Art Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 G, It doesn't take six months to bring judicial nominations to a vote. As an example, EIGHT were taken to a vote and approved. And, it wasn't just six months. The new leadership didn't take hold until January of this year. That's January of 2003. When did Bush get into the White House? That's your time frame. Further, only 26, according to the logic of your supplied information, canidates didn't come up for a vote under the Republican Senate. There were 377 approvals. Now, you do the math on that for me and figure out how that's similar to 8 of 30 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 16, 2003 Author Share Posted May 16, 2003 Okay, but that's more specific than "prevented" which is what you used. And that's still 2 more than the GOP ever filibustered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Ack. Sorry, I forgot about the Jeffords switch. It may have been six months-ish . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 "it doesn't take 6 months..." and yet not a single one of Clinton's was confirmed in less. Hmmm And when did Bush nominate them? How many of Clintons took longer than a year? Who says some of those 22 won't get a vote? You to make a political point? Sorry, I'm not buying. I haven't seen one reference to the other 22 being stalled. That's been invented here. edit: Kilmer my bad on the "prevented" it should have been "prevented a vote on" as you correctly pointed out. Filabuster, refuse to vote on or allow a vote on, what's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by Art A.J. You can rest assured the reason you haven't seen me bested is simple. I stay on ground upon which I can't lose. When something's wrong, it's wrong. I only have to fight that when someone can't admit it's wrong, which is why I never lose . TEG, however, is a winner in his own mind, and that's important for him. Self-esteem, even imagined as in this case, is important for our young friends. Pot calling the kettle black? When the shovel is yours and the ground on which you stand is filled and tamped by you, then I guess it stands to reason that one's perception might be a bit skewed. Not every subject on which you've contributed Art can be framed within the context of right or wrong. Political ideology is often debated without a net win or loss. Now, I will grant you that one must have their ducks in a row when engaging you or be prepared to cart away a slew of fowl carcasses. I know that you think that what ails this country would be fixed by adhering to Art's Doctrine, but I possess little doubt that while some of what you say and believe is theoretically intriguing, gaping flaws would be exposed with the application of those tenets. More importantly, the court of public opinion more often than not defines reality. So while you may wear the undefeated belt in Art's realm, your record might have a loss or two in the rankings of others. Come on now, you at least have to admit that there's a draw or two buried somewhere in ExtremeSkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Kurp, there are a ton of draws. I have frequently drawn with you because you are one of the few people that sees that when I'm keeping an argument narrow in scope you can't possibly go on . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Hate is such a strong word, how about u just disagree with the dems and their inept policies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 I find all the patting of one's back pretty funny. Can you do it while rubbing your tummy at the same time? If your basic strategy is to narrow the topic to the highest level of specificity, you will win a lot of battles. However, if the spectrum you view is this narrow you are also bound to "see" very little and also can prove almost nothing. Certainly, if you are "keeping an argument narrow in scope" there is a likelihood of missing the big picture. However, it's worse to only attempt to fight the battles that you know you can win. In such a gray world, where ambivelance and relativity play such a big part, one should be willing to defend one's convictions or to explore ideologies even without certain victory. Besides, "When something's wrong, it's wrong." is so often a matter of perception and perspective. People on this board defend murder, unlimited deregulation, tax cuts to an absolutist degree, armor piercing bullets, etc. I bet you can come up with situations where killing is justified and good/right and others where killing is wrong. If I asked if you believed whether man killing man was right or wrong, you might ask me to be more specific or give a context, but I would guess for the most part you would tell me it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Burgold, I don't think killing is wrong in all instances. In fact, I find in many it to be right and appropriate . But, I've never had a long fight about a personal morality issue of this nature. My conversations that are long and drawn out that are narrow in scope are such arguments as when people provide the big picture of Global Warming in the next century without realizing the narrow scope that the projections of Global Warming in the next century use the same computer program that can't tell you accurately what the weather will be in the next five days. Or, when someone spoke in one of his final posts about the government not protecting people from "usurious" interest rates on credit cards, as if the GOVERNMENT should regulate the amount private business should be allowed to charge idiot customers who live on credit. Certain things are not hard to argue. Things that are less clear, like my view on murder, I don't pretend to offer as clearly. I wouldn't tell you, if you believed murder in all cases is wrong, that you're wrong. I can appreciate and understand that view though I don't share it. What I have difficulty with is understanding and appreciating when someone hold a view that is not sustained by any information. And that is why I'm undefeated, though with a couple of draws, on such conversations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Just because the GOP was voted to the majority doesn't mean the represent the will of the people on all issues. This is a republic and the rights of those not in the majority are important as well. I would bet if those "75%" in the poll saw the new map they would change their tune! I absolutley agree that the minority has to have a voice Jack. However, in the thread related to 'filibustering' judicial nominations recently, you argued persuasively that the Democrats were simply operating within the system, and rightfully so. The creation of new districts is frequently unsavory, but its the system thats in place. Whats not a part of the system is flight to avoid your elected responsibilities. I don't think this warrants jail time, but I'm surprised you're defending these actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Burgold, I'm not sure I've ever lost to Art in an arguement myself, that I know. I have how ever been exhausted and beaten down by the shear volume of his verbose responses. When this happens to me, I remember that Art is after all a Redskins fan, so he can't be all bad. I sing a few verses of HTTR and go disagree with Kilmer. HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Art, I was just tweaking a bit which I think you know. Plus, I've seen you play Don Quioxte a number of times which I personally respect. Crashing windmills is something I enjoy myself. I do remember our mini joust (a year ago or so, I think) on global warning that you brought up. As I recall, we both conceded to each other's points, but that's neither here nor there. And in truth we agreed because we realized we were using different operational definitions, so I guess the scope does matter for than just mouthwash. Strangely, I read an article earlier this year that the population group that has the highest belief in global warming in the United States are those citizens who live in Alaska. The climate and geography has changed so drastically in the last decade or two. I still believe that if you keep pumping poisons into a system, eventually it must have an impact. The degree of the impact is very much in the air right now. We have seen some very dramatic events this year. Like a 70 square mile glacier splintering apart because of melting. Still, I can't say as an absolute it's not cyclical, but there is a wealth of research that indicates what these chemicals can do to the atmosphere in a controled enviornment... For the record, I think I have witnessed a defeat or two of yours. Again, it's about perception. I don't think you were ever out of hand slaughtered, but I think you have taken a couple of bruisings. I think the ammount of information required to defend one's POV is truly dependent on what the issue is. There are some issues where the ammount of first source, second source data is not necessarily as important as say instincts, impressions, or generalizations made based on experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.