Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 09:15 am
@edgarblythe,
Like we took Iraq's oil?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 09:19 am
@hightor,
Insistence on ideological purity. A stance which, thank goodness, has never led to bad civic consequences.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 09:21 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I had to go back to remember what I'd written. You're a brave man, I'll hand that to you.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 09:29 am
@blatham,
I promise to be as restrained as possible, but if she is as nutty as you, I may need to take drastic actions.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 09:31 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Wrong. In this period where judicial appointments are so partisan, it is going to be the case where either party holding the WH will gain opposition for SC appointments.

What McConnell did was outside of any norm and had no precedent post civil war. Garland, considered a moderate and previously supported by senators like Hatch, was not allowed a floor vote. McConnell did it because he could. It was totally, completely a power grab. He later said it was "one of my proudest moments".


Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 09:40 am
@blatham,
So explain the morality of Reid's decisions
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 10:00 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
What McConnell did was outside of any norm and had no precedent post civil war. Garland, considered a moderate and previously supported by senators like Hatch, was not allowed a floor vote.
Nonsense. Democrats blocked a ton of Bush nominees in 2007-08. Republicans were only giving Democrats a healthy dose of their own medicine.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 10:06 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
To the Trump devotees who pop in now and again, here is something I have been pondering the past week or so. How do you feel about Trump pushing real hard to get Saudi Arabia nuclear capabilities? How does that enhance his master plan to save everybody?
I don't know much about the proposal.
Nuclear power is a great way to reduce carbon emissions though, for those who are worried about such things.
It appears to be a proposal to sell Westinghouse light water reactors to Saudi Arabia.

It looks like the left is dumb enough to think that western light water reactors are an easy path to nuclear weapons.

The left really likes the idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of evil dictators, but they hate the idea of western democracies having nuclear weapons to defend themselves.

Since they consider the Saudis an ally of western democracies, the delusion that this could lead to Saudi nuclear weapons is causing a bit of hysteria on the left.

It's pretty funny how leftists who vehemently advocated for Iran's right to have plutonium production reactors are now aghast at the thought of the Saudis having standard light water reactors.

I recommend that leftists stop thinking of the Saudis as an ally to western democracies and start thinking of them as a rogue nation. That will make them favor the idea of Saudi nuclear weapons, and their delusion that western light water reactors are an easy path to Saudi nuclear weapons won't cause them so much heartburn.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 10:23 am
Iraq was our bosom buddy. Saddam was the golden boy. Until he wasn't. Then Bush crushed him. One of many sad stories.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 11:23 am
@edgarblythe,
Iraq under Saddam or any of his Ba'athist predecessors was never regarded as a friend under any of our then Presidents or governments. At best they were seen as a secular force, quelling the constant potential for ethnic/religious civil war in a country always on the edge of conflict among its Shia, Sunni and Kurdish components, and possibly a counterweight to the hostile government of neighboring Iran.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 11:47 am
@georgeob1,
Hence the pictures of him and Bush practically hugging one another. It's another of endless boondoggles, like Bin Laden. It's almost humorous how childishly some will be lead to accept a murderous regime like Saudi Arabia now, until eventually something happens to blow it apart.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 11:50 am
We could bicker about the US and the Arabs all day. In the end, we know how our actions over there have destabilized it all and made for neverending war and countless civilian deaths. Yet both political parties have dug in to compound the insanity.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 11:52 am
Robert Reich
48 mins ·
In a major victory for civil liberties, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that state and local governments can’t penalize someone by seizing a disproportionate amount of their property (such as taking the cars of motorists charged with petty offenses). Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced the decision for the Court, saying the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments. “Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” she wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.”

It’s a big deal. The Constitution’s Bill of Rights protects against actions of the federal government. The Court has extended it to states and cities through the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment, and this case marks a further extension.

The case – Timbs vs. Indiana – is also notable because all nine justices agreed. Chief Justice John Roberts is justifiably concerned about the Court’s apparent politicization, and this is the kind of case he wants to highlight.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 12:05 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
In the end, we know how our actions over there have destabilized it all and made for neverending war and countless civilian deaths.
We are not responsible for Islamic aggression.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 12:06 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I presume you're referring to Reid's decision to proceed with filibuster reform so that judicial appointments would require a simple majority (for lower courts only). And I expect you understand that this was a response to Republicans blocking Obama appointees to the lower courts.

So let's recap:
1) allowing a majority vote to determine who serves is something like the exact opposite of "dictatorial", don't you think?

2) one could argue that Reid's decision was bad strategy (given what the GOP with McConnell heading the Senate might later do) but there's no valid or sensible moral charge one can lay against him for that decision.

3) McConnell, of course, extended the filibuster reform to include the SC. Again there is no valid moral claim to be made against McConnell IF that was all he'd done. But of course, it was done in concert with the unprecedented and transparently partisan move to block any vote on Garland (or any Obama nominee). And he was "proud".

4) He wasn't proud that he was forwarding democratic processes and ideals. He was proud that he had thwarted those things solely in aid of partisan gain.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 12:09 pm
@blatham,
If Democrats did not want Republicans to retaliate and block Obama's nominees, then Democrats shouldn't have blocked Bush's nominees in 2007-08.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 12:16 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
If Democrats did not want Republicans to retaliate

Blatham is a shill posting spam and rhetoric. He cares nothing about his own country, why value any of his opinions about ours?
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 12:23 pm
@coldjoint,
Can't you criticize the substance of a post without disparaging the author? Why not list his points and show where you disagree? It would be a lot more effective.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 12:24 pm
Bernie Sanders
@BernieSanders
Since yesterday morning, the response to our campaign has been incredible.

-$6 million raised
-225,000 contributors
-Average donation: $27
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 12:31 pm
@edgarblythe,
@edgar and others who are able to read above a Grade 4 level...

Paul Waldman has a very smart column up today that relates to the use of the term "socialism", particularly as to how the media can and frequently do act like freaking idiots.
Quote:
The Democrats running for president are beginning a meaty, substantive debate on how to address the most pressing problems the country faces, including climate change and reforming the health-care system.

President Trump, on the other hand, would like to use his bully pulpit to throw a cloak of deception and distraction over that debate, to paint Democrats in the worst possible light and, in the process, make sure voters are as ill-informed as possible.

And some in the news media seem eager to abet Trump in his effort.

In the best of circumstances, presidential campaigns can offer an extended opportunity to explore issues and chart a path for the country, which is what Democrats are doing as they try to win the support of primary voters. They’ve begun putting out policy plans that, whether you favor them or not, are serious attempts to grapple with important challenges. ( Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) plan for universal access to child care is the latest.) Meanwhile, Trump is giving speeches making the ludicrous claim that anything Democrats propose will inevitably turn the United States into Venezuela.

And the response from the political press is to ask, “Are Democrats at risk of being labeled socialist socialists with all their socialist socialism?”

For instance, Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) was recently asked if she supported the elimination of private health insurance, as might occur under a strict single-payer plan; she responded that she would, describing some of the problems of private insurance. Her campaign later walked that back a bit, saying that it’s one possible option. But in an interview yesterday with NBC, here’s how she was asked to address the question: “Do you think eliminating private insurance would be a socialist idea?”

Not “How would that work?,” or “What are the tradeoffs?,” or “How does that compare to the alternatives?,” but whether that idea can be affixed with this controversial label, which of course the interviewer didn’t bother to explore or explain...
More Here
 

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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 12:09:47