump 03-02-2022 04:41 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532474)
Trump and Russia, for those who want to see so much of it in one place.
Damn, weak. I thought it was going to be a video of Trump sucking Putin's хуй.

Hank Chinaski 03-02-2022 05:59 PM
Re: Song of the Day
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 532473)
*complimenting Mr. Lynne
Also, quit saying you make sushi.

Pretty Little Flower 03-02-2022 09:14 PM
Re: Song of the Day
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532476)
Also, quit saying you make sushi.
Quit saying I don’t.

Speaking of Japan, it’s Weird Wednesday on the SOTD. Do you understand the major role that Haruomi Hosono has played on Japanese popular music? Me neither, but it is major. From what I have read. I definitely dig the groove of this little weird number:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcxaJFCiqsc

Hank Chinaski 03-03-2022 08:06 PM
Re: Song of the Day
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 532477)
Quit saying I don’t.

Speaking of Japan, it’s Weird Wednesday on the SOTD. Do you understand the major role that Haruomi Hosono has played on Japanese popular music? Me neither, but it is major. From what I have read. I definitely dig the groove of this little weird number:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcxaJFCiqsc
Melt Banana says they were influenced by Hosono? Because otherwise, FOH

Pretty Little Flower 03-04-2022 10:54 AM
Song of the Day
 
I saw Mdou Moctar last fall, and if you have a chance to see him live, do so. Unless you don’t like his brand of Saharan Tuareg guitar rock, in which case skip it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y23ewhFf_hs

Here is a bonus video of his band playing on the banks of the Niger River at dawn That sun!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9Ow87OwVbA

sebastian_dangerfield 03-04-2022 01:07 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532470)
Sebby, I'm wondering if Russia's invasion of Ukraine has prompted you to re-evaluate your thinking on the nexus between Trump and Russia. IIRC, you were skeptical of a lot of the media's reporting -- more, as I understood it, out of a sort of contrarian streak inclined to debunk what most people were thinking. But Trump's posture towards Putin and Russian looks much worse now than it did a few weeks ago, which is saying something.
No. Trump was a useful idiot for Putin. Still is. The Ukraine tragedy/criminal war is something different.

Think of it this way... Putin has certain chess moves he can make in his quest to expand or protect Russia's sphere of influence. While Trump was in office, he could blunt NATO, the biggest threat to that influence, through Trump's policies. With Trump out of office, he uses a different move - threat of war, and now war - to blunt NATO.

My criticism of the media was twofold: (1) Russia isn't an existential threat to us; (2) Trump was not in control of any of the alleged "collusion" (a very vague word, btw). I think this war validates (1) as we've seen Russia's ragtag army perform miserably so far, embarrassing Putin before the world. And I stand by (2) because the more information that comes out the more we see Trump was the textbook definition (Soviet-coined term, btw) of a useful idiot. The Russians fed him crumbs that helped him beat Hillary and they used the promise of more of them to maneuver him. To use a Breaking Bad analogy, the media wanted to make Trump "the one who knocks." In reality, he was more Saul Goodman. Hustling for the next dollar, or to get past the next political obstacle (usually created by his own fuck-up).

I agree his posture toward Putin looks worse, particularly his recent lauding of Putin's "genius."

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-04-2022 03:59 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 532480)
No. Trump was a useful idiot for Putin. Still is. The Ukraine tragedy/criminal war is something different.

Think of it this way... Putin has certain chess moves he can make in his quest to expand or protect Russia's sphere of influence. While Trump was in office, he could blunt NATO, the biggest threat to that influence, through Trump's policies. With Trump out of office, he uses a different move - threat of war, and now war - to blunt NATO.

My criticism of the media was twofold: (1) Russia isn't an existential threat to us; (2) Trump was not in control of any of the alleged "collusion" (a very vague word, btw). I think this war validates (1) as we've seen Russia's ragtag army perform miserably so far, embarrassing Putin before the world. And I stand by (2) because the more information that comes out the more we see Trump was the textbook definition (Soviet-coined term, btw) of a useful idiot. The Russians fed him crumbs that helped him beat Hillary and they used the promise of more of them to maneuver him. To use a Breaking Bad analogy, the media wanted to make Trump "the one who knocks." In reality, he was more Saul Goodman. Hustling for the next dollar, or to get past the next political obstacle (usually created by his own fuck-up).

I agree his posture toward Putin looks worse, particularly his recent lauding of Putin's "genius."
I'm not sure pleading "stupid" is a defense for Trump.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-04-2022 04:08 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 532480)
No. Trump was a useful idiot for Putin. Still is. The Ukraine tragedy/criminal war is something different.

Think of it this way... Putin has certain chess moves he can make in his quest to expand or protect Russia's sphere of influence. While Trump was in office, he could blunt NATO, the biggest threat to that influence, through Trump's policies. With Trump out of office, he uses a different move - threat of war, and now war - to blunt NATO.

My criticism of the media was twofold: (1) Russia isn't an existential threat to us; (2) Trump was not in control of any of the alleged "collusion" (a very vague word, btw). I think this war validates (1) as we've seen Russia's ragtag army perform miserably so far, embarrassing Putin before the world. And I stand by (2) because the more information that comes out the more we see Trump was the textbook definition (Soviet-coined term, btw) of a useful idiot. The Russians fed him crumbs that helped him beat Hillary and they used the promise of more of them to maneuver him. To use a Breaking Bad analogy, the media wanted to make Trump "the one who knocks." In reality, he was more Saul Goodman. Hustling for the next dollar, or to get past the next political obstacle (usually created by his own fuck-up).

I agree his posture toward Putin looks worse, particularly his recent lauding of Putin's "genius."
Well, of course Russia is very much an existential threat to us (which is why the people who want a no-fly zone over Ukraine are being stupid).

I asked a question about the real world -- the relationship between Trump and Russia -- and you instead started talking about your criticism of the media. That's clarifying. Instead of talking about what actually did happen involving Trump and Russia, e.g., see the Solnit article I linked to, you'd rather rebut some narrower set of claims about Trump's "control" over "collusion." You're not pro-Russia, and you're not really anti-anti-Trump, you're anti-media.

I find it hard to have this conversation with you, because it's hard for me to tell what you're talking about or reacting to. It's less that you see "the media" saying things with which you disagree, and more that you have snorted some lines of Taibbi or Greenwald complaining about the media and you excitedly agree.

At the risk of changing the subject to talk about the real world, I am extraordinarily disheartened by the war, even if it's clear that the Russian military initially underperformed. See this interview with Russia expert Fiona Hill in which she explains what Putin is trying to do. She also explains why she thinks Putin might use nuclear weapons, just to bring things back to the existential-threat issue.

eta: The WSJ article quoted in this tweet seems interesting too, but I don't have a subscription and my company is too cheap to get one.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-04-2022 04:31 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532482)
Well, of course Russia is very much an existential threat to us (which is why the people who want a no-fly zone over Ukraine are being stupid).

I asked a question about the real world -- the relationship between Trump and Russia -- and you instead started talking about your criticism of the media. That's clarifying. Instead of talking about what actually did happen involving Trump and Russia, e.g., see the Solnit article I linked to, you'd rather rebut some narrower set of claims about Trump's "control" over "collusion." You're not pro-Russia, and you're not really anti-anti-Trump, you're anti-media.

I find it hard to have this conversation with you, because it's hard for me to tell what you're talking about or reacting to. It's less that you see "the media" saying things with which you disagree, and more that you have snorted some lines of Taibbi or Greenwald complaining about the media and you excitedly agree.

At the risk of changing the subject to talk about the real world, I am extraordinarily disheartened by the war, even if it's clear that the Russian military initially underperformed. See this interview with Russia expert Fiona Hill in which she explains what Putin is trying to do. She also explains why she thinks Putin might use nuclear weapons, just to bring things back to the existential-threat issue.
I had an interesting discussion with a relative who lives in a place where every other house is flag officer. She said, basically, that the universal feeling was "why the fuck didn't we do this in 2014", that this level of sanctions and unity back then would have stopped this now. The general feeling there is that if we don't push now, after Ukraine will come Moldova, the Baltics, Kazaksthan, etc., eventually back to Afghanistan and warm water ports in the Mediterranean and Indian oceans.

So it's only existential if you think it's a bad idea to recreate the Great Game of the 19th Century.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-04-2022 04:43 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532483)
I had an interesting discussion with a relative who lives in a place where every other house is flag officer. She said, basically, that the universal feeling was "why the fuck didn't we do this in 2014", that this level of sanctions and unity back then would have stopped this now. The general feeling there is that if we don't push now, after Ukraine will come Moldova, the Baltics, Kazaksthan, etc., eventually back to Afghanistan and warm water ports in the Mediterranean and Indian oceans.

So it's only existential if you think it's a bad idea to recreate the Great Game of the 19th Century.
I think the analogy is that 2014 was the Anschluss, and this is Czechoslovakia. Agree with the larger point. Putin doesn't need to invade Moldova or Kazakhstan to have them in his orbit. The Baltics are definitely threatened, and I would think Finland too, more than Sweden. See the Fiona Hill interview for an explanation.

But also, the problem is not that Russia is a strong state. That's China. The problem is that Russia is a weak state, with grievances and a desire to overcompensate and punch above its weight. A stronger USSR couldn't control Afghanistan, nor could. Where do the warm water ports come from?

sebastian_dangerfield 03-04-2022 04:47 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Well, of course Russia is very much an existential threat to us (which is why the people who want a no-fly zone over Ukraine are being stupid).
That is stupid, because it risks a rash act. But I do not think even the Russians are going to nuke the US. They might drop a tactical nuke in Ukraine. But nuking us would be the end of everything. Somebody shoots Putin before that happens.

Quote:
I asked a question about the real world -- the relationship between Trump and Russia -- and you instead started talking about your criticism of the media.
That article was a just a rehash of every prior allegation rolled up into one screed. And it was weak sauce. Disinformation is not "meddling." It's a form of campaigning people have used since people have run for office. Anyone trying to call manipulation of the credulous a crime is missing the problem. The problem isn't the propagandist, but the moron who believes the propagandist. We have a lotta morons here.

Quote:
That's clarifying. Instead of talking about what actually did happen involving Trump and Russia, e.g., see the Solnit article I linked to, you'd rather rebut some narrower set of claims about Trump's "control" over "collusion." You're not pro-Russia, and you're not really anti-anti-Trump, you're anti-media.
Why would you think I was pro-Russia? I am anti-media.

You asked if I changed my position on Trump's relationship with Russia because of the war. I said no. And then I clarified that my only position on Trump's relationship with Russia was that it was falsely characterized (by far more than just the media) as one in which Trump was proactive, as opposed to a manipulated asset.

Trump's relationship with Russia doesn't have much, if anything, to do with this war. As I said, Putin manipulating Trump was one device to protect Russia's sphere of influence, and this war is another.

I guess one could argue that if Trump were still in office the war actually would not have happened, as Putin wouldn't feel the need to use that chess move, as he'd still have the ability to manipulate Trump, which is a far less costly one.

Quote:
I find it hard to have this conversation with you, because it's hard for me to tell what you're talking about or reacting to. It's less that you see "the media" saying things with which you disagree, and more that you have snorted some lines of Taibbi or Greenwald complaining about the media and you excitedly agree.
Russia sought to get influence with Trump by giving him stuff to help him get elected. He took that stuff, used it, and knowing he'd need a miracle to get re-elected, cozied up to Russia, hoping to get more stuff from them that'd help him. He also borrowed a ton of money from them. All of that has been exposed and acknowledged a million times. What am I supposed to say in response to a rehash of that?

Quote:
At the risk of changing the subject to talk about the real world, I am extraordinarily disheartened by the war, even if it's clear that the Russian military initially underperformed. See this interview with Russia expert Fiona Hill in which she explains what Putin is trying to do. She also explains why she thinks Putin might use nuclear weapons, just to bring things back to the existential-threat issue.
Putin has lost his mind. This is the dumbest unforced error in the history of dictatorships. I still can't wrap my head around it, but there is a silver lining -- he's uniting a fractured West.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-04-2022 05:57 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 532485)
That is stupid, because it risks a rash act. But I do not think even the Russians are going to nuke the US. They might drop a tactical nuke in Ukraine. But nuking us would be the end of everything. Somebody shoots Putin before that happens.
In other words, they are an existential threat. Glad to hear that you are not worried about a nuclear war. I wish your cocksure certainty gave me some comfort.

Quote:
That article was a just a rehash of every prior allegation rolled up into one screed. And it was weak sauce. Disinformation is not "meddling." It's a form of campaigning people have used since people have run for office. Anyone trying to call manipulation of the credulous a crime is missing the problem. The problem isn't the propagandist, but the moron who believes the propagandist. We have a lotta morons here.
If you only look at an article like that through lens of asking if there are "allegations" against Trump that might stick in an impeachment trial, I'm sure it's weak sauce. If you were to stop and ask, what is Russia doing that, say, France is not, then the sauce is not so weak.

Indeed, we have a lot of morons here. That's exactly why the disinformation is a problem.

Quote:
Why would you think I was pro-Russia? I am anti-media.
Someone might read your tendentious efforts to excuse away stories about Russia as "weak sauce" and think, well, you're just an apologist for Russia. My point, which you have repeated, is that you are anti-media, and your tendentious efforts are just a by-product of those instincts.

Quote:
You asked if I changed my position on Trump's relationship with Russia because of the war. I said no. And then I clarified that my only position on Trump's relationship with Russia was that it was falsely characterized (by far more than just the media) as one in which Trump was proactive, as opposed to a manipulated asset.

Trump's relationship with Russia doesn't have much, if anything, to do with this war. As I said, Putin manipulating Trump was one device to protect Russia's sphere of influence, and this war is another.
That actually wasn't the way I put my question, and the words you have chosen -- characteristically, given your bent -- put the focus on Trump, rather than Russia. Part of my point is that we can all look back at those episodes and see that they were part of a larger tragedy about Russia, rather than (just) a smaller farce about Trump. You prefer to keep re-reading the farce.

Quote:
I guess one could argue that if Trump were still in office the war actually would not have happened, as Putin wouldn't feel the need to use that chess move, as he'd still have the ability to manipulate Trump, which is a far less costly one.
Were there Britons in May 1940 who asked each other, how would the war be going if Neville were still in charge?

Quote:
Russia sought to get influence with Trump by giving him stuff to help him get elected. He took that stuff, used it, and knowing he'd need a miracle to get re-elected, cozied up to Russia, hoping to get more stuff from them that'd help him. He also borrowed a ton of money from them. All of that has been exposed and acknowledged a million times. What am I supposed to say in response to a rehash of that?
If someone wants to rehash it, I guess we'll find out.

Quote:
Putin has lost his mind. This is the dumbest unforced error in the history of dictatorships. I still can't wrap my head around it, but there is a silver lining -- he's uniting a fractured West.
Isn't it pretty to think so?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-05-2022 01:30 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532484)
I think the analogy is that 2014 was the Anschluss, and this is Czechoslovakia. Agree with the larger point. Putin doesn't need to invade Moldova or Kazakhstan to have them in his orbit. The Baltics are definitely threatened, and I would think Finland too, more than Sweden. See the Fiona Hill interview for an explanation.

But also, the problem is not that Russia is a strong state. That's China. The problem is that Russia is a weak state, with grievances and a desire to overcompensate and punch above its weight. A stronger USSR couldn't control Afghanistan, nor could. Where do the warm water ports come from?
Warm water ports were a key goal of Russian imperialism and statecraft all through the 19th century - part of why the Crimean War was fought back in 1850s and undoubtedly part of why they want Crimea and Ukraine now.

Replaced_Texan 03-18-2022 09:02 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.

:D

His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-18-2022 09:42 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Thanks RT! He's beautiful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 532488)
Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.

:D

His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

Icky Thump 03-19-2022 07:40 AM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 532488)
Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.

:D

His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.
C'mon, I really hope no one annoyed you about this. Congrats!

Icky Thump 03-19-2022 07:41 AM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
https://www.memesmonkey.com/images/m...16f9bde5d.jpeg

Adder 03-19-2022 01:14 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 532488)
Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.

:D

His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.
He's wonderful.

Oliver_Wendell_Ramone 03-19-2022 03:11 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 532488)
Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.

:D

His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.
Big time congrats!!!

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-19-2022 05:31 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 532488)
Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.

:D

His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.
Thank you for keeping us around, let me know if I should send on something for the costs.

But in all cases, baby before imaginary friends.

Congrats again. It really warms my heart to sign on to FB and see the photos. If it makes me happy I can only imagine how happy it makes you.

Hank Chinaski 03-22-2022 09:14 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532494)
Thank you for keeping us around, let me know if I should send on something for the costs.

But in all cases, baby before imaginary friends.

Congrats again. It really warms my heart to sign on to FB and see the photos. If it makes me happy I can only imagine how happy it makes you.
Does anyone else feel we should sue the site for the time we lost? Icky, a possible class action?

Of course then we would have to claim we have something in common with flower, which has to quell plaintiffs joining?

sebastian_dangerfield 03-23-2022 05:17 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 532488)
Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.

:D

His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.
Congratulations! That's awesome.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-23-2022 05:42 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Initially, I thought it was insane to attack Jackson as being soft on pedophiles. The only character indictment this could support is the suggestion she has a secret affinity for child molesters. Could any sane person really believe she (or for that matter almost anyone other person who could reach her level) is sympathetic to NAMBLA sorts?

Everybody blames Biden for starting this mess with Borking. But Bork really did suck, all the dicks, from here to the Rockies. He was a bought and paid for advocate playing judge who paved the way for our current monopoly-addled economy. Biden was right, even if he didn't know why, to Bork Bork. And smart people can look at that and say, decades on, thank god that happened.

But nothing is gained, and everything is lost, to allow Lindsey Graham to discuss his lack of faith with a SCOTUS nominee, to have Hawley and Cruz soil the chamber insinuating she's soft on kiddie porn aficionados. If these SCOTUS confirmation hearings are going to be what they apparently have become - spectacles where firebrands can score points with the primary voters back home by lobbing preposterous charges - they ought to remove the cameras from the room.

The behavior of the GOP in that chamber this week - the same people who bristled at Schumer's hit-job on Kavanaugh - was comical. And it'd be funny. Calling an eminently qualified person a pedophile coddler is excellent dark humor. Absurdist. Except that, I fear, it's effective, and received without hint of irony by the only audiences the Hawleys and Cruzes care about.

Get the cameras out of these hearings. This shit debases us on the global stage, to the extent that remains possible.

Hank Chinaski 03-23-2022 06:33 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 532497)
Initially, I thought it was insane to attack Jackson as being soft on pedophiles. The only character indictment this could support is the suggestion she has a secret affinity for child molesters. Could any sane person really believe she (or for that matter almost anyone other person who could reach her level) is sympathetic to NAMBLA sorts?

Everybody blames Biden for starting this mess with Borking. But Bork really did suck, all the dicks, from here to the Rockies. He was a bought and paid for advocate playing judge who paved the way for our current monopoly-addled economy. Biden was right, even if he didn't know why, to Bork Bork. And smart people can look at that and say, decades on, thank god that happened.

But nothing is gained, and everything is lost, to allow Lindsey Graham to discuss his lack of faith with a SCOTUS nominee, to have Hawley and Cruz soil the chamber insinuating she's soft on kiddie porn aficionados. If these SCOTUS confirmation hearings are going to be what they apparently have become - spectacles where firebrands can score points with the primary voters back home by lobbing preposterous charges - they ought to remove the cameras from the room.

The behavior of the GOP in that chamber this week - the same people who bristled at Schumer's hit-job on Kavanaugh - was comical. And it'd be funny. Calling an eminently qualified person a pedophile coddler is excellent dark humor. Absurdist. Except that, I fear, it's effective, and received without hint of irony by the only audiences the Hawleys and Cruzes care about.

Get the cameras out of these hearings. This shit debases us on the global stage, to the extent that remains possible.
the nature of the attacks is such that it destroys the credibility of The Court. No one respects the decisions as possibly being fair as they are written by people half of whom half the country think are jokes.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-23-2022 07:56 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532498)
the nature of the attacks is such that it destroys the credibility of The Court. No one respects the decisions as possibly being fair as they are written by people half of whom half the country think are jokes.
The Republicans have already done that, it's just playing out slowly. It's taken them decades, but they packed the Court with ideologues, and the Court's legitimacy can't survive that.

We'd face reality faster if so many Senators weren't geriatric, but you have Senators like mine (DiFi) whose deteriorating neurons play in a bygone fantasyland of bipartisan comity.

Hank Chinaski 03-23-2022 08:15 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532499)
The Republicans have already done that, it's just playing out slowly. It's taken them decades, but they packed the Court with ideologues, and the Court's legitimacy can't survive that.

We'd face reality faster if so many Senators weren't geriatric, but you have Senators like mine (DiFi) whose deteriorating neurons play in a bygone fantasyland of bipartisan comity.
Who appointed Souter? He was the first time I felt that way. He was a shut in who lived with his mommy. They basically implied he might be a pedophile.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-24-2022 02:33 AM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532500)
Who appointed Souter? He was the first time I felt that way. He was a shut in who lived with his mommy. They basically implied he might be a pedophile.
I'm not sure what you're referring to with the "first time I felt that way" but I would consider the Souter appointment (by Bush I) and subsequent confirmation (with 90 votes) one of the cases where the process worked pretty well.

Sure, he was formally opposed by a lot of key liberal constituencies, but when you get 90 votes in the Senate you know they didn't push opposition to him as a top priority. The reason it worked that time was Republicans didn't appoint a lunatic like Bork or someone like Kavanaugh who had pretty much been groomed by the Federalists from his days carrying Ken Starr's bag. Souter had a big political friend in Sununu, who was Bush's chief of Staff and the former Gov. of NH, but otherwise he really came from outside the world of DC. I don't remember grandstanding jackassery during his process, but I mostly remember the nomination as a foregone conclusion so not sure I paid that much attention.

I think Ty's point that we'd all be better off if the average age in the Senate were a few years younger (indeed, 30 years younger wouldn't be hard) may not be accurate. If you look at some of the "younger" Senators, like Cruz or Hawley, you get different flaws from the DiFis and Grassleys of the world. The Senate has always has geriatric basket cases, but they are just one of the motley crew we get, and swapping an old codger for a youthful asshat isn't necessarily going to help.

Adder 03-24-2022 10:30 AM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 532497)
Initially, I thought it was insane to attack Jackson as being soft on pedophiles. The only character indictment this could support is the suggestion she has a secret affinity for child molesters. Could any sane person really believe she (or for that matter almost anyone other person who could reach her level) is sympathetic to NAMBLA sorts?

Everybody blames Biden for starting this mess with Borking. But Bork really did suck, all the dicks, from here to the Rockies. He was a bought and paid for advocate playing judge who paved the way for our current monopoly-addled economy. Biden was right, even if he didn't know why, to Bork Bork. And smart people can look at that and say, decades on, thank god that happened.

But nothing is gained, and everything is lost, to allow Lindsey Graham to discuss his lack of faith with a SCOTUS nominee, to have Hawley and Cruz soil the chamber insinuating she's soft on kiddie porn aficionados. If these SCOTUS confirmation hearings are going to be what they apparently have become - spectacles where firebrands can score points with the primary voters back home by lobbing preposterous charges - they ought to remove the cameras from the room.

The behavior of the GOP in that chamber this week - the same people who bristled at Schumer's hit-job on Kavanaugh - was comical. And it'd be funny. Calling an eminently qualified person a pedophile coddler is excellent dark humor. Absurdist. Except that, I fear, it's effective, and received without hint of irony by the only audiences the Hawleys and Cruzes care about.

Get the cameras out of these hearings. This shit debases us on the global stage, to the extent that remains possible.
It's worse than that. It is Q-Anon type conspiracy stuff. They are using the same insinuations behind their Don't Say Gay bills too. Vile stuff.

Hank Chinaski 03-24-2022 12:31 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532501)
I'm not sure what you're referring to with the "first time I felt that way" but I would consider the Souter appointment (by Bush I) and subsequent confirmation (with 90 votes) one of the cases where the process worked pretty well.

Sure, he was formally opposed by a lot of key liberal constituencies, but when you get 90 votes in the Senate you know they didn't push opposition to him as a top priority. The reason it worked that time was Republicans didn't appoint a lunatic like Bork or someone like Kavanaugh who had pretty much been groomed by the Federalists from his days carrying Ken Starr's bag. Souter had a big political friend in Sununu, who was Bush's chief of Staff and the former Gov. of NH, but otherwise he really came from outside the world of DC. I don't remember grandstanding jackassery during his process, but I mostly remember the nomination as a foregone conclusion so not sure I paid that much attention.

I think Ty's point that we'd all be better off if the average age in the Senate were a few years younger (indeed, 30 years younger wouldn't be hard) may not be accurate. If you look at some of the "younger" Senators, like Cruz or Hawley, you get different flaws from the DiFis and Grassleys of the world. The Senate has always has geriatric basket cases, but they are just one of the motley crew we get, and swapping an old codger for a youthful asshat isn't necessarily going to help.
I just remember he was painted as a shut in who lived with his mom and had no experience interacting with people, so how could he judge?

The senate was given massive power because it was expected it wouldn’t be full of craven people who don’t give a shot about the country.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-24-2022 01:04 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532501)
I'm not sure what you're referring to with the "first time I felt that way" but I would consider the Souter appointment (by Bush I) and subsequent confirmation (with 90 votes) one of the cases where the process worked pretty well.

Sure, he was formally opposed by a lot of key liberal constituencies, but when you get 90 votes in the Senate you know they didn't push opposition to him as a top priority. The reason it worked that time was Republicans didn't appoint a lunatic like Bork or someone like Kavanaugh who had pretty much been groomed by the Federalists from his days carrying Ken Starr's bag. Souter had a big political friend in Sununu, who was Bush's chief of Staff and the former Gov. of NH, but otherwise he really came from outside the world of DC. I don't remember grandstanding jackassery during his process, but I mostly remember the nomination as a foregone conclusion so not sure I paid that much attention.

I think Ty's point that we'd all be better off if the average age in the Senate were a few years younger (indeed, 30 years younger wouldn't be hard) may not be accurate. If you look at some of the "younger" Senators, like Cruz or Hawley, you get different flaws from the DiFis and Grassleys of the world. The Senate has always has geriatric basket cases, but they are just one of the motley crew we get, and swapping an old codger for a youthful asshat isn't necessarily going to help.
A lot of conservatives were pissed off that Souter didn't give them the kind of rulings they wanted, and the lesson they took was that they needed to exert pressure on the nomination process to make sure they got the kind of judge they wanted. When another Bush tried to nominate another Souter, W. and Harriet Miers, conservatives revolted and prevented that from happening, and got Alito instead, and we all can see how that turned out.

LessinSF 03-24-2022 01:36 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532500)
Who appointed Souter? He was the first time I felt that way. He was a shut in who lived with his mommy. They basically implied he might be a pedophile.
Abe Fortas.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-24-2022 01:50 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532498)
the nature of the attacks is such that it destroys the credibility of The Court. No one respects the decisions as possibly being fair as they are written by people half of whom half the country think are jokes.
Really? I think it destroys the credibility of the Senate.

People who'd think less of Jackson because of the crazy shit thrown by Cruz and Hawley are idiots. What they think isn't going to be changed. And arguably, they're not worth trying to reach. If you think Jackson is a friend to pedophiles, you're in humanity's sphere of deviancy. You're a lost cause, a thing the absence of which would assist humanity. Your consciousness is gift undeserved and your being here, breathing our air and sharing our space, is a liability, a damage to the rest of us.

Got that off my chest...

The people I care about are the sane people who view these hearings and say, "My God. The fucking country is a laughingstock. The US is really, truly fucked." We need some semblance of respect to conduct ourselves on the world stage. Televising these hearings is an unforced error - an incentive for the likes of Cruz and Hawley. Audio only isn't a complete fix, but it gets them off TV, and that's something.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-24-2022 02:00 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532499)
The Republicans have already done that, it's just playing out slowly. It's taken them decades, but they packed the Court with ideologues, and the Court's legitimacy can't survive that.

We'd face reality faster if so many Senators weren't geriatric, but you have Senators like mine (DiFi) whose deteriorating neurons play in a bygone fantasyland of bipartisan comity.
Mathematically, the Court isn't in that bad of condition. It just needs a fourth liberal judge and Roberts to play the swing vote.

As to quality/stridency of the ideologues, well, that's different. Alito is a crypto-fascist. Gorsuch seems fine, however. I know little about Kavanaugh, but he is technically qualified. I know nothing about Barrett, but her loony religious views render her unqualified IMO.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-24-2022 03:11 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532503)
I just remember he was painted as a shut in who lived with his mom and had no experience interacting with people, so how could he judge?

The senate was given massive power because it was expected it wouldn’t be full of craven people who don’t give a shot about the country.
Eh, yeah, he got some of that stuff, but I don't think it really played a role in the confirmation (though I admit I remember it only vaguely today). And I think he got that stuff his whole life, because he is a reticent swamp yankee who sticks to himself most of the time and never married. Yeah, you do that, people give you shit, usually behind your back.

My favorite Souter story though is about why he moved from his family's farmhouse to a new place, which is a pretty humble single story ranch nearby. He decided he needed a new place because the weight of his books was causing the floors to buckle and the books were more important than the house.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-24-2022 03:15 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532504)
A lot of conservatives were pissed off that Souter didn't give them the kind of rulings they wanted, and the lesson they took was that they needed to exert pressure on the nomination process to make sure they got the kind of judge they wanted. When another Bush tried to nominate another Souter, W. and Harriet Miers, conservatives revolted and prevented that from happening, and got Alito instead, and we all can see how that turned out.
I think they also really got into grooming their candidates through the FedSoc. Most Supreme Court justices from the right have been getting talked up in a small circle of right wing DC insiders for years; the FedSoc can name their best candidates for the next decade or two. This just doesn't happen on the left. I think we have some idea of where our bench is, but no one is consciously grooming them for the big show.

A candidate carefully groomed over many years is much less likely to succomb to things like reasoning and so much less likely to evolve.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-24-2022 03:20 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 532507)
Mathematically, the Court isn't in that bad of condition. It just needs a fourth liberal judge and Roberts to play the swing vote.

As to quality/stridency of the ideologues, well, that's different. Alito is a crypto-fascist. Gorsuch seems fine, however. I know little about Kavanaugh, but he is technically qualified. I know nothing about Barrett, but her loony religious views render her unqualified IMO.
It's not really a numbers game anymore. Sure, numbers matter.

But the big problem is that we have some real wackos on the court, people who couldn't give a shit whether their thinking is consistent or provided steady guidance to all the other courts. I think Gorsuch may be the worst of them, but Thomas, Alito and Barrett all given him a run for his money.

I think the jury is still out on Kavanaugh. Sure, he's a creepy guy chock-full of grievances. Sure, his thinking is often reptilian and his training was that of a political hack. But his writing isn't bad and shows some signs of actually trying not to be a hypocrite (Alito is, I am sure, gravely disappointed).

Even if the wackos never make it to a full majority, a court with a bunch of wackos is very dangerous.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-24-2022 07:24 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532509)
I think they also really got into grooming their candidates through the FedSoc. Most Supreme Court justices from the right have been getting talked up in a small circle of right wing DC insiders for years; the FedSoc can name their best candidates for the next decade or two. This just doesn't happen on the left. I think we have some idea of where our bench is, but no one is consciously grooming them for the big show.

A candidate carefully groomed over many years is much less likely to succomb to things like reasoning and so much less likely to evolve.
Souter is big part of the reason for that.

Agree that the left doesn't do this. Conservatives care about the Court more (which is why McConnell blocked Garland before an election), and they are trying to change the status quo.

Replaced_Texan 03-24-2022 11:52 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532508)

My favorite Souter story though is about why he moved from his family's farmhouse to a new place, which is a pretty humble single story ranch nearby. He decided he needed a new place because the weight of his books was causing the floors to buckle and the books were more important than the house.
Some friends of mine are an architect and a book buyer. When they designed their dream home, the architect had to account for the weight of the larger than average book collection.

Icky Thump 03-25-2022 09:48 AM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532510)
I think the jury is still out on Kavanaugh. Sure, he's a creepy guy chock-full of grievances. Sure, his thinking is often reptilian and his training was that of a political hack. But his writing isn't bad and shows some signs of actually trying not to be a hypocrite (Alito is, I am sure, gravely disappointed).
He gave plaintiffs' lawyers the single best decision in the history of plaintiffs' lawyers so we have to like beer too.

Dems too busy trying to do the right thing while repubs trying to win. That's how you get slaughter sides.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:13 AM.
Page 17 of 77 « First 71516 17 18192767 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com