11
   

Who believes in karma?

 
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Oct, 2013 11:56 pm
The American electorate has shown a strong tendency to vote one party into the White House, and another into Congress, often splitting the two houses of Congress between the parties. For example, the voters elected Clinton, and then in the 1994 mid-term, handed the Congress over to the Republicans. When the crisis over the idiotic House budget arose in 1995, with government shut-downs in November and December, 1995, the Republicans badly misjudged the situation, Clinton got a lot of sympathy and support from the people, and he ws re-elected in 1996, despite the Republicans holding onto the Congress. I find your claims unconvincing.

As for so-called "karma," humans look at the world and impose on it patterns which originate in their own minds. Pattern thinking is a useful tool, probably more useful to hunter-gatherers tens of thousands of years ago than it is today. I'm not buying that karma horseshit for one moment.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 17 Oct, 2013 11:59 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
if karma is anything close to real, Ted Cruz should be mighty careful around buses...

Why? Is disagreeing with the Democratic Party and fighting for your beliefs a mortal sin?
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Oct, 2013 04:55 am
@McGentrix,
Perhaps a return to Plessy vs. Ferguson or some variant of Jim Crow! Smile
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Oct, 2013 02:33 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

I just hope the leftists in America plan accordingly.


What will they plan for?

Retracting the talking points you cited?

That will never happen.

Supreme Court decisions are the "Law of The Land" and to be suffered silently by those who disagree... if they support a left-wing point of view. Otherwise they are a travesty and require the Majority to be excoriated, in the least.

To be fair though, this isn't a trait of leftists alone.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Oct, 2013 02:36 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I believe people are still complaining about Bush v. Gore... I do not recall ever once saying "Bush won, get over it."
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Oct, 2013 03:12 pm
@McGentrix,
I'm sure you never did, but I suspect some conservatives have. Not in this forum, and not in similar numbers to those using the argument now, but I'm trying to be somewhat fair-minded...give me a break Smile
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Oct, 2013 08:48 pm
@McGentrix,
Houston, we've corrected the problem!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Oct, 2013 09:24 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

I believe people are still complaining about Bush v. Gore... I do not recall ever once saying "Bush won, get over it."

Perhaps because of the way he "won?"
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 19 Oct, 2013 12:04 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I believe people are still complaining about Bush v. Gore... I do not recall ever once saying "Bush won, get over it."

Perhaps because of the way he "won?"

Is the problem the fact that he got more votes in Florida or the fact that he prevented the Democrats from stealing the election?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Oct, 2013 03:22 pm
@edgarblythe,
Which is dissimilar how to conservatives complaining about the way Obamacare was passed?
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 21 Oct, 2013 03:59 pm
@oralloy,
What planet do you live on?
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Oct, 2013 05:27 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
The Supreme Court dident pass Obama Care, just agreed that it is a legally passed law. How ever they elected Bush president without a complete vote of the people.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 21 Oct, 2013 08:43 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
What planet do you live on?

The planet where federal law said the results were final after December 12.

The media went back and did a recount, and Bush would have won the recount that the Florida Supreme Court ordered, which the US Supreme Court halted.

If that recount had not been halted, and had it managed to be completed by the December 12 deadline, it still would have resulted in a Bush win.

There could not have been any more moves after that, as it would have been past December 12.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 21 Oct, 2013 08:44 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Which is dissimilar how to conservatives complaining about the way Obamacare was passed?

I wish both sides would drop the "get over it" part.

Nothing wrong with someone arguing that their position is correct, but to say "get over it" is telling the other side that they cannot also argue that their position is correct.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 21 Oct, 2013 09:01 pm
@oralloy,
This inability to face up to reality is rampant in the USA.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15tues4.html?_r=0

Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named?
By ADAM COHEN
Published: August 15, 2006

At a law school Supreme Court conference that I attended last fall, there was a panel on “The Rehnquist Court.” No one mentioned Bush v. Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist’s time as chief justice, and during the Q. and A. no one asked about it. When I asked a prominent law professor about this strange omission, he told me he had been invited to participate in another Rehnquist retrospective, and was told in advance that Bush v. Gore would not be discussed.

The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world’s version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell’s “1984,” government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, “Come on, get over it.”

Justice Antonin Scalawag would have said the same thing to Dred Scott.

There is a legal argument for pushing Bush v. Gore aside. The majority opinion announced that the ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent. But many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum — the part of a legal opinion that is nonbinding — and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case.

...
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 21 Oct, 2013 11:18 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
This inability to face up to reality is rampant in the USA.

I am unsure which reality is not being faced up to.

Regarding the article you posted, I hope that future courts do use Bush v. Gore as a precedent, as it was a very good ruling.

The ruling said two things:

a) You must count all the votes in a uniform and fair manner, and;

b) You must get it all over and done with before the deadline expires.

If future recounts use those two principles to guide them, the recount process will be much improved.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 22 Oct, 2013 08:43 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
I am unsure which reality is not being faced up to.


It's not at all surprising that someone as delusional as you would not grasp that, Oralboy.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Oct, 2013 08:51 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/sandra-day-oconnor-shift-on-bush-v-gore.html

May 7, 2013
Justice O’Connor Regrets
Posted by Jeffrey Toobin

Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired from the Supreme Court seven years ago, made some news the other day. In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, she expressed misgivings about one of the signature decisions of her judicial career: Bush v. Gore. “Maybe the Court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’ ” The case, she said, which effectively awarded the 2000 Presidential election to George W. Bush, “stirred up the public” and “gave the Court a less than perfect reputation.”

It was not a full-fledged denunciation of the Court’s opinion, but it was a decided shift in O’Connor’s views. Ever since the decision in 2000, in which a five-Justice majority ended a recount of votes that had been ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, O’Connor has defended the result publicly. (She did so on “The Daily Show.”) I have heard O’Connor defend Bush v. Gore any number of times, at events ranging from law-school convocations to small dinner parties.

So what changed? The Republican Party—O’Connor’s Republican Party.

The Court, in its history, has had many Justices who formerly held elective office—Earl Warren, a former Governor of California; William Howard Taft, who’d been President; Hugo Black, a onetime Senator—but O’Connor was last to have done so. (She was a state senator in Arizona.) That experience has always been crucial to understanding her judicial philosophy. Temperamentally as well as politically, she was a Republican, to be sure, but she was a moderate conservative; even more than Ronald Reagan, the President who appointed her, George H. W. Bush was O’Connor’s ideal President. In the ballot box as well as on the Supreme Court, O’Connor voted for George W. Bush thinking that he would be a President much like his father. (The story of O’Connor’s election-night rooting for Bush in 2000 is well-known; I’ve told it in two books.)

As for the Presidency of the younger Bush, O’Connor was disappointed, to put it mildly. The story of the last decade or so of her life is the story of her increasing alienation from the modern Republican Party. The key moment for her was the Terri Schiavo case, in 2005, when the President and congressional Republicans mobilized overnight to intervene in the case of a Florida woman who was in a persistent vegetative state, and attempted to overrule her husband’s request to remove her feeding tubes. O’Connor, who was at that moment dealing with the descent of her own husband into Alzheimer’s disease, was appalled at the fanaticism on display. But largely because of her husband’s condition, O’Connor nevertheless announced her departure from the Court later that year—and gave George W. Bush the chance to put his stamp, and that of the modern Republican Party, on her beloved Court.

In the past seven years, O’Connor has been increasingly clear about her disenchantment with the work of her successors, especially Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., (who took her seat). She has been harshly critical of the Court’s decision in Citizens United, which revolutionized the law of campaign finance. Indeed, her major outside activity since retiring has been to try to persuade states to have a system of appointed, as opposed to elected, judges. A primary reason why O’Connor opposes judicial election is because of the influence of campaign contributions—which is, of course, precisely the kind of spending allowed by Citizens United.

It may be that O’Connor chose this moment to speak out because she knows (or suspects) that the Court is about to demolish one of her most important achievements. In 2003, O’Connor wrote the majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, which allowed the use of affirmative action in admissions in higher education. The decision was a classic O’Connor compromise: she supported diversity but not quotas; she embraced racial preferences but put a time limit on their use—twenty-five years. But now, just a decade later, the Court appears poised to undo, or at least limit, O’Connor’s decision. In the next month or so, the Justices will decide Fisher v. University of Texas, which is a direct challenge to Grutter. The prospect of a thwarted legacy focusses any retired Justice’s mind.

And O’Connor was not alone as a Republican Justice looking on with horror at what her party has become. The two Justices who left the Court after O’Connor were also Republicans who departed aghast at the modern Republican Party. David Souter and John Paul Stevens were so repulsed by the party of George W. Bush that they gave the most precious gift any Justice can proffer to his successor, Barack Obama—their seats on the Court. There is no more eloquent testimony to the evolution of the Republican Party than the ideological fate of the last three Justices to leave the Supreme Court: O’Connor, Souter, and Stevens. In this way, O’Connor’s apostasy on Bush v. Gore is a surprise—but perhaps only because it took so long.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 22 Oct, 2013 09:11 am
@JTT,
Quote:
The case, she said, which effectively awarded the 2000 Presidential election to George W. Bush,

I point out, again, the fact that the media recount showed that Bush would have won the statewide handcount of undervotes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered.

And also the fact that, while it is possible that this last recount might have been able to be completed by the December 12 deadline, it was the last act that could have been completed before that deadline expired.


I also question why no outrage at the Florida Supreme Court for their ruling?

Or is it "OK" for courts to issue rulings that favor Democrats, and only "wrong" when their rulings happen to favor Republicans?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Oct, 2013 12:06 pm
@oralloy,
See how you avoid reality, Oralboy. Not a mention of SDOC's decision.

That decision was a completely partisan decision. Judges like Scalawag are an affront to the rule of law. He is a rubber stamper for the US government.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/26/2021 at 01:29:11