Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

OT-P: President Obama Booed After Thanking Boston For Kevin Youkilis « CBS Boston

Political loyalties aren’t as strong as team loyalties.


NOTE: As I discussed in the Off-Topics, Politics, and the Redesign thread, in the redesign I’m making non-baseball content opt-in. Until the redesign is done (about two months), I’m designating one thread each month (similar to the basketball and soccer threads) as Off-Topic Politics (OT-P) and will restrict off-topic political conversations to that thread. Off-topic political comments which appear in other threads will be deleted. Since this thread has been highjacked, I’m designating this thread as the June OT-P thread.

Jim Furtado Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:52 AM | 1396 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 14 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
   101. bunyon Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4166648)
Romney > Edwards > Bush junior > McCain > Reagan > Kerry > HRC > Obama > Clinton > Gore > Bush senior > Dole > Carter

I think there is some serious political bias in this list. I'm not trying to be critical, I doubt anyone could put together an unbiased list. But the fact that the only Democrat on the left side is John Edwards and that you have him not all the way to the left is pretty shaky.

I'd move Gore much further left as he changed a lot during his various campaigns. I'd probably move Kerry right and Clinton left.

Perhaps you're only grading their actual campaigns? If not, I'd move McCain right as well.

In the end, this is a lot like judging which ballplayer is the "nicest" guy. We don't really know them. My guess is that on your list, on anyone's list, there is going to be someone you put far to the left that is really pretty much their public persona and someone on the right is not. Also, anyone who stays in the game for a long time (Kerry, McCain) will probably look "phony" just because we all change with time.
   102. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:26 PM (#4166650)
These listings really just seem to be, for the most part, based on people's political dislikes. Also, what makes a "phony?" Is Palin a phony? I damn near loathe her as a political phenomenon, and I think she's a self-important know-nothing...but what's PHONY per se about her? Was Reagan a phony because he was actually an extremely erudite man who came across as an avuncular grandpa? Or is Gore a 'phony' because of his long move from the "moderate" wing of the Democratic party all the way to the batshit Euro-left, or because of the weird goofy "people power" and "earth tones" crap of his 2000 campaign? Is Kerry a phony because he tried to claim the mantle of Vietnam war hero whilst simultaneously trying to erase the fact that he tossed his medals over the White House fence and accused the entire Army of war atrocities in front of Congress in 1972?

Again: the term just seems to be a completely subjective one, that ultimately comes down to "I like this guy" vs. "I don't like this guy." And those assessments are in turn almost always (not always, but almost) governed by your political beliefs.
   103. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:26 PM (#4166651)
How about they all (mostly) = each other because they'll all pander to get elected?
   104. Lassus Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:27 PM (#4166652)
Oh spare me. Could the distortion of your political bias be any more apparent?

Errrrr.... did you look at the rest of the list at all?
   105. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:29 PM (#4166655)
Romney comes across as the guy I think he really is


The key part of this statement being "I think." Fact is, we don't really know jack about who any politician really is on a personal level except for the carefully crafted public personae that they feed us (and the equally carefully crafted ad hominem hatchet jobs that their opponents feed us). To even talk as if we know who is and isn't genuine is fairly foolish.
   106. Lassus Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4166656)
This lack of edit is just utter crap.

Anyhow, the list is more tilted than I first thought.


Also, what makes a "phony?"

As stated, I have no idea. The word seems to have lost its meaning.

   107. bunyon Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4166657)
How about they all (mostly) = each other because they'll all pander to get elected?

I think that is the crux of it. How do you score "phoniness" in a campaign where every politician in a democracy will attempt to make the voter think that they are what the voter wants. They all have personas, they all hide their complete, true self because, otherwise, who would vote for them? I would argue that a much deeper level of phoniness is do they govern against their beliefs and principles to stay in office. Not make a few compromises but do stuff that is really abhorrent to them to keep their jobs. And there probably is no way to really know that for sure.

I visited the Reagan library recently. Certainly very skewed toward Reagan (I'd love to next go to the Carter library) but if you crossed out the word "Reagan" and took Palin through there she'd curse the vile man portrayed. Anyway, it was cool and my liberal, lifelong Democrat wife loved it.
   108. bunyon Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4166658)
Also, what makes a "phony?"

As stated, I have no idea. The word seems to have lost its meaning.


See, I think you DO know and are just pandering to us to make it seem you're one of us.
   109. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4166661)
Of course I'm biased. But I also think it would be absurd to create a perfectly balanced list with equal numbers of republicans and democrats on each side. I think more republicans over the last 30 years have been "phony." And phoniness isn't just about how you present your interests or your personality to the public. It's also about the positions your take. Romney is the phoniest politician I've ever seen because I don't think he has heartfelt positions on 95% of the issues. I think McCain is very geniune abotu his personality and interests, but his "maverick" schtick was very phony IMO.

To be fair, I should have moved Kerry a notch or two over to the left.
   110. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4166667)
For recent presidents and presidential candidates, I'd rank their phoniness as follows:

Romney > Edwards > Bush junior > McCain > Reagan > Kerry > HRC > Obama > Clinton > Gore > Bush senior > Dole > Carter

I'd have it in groups

Palin, Romney & Edwards (Edwards perhaps a little bit phonier than Palin, perhaps not)
gap
Dubya & Clinton & Kerry
gap
McCain, Reagan, HRC, Obama, Gore
gap
Carter, Bush Senior, Dole

or maybe the middle two groupings can be merged

I might add that post 99 is perhaps the phoniest post I've seen on Primer in quite awhile, in fact it's downright awesome.



   111. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4166669)
I recall in the 2000 election that the notoriously liberal mainstream media opined that a very important consideration in vetting presidential candidates was the test of which candidate you would rather have a beer with - folksy man of the people Dubya Bush, or uptight wonk Al Gore. I'm sure we'll see a resurrection of this standard in the coming months; combined with a thorough examination of Mormon beliefs akin to those published about Obama's former church, this will clearly prove once and for all that the liberal media hate Republicans.
Really? I recall that this was more like the notoriously liberal mainstream media sneering that if people would choose a candidate based on who they liked better -- who they'd rather have a beer with -- then Bush would win, but if people would choose based on who was better, why of course it would be Gore.
   112. Biscuit_pants Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:43 PM (#4166670)
As stated, I have no idea. The word seems to have lost its meaning.
I have begun to assume the moment a person decides that they want to run for president (not in the 4th grade, Johnny wants to be president way but in the, what do I need to do to become president way) they act and speak in a way that positions them for that office. Whether or not it is phony, or some people might say charismatic, depending on your bent is up to the individual, which probably explains why ones political position dictates where certain members fall on the list.
   113. Random Transaction Generator Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:45 PM (#4166671)
I think the Romney=Phony connection comes from quotes where he tries to equate/relate himself with those less fortunate than him.

His "I am/was unemployed" sound bite was one example.

The other one was when someone from his own inner-circle said that Romney could reset like an "etch-a-sketch" after the primary, implying everything he said during the primary shouldn't be held against him during the general election.

The flip/flop over various issues has morphed into "phony".
   114. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4166675)
Around election time, I think they should have a TV game show about "what wouldn't they do?"

Do you think that Obama would:

*eat a bug
*cut off his own left pinky toe
*throw one of his daughters out of a moving (slowly) car?
*wear assless chaps in public

in order to get re-elected?

By the way, I think the answer is yes, no, yes, and yes. And that no is still flexible; his answer might be different in October.
   115. Random Transaction Generator Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4166676)
I don't see Palin as "phony".
I really do think she's as uneducated and vicious as she portrays in the media.
   116. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:51 PM (#4166681)
.but what's PHONY per se about her?


the disconnect between her and what she actually stood for/did as a politician and what her fanbase believes her to be is stunningly vast... of course the same is true of Obama, Clinton, Dubya... (Or as the Daily Show book put it, heir of old, prominent, wealthy, North Eastern Family, Yale Grad, sells himself as a man of the people, Political Scientists will wonder for generations how the fcuk he managed to pull that off...

Of course this is subjective, subjectively I have a hard time imagining a human being who is phonier than Mittens, subjectively I can't believe Esoteric's post re Romney was made in good faith, but I'm no mind reader, maybe it was.

   117. Random Transaction Generator Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4166682)
Do you think that [politician] would:

*eat a bug
*cut off his own left pinky toe
*throw one of his/her [children] out of a moving (slowly) car?
*wear assless chaps in public

in order to get re-elected?


Obama: yes, yes, no, yes
Romney: yes, no, yes, no
Palin: yes, no, yes, yes (please?)
McCain: yes, yes, no, no
HR Clinton: yes, no, no, no
B Clinton: yes, yes, no, yes
W : yes, no, yes, no
HW: yes, yes, yes, no
Gore: no, yes, yes, no
Reagan: yes, no, yes, no
   118. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4166683)
I think the Romney=Phony connection comes from quotes where he tries to equate/relate himself with those less fortunate than him.

His "I am/was unemployed" sound bite was one example.

The other one was when someone from his own inner-circle said that Romney could reset like an "etch-a-sketch" after the primary, implying everything he said during the primary shouldn't be held against him during the general election.


I think the Romney as Phony "meme" started LONG before that
   119. Tripon Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4166686)
Palin's 'phony' in the sense that she clearly does not want to be a politician, let alone President of the United States, but will still hint at it from time to time to acquire money/access when she wants it. I find Palin's fascinating since she's famous for failing at a major event and somehow it made her rich beyond her wildest dreams. If McCain never picked her in 2008, she would have likely tried to make being the Governor of Alaska work out and then quietly retire after being burned out. Now she can claim she's being 'slighted' and make money off of that.
   120. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4166689)
Do you think that [politician] would:

*eat a bug
*cut off his own left pinky toe
*throw one of his/her [children] out of a moving (slowly) car?
*wear assless chaps in public

in order to get re-elected?


I think the answer for every one listed, assuming they believed that it would actually help win re-election, is an unqualified yes...

I think the real question is this

Which politician would literally murder someone (unjustified homicide) if they were guaranteed to get away with it, in order to be re-elected.

Methinks a scarily high % of our elected "leaders" would in fact do that.

   121. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4166692)
Before this thread gets taken down, last week Harveys claimed that Republican discipline was going to kick in and no one was going to make too much of a fuss about Obama's executive order on immigration... It looks indeed that even most teapers got the message and there has been little ranting from or pandering to the "know nothing" wing...

until yesterday, looks like no one gave the memo to Scalia...
Let's set aside -- I know people won't accept this -- that Scalia has nothing to do with "Republican discipline," being a judge rather than a candidate or politician. And all Scalia said yesterday, notwithstanding the media's characterization of it, is that the government's position on the Arizona law was belied by Obama's newly-announced policy.
   122. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4166693)
If McCain never picked her in 2008, she would have likely tried to make being the Governor of Alaska work out and then quietly retire after being burned out. Now she can claim she's being 'slighted' and make money off of that.


I mean, this isn't really knowable. But I've read two books about her, and therefore consider myself a bit of a "Palintologist". I think she'd have run in the Primary in 2012 as a wacko, and parlayed that into a FOX News show.
   123. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4166694)
Esoteric (#99), the phoniness of Romney and Edwards is two distinct varieties.

Edwards' phoniness is mostly personal, which speaks to his complete lack of character. Romney's phoniness is political, in that he's almost pathetic in the way he's changed his stripes on so many issues** it's hard to keep track. Health care and immigration are merely the two most prominent examples.

Unlike Edwards, this sort of phoniness doesn't make him a bad person, but merely a particularly extreme example of a recurrent trait among presidential candidates. OTOH Romney is almost in a class by himself when it comes to this variety of phoniness.

BTW this has nothing to do with Romney's stiff demeanor, his malapropisms, or his forced use of local vernacular. While it's amusing, there's nothing particularly phony about it, in that it could simply mean he's not a good public speaker.

**And it's not long term "stripe changing" via gradual evolution, but short term flip-flopping based totally on the perceived views of his audience. Even Republicans who will vote for him in a blink over Obama have long recognized and denounced him over this.

   124. bunyon Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:00 PM (#4166696)
Of course this is subjective, subjectively I have a hard time imagining a human being who is phonier than Mittens,

Read up on the Edwards case. I don't think he should go to jail but if you think any of these other folks are anywhere in the same phony universe as John Edwards...I don't know what. I just don't think rational people can come to that conclusion.
   125. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4166701)
Obama: yes, yes, no, yes
Romney: yes, no, yes, no
Palin: yes, no, yes, yes (please?)
McCain: yes, yes, no, no
HR Clinton: yes, no, no, no
B Clinton: yes, yes, no, yes
W : yes, no, yes, no
HW: yes, yes, yes, no
Gore: no, yes, yes, no
Reagan: yes, no, yes, no please?


Fixed.
   126. Spahn Insane Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4166703)
I think the Romney as Phony "meme" started LONG before that

Yes, and I don't think its primary proponents have been liberals until very recently. Conservatives have distrusted Romney for years for his perceived "phony conservative" cred. (I mean, liberals thought he was phony then too, but it wasn't until it became clear that he'd be this year's nominee that you stopped hearing it from a lot of conservatives.)
   127. bunyon Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:04 PM (#4166705)
Andy, there was an account - from an ex-aide, told on NPR - about Edwards addressing a group of workers, I can't recall where, wherein Edwards gave a rousing speech straight along the lines of what the group wanted and completely against what Edwards planned to vote when it came to the Senate. Leaving the stage, the aide told him, "But you're against" that. Edwards replied, "They don't know that."

There are many such accounts. Edwards' phoniness is much deeper than the personal.
   128. Loren F. Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4166708)
I think that knowing what we know now, Edwards has to ranked as the phoniest politician of the list -- although "phony" may not actually be the right word to capture the entirety of improperly spending campaign funds to cover the fact you're cheating on your dying-of-cancer wife while campaigning as a hero of the downtrodden. And I say that as a left-wing New Yorker. Also, I want to add that Reagan was a professional actor so I think any phoniness on his part could be partly excused as bad acting, thus I would rank him lower on the phony scale.
   129. zonk Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4166709)
Let's set aside -- I know people won't accept this -- that Scalia has nothing to do with "Republican discipline," being a judge rather than a candidate or politician. And all Scalia said yesterday, notwithstanding the media's characterization of it, is that the government's position on the Arizona law was belied by Obama's newly-announced policy.


I think if you frame something as the "evil" of something, you've left the realm of jurisprudence and entered the realm of politics.... Evil is not a legal concept that I'm aware of.

I will say this, I took more umbrage with Alito's tantrum on the mandatory sentencing for youthful offenders than I did Scalia's on immigration... mainly because I thought Alito's response was perverse -- that the case that spawned the suit was atypical (14 yos, not 17 yos) and thus, it was a bad decision. Thing is - the case was about MANDATORY sentencing - in which case, Alito's other 95% of such cases could still get the penalty he thinks they deserve.

Implicit in his argument is this idea that sometimes sentences are 'wrong' - but that's OK... If I'm ever falsely accused of a capital offense, I really hope that Alito and Scalia (and perhaps Thomas) are long gone from the bench by that point. I have a distinct feeling that Alito would have no problem executing someone on a technicality even if he knew the person were innocent...
   130. I am going to be Frank Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4166710)
I think everyone knows rich people have different lifestyles than vast majority of Americans. Not only Romney is really rich, he grew up rich and pretty privileged. He obviously doesn't enjoy "normal sport" and there is nothing wrong with that. The fact that he keeps trying to relate to normal people in this way keeps adding to his unauthentic narrative.

No politician (especially at the national level) is going to be 100% authentic, but so much of negatives surrounding Romney is his inability to hold a concrete position. Like it or not Americans able to connect more personally with a candidate, even if its fake. I think its more likely that Romney has come across Youkilis by reading Moneyball than ever knowing he won two World Series playing for the Red Sox.
   131. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4166714)
Let's set aside -- I know people won't accept this -- that Scalia has nothing to do with "Republican discipline," being a judge rather than a candidate or politician. And all Scalia said yesterday, notwithstanding the media's characterization of it, is that the government's position on the Arizona law was belied by Obama's newly-announced policy.

That's a fair point, but in the future kindly refrain from any praise of Scalia's "judicial temperament".

---------------------------------------------------

Andy, there was an account - from an ex-aide, told on NPR - about Edwards addressing a group of workers, I can't recall where, wherein Edwards gave a rousing speech straight along the lines of what the group wanted and completely against what Edwards planned to vote when it came to the Senate. Leaving the stage, the aide told him, "But you're against" that. Edwards replied, "They don't know that."

There are many such accounts. Edwards' phoniness is much deeper than the personal.


No doubt, but when you've done what Edwards did on the personal level, that level of phoniness leaves anything else in a race for the silver. Romney's level of phoniness merely deserves not being elevated to the presidency.
   132. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4166717)
Read up on the Edwards case. I don't think he should go to jail but if you think any of these other folks are anywhere in the same phony universe as John Edwards...I don't know what. I just don't think rational people can come to that conclusion.
Agreed, although since Joe Biden is not actually Neil Kinnock, he's rather high up on the list, too.
   133. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4166719)
By the way, I see people talking all the time about how Romney is "phony" but I don't see it at all. It strikes me as a lazy meme that gets repeated without any actual thought to it, because in my estimation it just really isn't that true.


You are correct. "Phony" is not the correct term. The correct term is "pathological liar."
   134. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:14 PM (#4166720)
Let's set aside -- I know people won't accept this -- that Scalia has nothing to do with "Republican discipline," being a judge rather than a candidate or politician. And all Scalia said yesterday,


Scalia's recent rants are far more political than judicial, but then again you are a self-admitted Scalia fanboy so I suppose you can't see that.
   135. bunyon Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:14 PM (#4166721)
An interesting topic to discuss might be: who would have made the worst VP, Edwards or Palin? I still lean probably Palin but with what I've read of Edwards - not just his unethical and immoral behavior but his actual knowledge base and reading habits, it's very, very close.
   136. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4166724)
Read up on the Edwards case. I don't think he should go to jail but if you think any of these other folks are anywhere in the same phony universe as John Edwards...I don't know what. I just don't think rational people can come to that conclusion.


Perhaps its an occupational hazard, but I've met people like Edwards, I've never actually met someone like Romney.
   137. bunyon Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4166726)
By the way, I lean probably Palin because, despite their both sharing a very weak knowledge base of policy and foreign affairs and a disinclination to study up to rememdy the deficiency, he is very slick and might be able to fake the job while Palin is, um, not slick and wouldn't.

So long as neither had to succeed to the presidency, we've probably had worse VPs.
   138. Nasty Nate Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:18 PM (#4166729)
I think its more likely that Romney has come across Youkilis by reading Moneyball than ever knowing he won two World Series playing for the Red Sox.


Romney used to go to a lot of games at Fenway. He was often visible in the background in face-on shots of RH hitters. It was suspected that his choice of seats resulting in a lot of face time was not coincidental.
   139. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4166731)
All the above comments seem to confirm that Edwards' phoniness is in an entirely separate "lowlife" category, one which should be compared to Gingrich, Clinton, and Bob "I'm outta here" Dole rather than the category of flip-flopping and faux populism.

And AFAIC Gingrich can give Edwards a run for his money, right down to the cancerous cuckolda. You'd have to be a complete ideologue to say that one of those two cretins is any better than the other. Clinton gets the bronze and Dole gets honorable mention.
   140. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4166732)
Politicians who are generally believable and "not phony," with the known caveat that they are still nonetheless politicians so normal rules of human "phoniness" do not strictly apply:

Bush I & II
Reagan
Kerry
Obama
Hillary
Gore
Dole
Jimmah

Politicians who are notably "phony":

Edwards
McCain

Politicians who's entire lack of any sort of core being makes the judgement of phony/not phony impossible:

Bill Clinton
Romney
   141. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4166735)
Politicians who are not phony, and are thus categorically evil:

Dick Cheney
   142. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4166737)
Agreed, although since Joe Biden is not actually Neil Kinnock, he's rather high up on the list, too.


I dunno, has anyone ever seen the two of them in a room together?

Biden's actually starting to grow on me, less fake than I originally thought, not that I want him to be president... then again I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who has run for President in my lifetime who I'd actually want to be president... congressman, senator... nope, SCOTUS member... maybe Souter would be half decent.



   143. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4166738)
Scalia's recent rants are far more political than judicial, but then again you are a self-admitted Scalia fanboy so I suppose you can't see that.
I'm not sure what "recent rants" you mean. If you're referring to a specific opinion or opinions, then I can't see it because you haven't specified which. I don't see any "rant" in the Arizona case. (I did see one in Lawrence v. Texas, in contrast.) If you're referring to an out of court speech he gave, then I guess that's possible.

I don't believe I have ever described myself as a Scalia fanboy, or expressed that sentiment in other words. I agree with his decisions more often than not; I guess I would concede to be a "fanboy" of his writing. (When I say "agree with" I mean as a legal matter, not necessarily as a policy matter.)
   144. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4166740)
I'm not sure what "recent rants" you mean. If you're referring to a specific opinion or opinions, then I can't see it because you haven't specified which.


The reference was clearly to Scalia's bench reading of his dissent in the AZ decision, a fact obvious to anyone and everyone.
   145. The Good Face Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4166741)
An interesting topic to discuss might be: who would have made the worst VP, Edwards or Palin? I still lean probably Palin but with what I've read of Edwards - not just his unethical and immoral behavior but his actual knowledge base and reading habits, it's very, very close.


I'd rather have Palin than Edwards. She's a dolt, but seems fundamentally lazy and mostly interested in feathering her own nest. Assuming the President can stay alive, I doubt she'd get up to much real trouble. That would take effort.

Edwards is an absolute sociopath and seems to have more ambition than Palin. Those guys are almost always trouble.
   146. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4166742)
Of course this is subjective, subjectively I have a hard time imagining a human being who is phonier than Mittens, subjectively I can't believe Esoteric's post re Romney was made in good faith, but I'm no mind reader, maybe it was.

Jesus Christ. Of COURSE it was made in good faith. What an insulting, demeaning attitude to have, to openly pronounce (for all others to see) that dear god anyone who writes an opinion that I disagree with about politics must be a phony liar.

It's not enough for you to disagree with me -- you have to try to and erase me from the conversation by delegitimizing my perspective as something that doesn't even need to be addressed or taken seriously because "of course" it must be trolling. Arrogant, contemptible, and self-indicting.
   147. Tripon Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4166748)
Jesus Christ. Of COURSE it was made in good faith. What an insulting, demeaning attitude to have, to openly pronounce (for all others to see) that dear god anyone who writes an opinion that I disagree with about politics must be a phony liar.

It's not enough for you to disagree with me -- you have to try to and erase me from the conversation by delegitimizing my perspective as something that doesn't even need to be addressed or taken seriously because "of course" it must be trolling. Arrogant, contemptible, and self-indicting.


And that my friends is when the thread has turned from a polite conversation about politics to 'personal'. Time to close up shop!
   148. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:31 PM (#4166749)
Palin's phony to her core, just not in the typical politician "I am of the people" way.

First, as should be abundantly clear to anybody but the most fervent supporter by now, she's the nasty neighbor who speaks in a pleasant tone of voice while oozing invective. And every indication out of the campaign and lots of other people who have dealt with her as supporters indicates that once the cameras are off she's an overbearing jackass who throws temper tantrums at zero provocation, putting people down at every possible chance, etc. But in public, oh, I'm just a good ol' hockey mom, don't ya know, now don't get between me and my kids, but otherwise I'm so sweet and pleasant and kind, don't ya know.

Second, put her on the spot about anything she doesn't know -- which is a whole lot -- and she's a little kid thinking she can fake her way through the book report for a book she hasn't read (e.g. what newspaper do you read daily - "Umm... all of them?"; favorite founding father - "Well, all of them?"; Supreme Court cases you disagree with other than Roe v. Wade - "Well, um, well, in the great history of America, there were, um, of course there were other cases, like, um, well, like Roe v. Wade"; can you name one - "Well, certainly, um, as Vice President I'd, um, be in a position to, um, deal with cases like, um, Roe. v. Wade...").

And she constantly puts on absurd noveau riche airs while almost simultaneously pushing "Hockey mom, hockey mom, hockey mom", pretends that she has thought about things, pretends that she has opinions on things she's never heard of, goes back on those opinions a day later in an "always been at war with Eastasia" way after her handlers tell her that that's not what conservatives are supposed to think, and on and on and on.

She's nothing but phony. Well, phony and nasty. The nasty is real.
   149. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4166751)
Yes, I'm glad someone finally brought up Gingrich in relation to Edwards.

" with the known caveat that they are still nonetheless politicians so normal rules of human "phoniness" do not strictly apply:


With that caveat, I think Ron Paul is less phony than most, Rand Paul about average, and Paul Ryan far phonier.

With regard to the Kennedy Brothers, I think Teddy was less phony (despite what his detractors think), Robert a bit phonier than most, and JFK a mash-up of Clinton, Edwards and Gingrich (which is to say on the far extreme of phoniness).

With regard to recent NY Governors, I think of the last 5 Governors, Paterson was the least phony, while scary to think that his accidentcy was likely the least phony, what's really scary about that is that most of the ones who ran and lost were even phonier than the phonies who won.

   150. Tripon Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4166758)
With CA governors, Gov. Jerry Brown is too old to care to fake 'caring' about stuff he doesn't like. The Arnold was just a weird time where I think most people just black out because people still can't believe they elected The Terminator *twice*, and Grey Davis was a phony and a horrible administrator. A lot of the current budget woes CA is experiencing can be traced back to him, and the way he handled the artificial Electricity crisis caused by Ernon and others just severely screwed up the state. Heck, we're still paying inflated rates in CA because of the decisions Davis made.
   151. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4166760)
I'd rather have Palin than Edwards.


This is pure insanity. You take the semi-competent sociopath over the incompetent nutjob every time.
   152. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4166761)
Scalia and Alito are wackos. Their dissents in Arizona and Miller are bizarre and poorly reasoned, and according to a friend who was at the court yesterday, Alito was visibly angry while reading his dissent and yelling at Kagan.
   153. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4166762)
I want to apologize to Esoteric.
I do not know Esoteric, and I am not familiar enough with his posts to comment on what he believes or not. His post just struck me as so jarring that I commented on it (more than once) and began speculating.

I still think he's wrong about Romney though.
   154. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4166766)
With that caveat, I think Ron Paul is less phony than most


Aye. Ron Paul is honestly whackadoodle on the issues he's whackadoodle on, and honestly sane on the issues where he's sane.
   155. Tripon Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4166767)
Also, somehow Greg Davis got reelected and then suffered losing a recall. Maybe CA politics are just bipolar.
   156. Tripon Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4166768)

This is pure insanity. You take the semi-competent sociopath over the incompetent nutjob every time.


The real answer is that you have them 'retire' on 'health' reasons early in the term and pick the guy you know can handle his ####. Dick Cheney may be evil to the core, and Biden might be a doofus, but both of them could probably handle a caretaker presidency.
   157. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4166769)
I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who has run for President in my lifetime who I'd actually want to be president... congressman, senator... nope, SCOTUS member... maybe Souter would be half decent.

For whatever it's worth, I finished reading Toobin's book "The Nine" a few months ago, and it made me a big Souter fan.
   158. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4166770)
The reference was clearly to Scalia's bench reading of his dissent in the AZ decision, a fact obvious to anyone and everyone.
Did he read his dissent and then stand up and start screaming obscenities at those in attendance? Otherwise, I'm not quite getting what makes this a rant which is political rather than judicial. I've read the decision; there's just no ranting in there. (It's not written in a dry monotone, but that's never Scalia's writing style.) Every so often a justice reads a dissent from the bench. So?

Somehow I suspect this has more to do with disagreement with his position than with what he said. As Orin Kerr has pointed out, Ginsburg not only read a vigorous dissent in Ledbetter from the bench, but said in the opinion, and then expressly said elsewhere, that her goal was to get Congress to overturn the decisions. She later wrote the same thing in her dissent in Bartlett v. Strickland, although I don't think she read it from the bench. Isn't that pretty much the definition of "political rather than judicial"?
   159. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4166773)
Did he read his dissent and then stand up and start screaming obscenities at those in attendance? Otherwise, I'm not quite getting what makes this a rant which is political rather than judicial


The fact that half of the "reading" was directed at the White House's recent decision on enforcement priorities in immigration policy might clue you into the "rant" section of the program. It won't, because you don't like what is written by Scalia, you like what Scalia writes.
   160. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4166774)
And all Scalia said yesterday, notwithstanding the media's characterization of it, is that the government's position on the Arizona law was belied by Obama's newly-announced policy.

Antonin Scalia spoke approvingly of the first 100 years of the republic, when states enacted numerous immigration/sovereignty laws. He wondered aloud whether Arizona would have even agreed to become a state, had it known that its ability to manage its own affairs as it saw fit would be countermanded by the federal government. This on the same day that the Court invalidated Montana's century-old ban on corporate spending in its state elections.

Justice Scalia has a new book out in which he denounces the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn case that's been cited as precedent in almost every commerce clause case since, including by Scalia himself. In the book, Scalia concedes that "there may be many opinions that [I have] joined or written over the past 30 years that contradict what is written here." But he has an explanation: "Wisdom has come late." However, even wisdom comes with an expiration date: "[I do] not swear that the opinions that join or write in the future will comply with what is written here."

So there's this liiiittttle window of time where this judicial philpsophy applies, and then, may cease to apply again. It's called "this Thursday."
   161. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4166776)
Scalia and Alito are wackos. Their dissents in Arizona and Miller are bizarre and poorly reasoned, and according to a friend who was at the court yesterday, Alito was visibly angry while reading his dissent and yelling at Kagan.


I wuz looking at a lefty site the other day, and some moonbats were suggestig that Alito's and Scalia's evident anger was a sign that the conservative wing had failed to strike down Obamacare...

grasping at straws

I have no idea if Alito was angry or not...

But Scalia's written dissent on the immigration case, all 22 pages of it, is truly remarkable, it is not a reasoned decision or argument, it is almost purely a political rant, but thsi is perhaps my favorite part:

Notwithstanding "[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration" in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted crimi­nals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks.


why include the last clause about freed blacks not being allowed into Southern States?

   162. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4166777)
The real answer is that you have them 'retire' on 'health' reasons early in the term and pick the guy you know can handle his ####. Dick Cheney may be evil to the core, and Biden might be a doofus, but both of them could probably handle a caretaker presidency.


Ayup. Dick Cheney is the most vile American politician I can think of, but I'd put him in the VP/POTUS office every single time over Palin. Palin's *crazy.*
   163. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4166778)
   164. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4166779)
Dammit.
   165. The Good Face Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:54 PM (#4166781)
This is pure insanity. You take the semi-competent sociopath over the incompetent nutjob every time.


That's insanity. Somebody like Palin is mostly harmless. Too stupid to actually accomplish much, and too lazy to try hard. Grandiose sociopaths like Edwards are a prime source of government created disaster.
   166. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4166783)
Sorry about the italics. In changing a "he" to an "I," I used brackets which had the same effect.
   167. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4166784)
Scalia and Alito are wackos.

Both are more accomplished than any of the attorneys that post here, having had distinguished careers before reaching the Court and receiving the highest rating from the ABA. Not everyone agrees with every decision of every court, but the current disparagement of the Supreme Court by the left is the most sustained campaign against the Court since the southern segregationists pledged massive resistance to the school integration decisions of the 1950s.
   168. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4166785)
Most people succeed at politics because they're troubled or needy, and desperate for affirmation.

Either that, or they feel entitled.
   169. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4166787)
This on the same day that the Court invalidated Montana's century-old ban on corporate spending in its state elections.
with Scalia being on the side to overturn that law.

Thomas has a philosophy/judicial ethic, I may disagree with it, but he has one- so does Alito and I really disagree with his- but Scalia- he's a pompous blowhard whose judicial philosophy begins and ends with himself, if we were going to rank Supreme Court justices on our contrived phoniness scale he'd be way on the Edwards/Palin/Romney side of things.
   170. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 26, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4166788)
Will this work?
   171. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4166789)
Scalia and Alito are wackos. Their dissents in Arizona and Miller are bizarre and poorly reasoned, and according to a friend who was at the court yesterday, Alito was visibly angry while reading his dissent and yelling at Kagan.
No, Alito's dissent in Miller is normal and well-reasoned, while the majority opinion simply made up law out of whole cloth. Alito demolished the majority opinion in Miller, showing that it wasn't even faithful to precedent (let alone the actual constitution). I'm not sure I agree with Scalia's entire argument in Arizona, but his bottom line position is mostly right. I think Thomas's position is the simplest way to the right result, though I could be persuaded he got it wrong on § 6.


As for Alito "yelling at Kagan," somehow the news media failed to pick up on your friend's tidbit.
   172. Loren F. Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4166790)
#149: I go back and forth on Robert F. Kennedy. I think that until his brother's assassination he seemed to be supremely phony, a self-styled aggressive political "operator" and kind of an ###hole. I think it's possible (there's no way to know for sure) that the shooting of JFK was a life-changing event for him that caused some soul-searching, and he may have come out of that with a genuine sense that he wanted to do more in politics than just win elections. There are indications that he evolved between 1963 and 1968. But he may have figured that being a populist was a better route to power. Who the heck knows, of course, but if you watch the speech he made the night that Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated he looks like a thoughtful person who was genuinely moved. (Or he did some disturbingly great acting.) Either way, I've long felt that his political journey is one of the more interesting stories of the Sixties.
   173. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4166791)
Edit is not working, but to continue 169, except for his recent dissent, I don't think that's phony, or his anger... its' the bulk of his career, his claim to judicial impartiality, originalism and texturalism, completely and transparently false, he writes the most dishonest things and has a cheering section that applauds him when he does.
   174. zonk Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4166792)
Both are more accomplished than any of the attorneys that post here, having had distinguished careers before reaching the Court and receiving the highest rating from the ABA. Not everyone agrees with every decision of every court, but the current disparagement of the Supreme Court by the left is the most sustained campaign against the Court since the southern segregationists pledged massive resistance to the school integration decisions of the 1950s.


Oh, I think they're both highly accomplished and perhaps even brilliant legal minds.... I just think they're bad people without much in the way of a soul (OK, I think Alito likes animals a lot... although, I have a recollection from a Sopranos episode about literature concerning that).
   175. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4166793)
I thought Citizens United left open the possibility of empirical evidence of corruption or its appearance, holding merely that they can't be presumed from the fact of expenditure.

Guess not.
   176. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4166794)
This is pure insanity. You take the semi-competent sociopath over the incompetent nutjob every time.
Only if you like what the semi-competent sociopath is trying to do. It's worse for him to be semi-competent if his goals are antithetical to yours.
   177. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4166796)
Ginsburg not only read a vigorous dissent in Ledbetter from the bench, but said in the opinion, and then expressly said elsewhere, that her goal was to get Congress to overturn the decisions.


If she did that, then yes that was political.

   178. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4166797)
Both are more accomplished than any of the attorneys that post here, having had distinguished careers before reaching the Court and receiving the highest rating from the ABA. Not everyone agrees with every decision of every court, but the current disparagement of the Supreme Court by the left is the most sustained campaign against the Court since the southern segregationists pledged massive resistance to the school integration decisions of the 1950s.the steady assault against the Court by the right wings from 1970 until a "conservative" majority was seated on the Court.


FTFY.
   179. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4166798)
It's worse for him to be semi-competent if his goals are antithetical to yours.


No. You can combat coherent sociopathy. You can't combat crazy. Sarah Palin is *crazy.*
   180. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4166799)
#149: I go back and forth on Robert F. Kennedy. I think that until his brother's assassination he seemed to be supremely phony, a self-styled aggressive political "operator" and kind of an ###hole. I think it's possible (there's no way to know for sure) that the shooting of JFK was a life-changing event for him that caused some soul-searching, and he may have come out of that with a genuine sense that he wanted to do more in politics than just win elections. There are indications that he evolved between 1963 and 1968. But he may have figured that being a populist was a better route to power. Who the heck knows, of course, but if you watch the speech he made the night that Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated he looks like a thoughtful person who was genuinely moved. (Or he did some disturbingly great acting.) Either way, I've long felt that his political journey is one of the more interesting stories of the Sixties.

I just finished Caro's latest volume on LBJ, and Richard Reeves's book from the 90s on JFK. Whatever he'd become by 1968, RFK was a douchenozzle nonpareil from 1958-64.

Sources in the know report he had a very weak handshake.
   181. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4166801)
but the current disparagement of the Supreme Court by the left is the most sustained campaign against the Court since the southern segregationists pledged massive resistance to the school integration decisions of the 1950s.


I'm sorry but THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE, not that the left is currently unhappy with the court but the implicit refusal to acknowledge that the right has been running against the Court ever since the days of Miranda/Roe v. Wade
   182. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4166802)
Both are more accomplished than any of the attorneys that post here, having had distinguished careers before reaching the Court and receiving the highest rating from the ABA.


It's amazing what changes lifetime tenure can bring about, huh? Apparently if you take a reasonably sane, if thoroughly partisan judge and give him a lifetime sinecure with no chance that anyone will ever reprimand him for bad actions, he'll go off the reservation and act as if he's completely above everything. Go fig.
   183. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4166803)
Ok, Rickey beat me to it.

   184. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4166805)
#178 = Sam Hutchinson covering for the Southern Segregationists, again.
   185. Guapo Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4166806)
The computer program that composes Mitt Romney's responses has weighed in:

Cue the Romney campaign, which sent an email this morning lambasting Obama for "mocking" and "taunting" Red Sox fans. CNN reporter Jim Acosta tweeted that the Romney campaign said Obama "went to the heart of Red Sox nation and committed an error." It added that Obama “chose to mock them for trading away one of its favorite players at a time when the team is struggling," Boston Globe reporter Matt Viser tweeted.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-red-sox-booing-mitt-romney-boston-2012-6#ixzz1yvLus3od

   186. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4166807)
I want to apologize to Esoteric.
I do not know Esoteric, and I am not familiar enough with his posts to comment on what he believes or not. His post just struck me as so jarring that I commented on it (more than once) and began speculating.
But the effort and consideration I put into my post #99 was transparently in good faith. The tone wasn't arch or ironic, I spelled out my opinion in detail with attempts at supporting it, and it was fairly long. How could ANYONE read that post and have their first thought be "oh yeah, despite the obvious effort put forth to articulate a position and back it up with reasoning, this guy must be a trolling liar."

Answer: nobody. Nobody thinks that. Nobody EVER has that reaction. Which leads me to believe that you are either 1.) The Most Sheltered Liberal In The World, without any exposure whatsoever to intelligent people who hold opposing views (doubtful), or 2.) You in fact knew full well I was serious but, instead of actually trying to engage with my argument -- precisely because it wasn't farcical, but rather raised decent points that you didn't think you can successfully address without having to back off of some your positions -- you decided the better tactic would be to act if I had to be a put-on because nobody defending Mitt Romney could possibly be serious or speaking in good faith.

And yes, I take it personally. I take it plenty f**king personal when I go out of my way to try and articulate a position in good faith (with a lot of verbiage to make sure I'm not being too casual or careless) that runs counter to the rather self-congratulatory liberal CW around here, and the response isn't just to say that I'm wrong, but that I'm DISHONEST and FAKE and PHONY and (impliedly) SLEAZY for taking a position that you disagree with. That is a major "go f**k yourself" moment. I don't mind being disagreed with. (I expect it, in fact.) But I do mind when someone acts as if I'm to be psychologically erased from the map as an inconvenient opinion and does it with such snotty, high-handed arrogance.

Can someone remind me again why this thread is open?
   187. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4166808)
The fact that half of the "reading" was directed at the White House's recent decision on enforcement priorities in immigration policy might clue you into the "rant" section of the program. It won't, because you don't like what is written by Scalia, you like what Scalia writes.
Be honest, Sam: you haven't read the opinion. I have. It's not "half" of anything. Scalia wrote a 22-page dissent; one page of that dissent discussed the announced Obama policy. Not to condemn it, but to point out that it was inconsistent with the government's position on the case.
   188. Guapo Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:11 PM (#4166811)
There's no way Esoteric is being serious in #186.
   189. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:11 PM (#4166812)
There's no way Esoteric is being serious in #186.
Okay, I laughed at this one.
   190. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:12 PM (#4166815)
Be honest, Sam: you haven't read the opinion. I have. It's not "half" of anything. Scalia wrote a 22-page dissent; one page of that dissent discussed the announced Obama policy. Not to condemn it, but to point out that it was inconsistent with the government's position on the case.

I confess to not being able to fully monitor the various sources of "offense" between which the liberal lurches, but wasn't the most "offensive" provision of the Arizona law the "Your papers, please," upheld 8-nil by the Supremes?
   191. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4166816)
No. You can combat coherent sociopathy. You can't combat crazy. Sarah Palin is *crazy.*


I dunno. I get more of a lazy, stupid & opportunistic vibe from her. For genuinely bug-eatingly crazy GOPettes, I'd say Michele Bachmann sets the bar.
   192. Bob Tufts Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4166817)
My biggest worry about the debate over government powers, the health care bill and the breadth of the commerce clause is that the government could somehow force me to buy San Diego Padres tickets.

   193. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4166818)
#178 = Sam Hutchinson covering for the Southern Segregationists, again.


English isn't your first language, is it?
   194. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4166819)
Be honest, Sam: you haven't read the opinion. I have.


I'm not discussing the written dissent, David. I'm discussing the bench reading. Try to keep up.
   195. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:17 PM (#4166823)
No, Alito's dissent in Miller is normal and well-reasoned, while the majority opinion simply made up law out of whole cloth. Alito demolished the majority opinion in Miller, showing that it wasn't even faithful to precedent (let alone the actual constitution).


You're doing that cute little thing where you confuse "agreeing with David Neiporent" with "being correct on the merits" again.
   196. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4166826)
But the effort and consideration I put into my post #99 was transparently in good faith.

I agree,and several of us responded to that post in non-personal terms. Why didn't you answer those people instead of ignoring them and concentrating on the one that made the personal accusation?
   197. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:26 PM (#4166834)
No, Alito's dissent in Miller is normal and well-reasoned


I would say that it is a normal/ non-rant decision, I disagree with it being particularly "well reasoned"

Alito demolished the majority opinion in Miller...


so let's see, Alito wants to ignore the fact that the petitioners are 14 because the ruling will also impact 17 year olds, fair enough

Alito says that typical defendants will be 17.5 year old thrill killers...

Alito acknowledges that judge swill still have the discretion to sentence those 17.5 year old thrill killers to life in prison with no parole...


What does the majority ruling say? It says that you can't have a law that AUTOMATICALLY AND MANDATORILY sentences those under 18 to life in prison with no possibility of parole. The ruling will prevent a 14 year who was a bystander to a murder (but a participant in a robbery related to said murder) from being sentenced AUTOMATICALLY to life in prison with no possibility of parole.

That the ruling will also prevent Alito's 17.5 year old thrill killer from being automatically sentenced is what seems to get Alito's and Scalia's knickers in a bunch- even though the individual judge using his/her discretion, can still impoe life without parole...

That's your idea of well-reasoned?



   198. Lassus Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4166837)
I dunno. I get more of a lazy, stupid & opportunistic vibe from her. For genuinely bug-eatingly crazy GOPettes, I'd say Michele Bachmann sets the bar.

This does seem a lot more accruate.
   199. Lassus Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4166841)
...the response isn't just to say that I'm wrong, but that I'm DISHONEST and FAKE and PHONY and (impliedly) SLEAZY for taking a position that you disagree with.

Isn't this what everyone here is explicitly and specifically saying about everything politicians say?
   200. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4166842)
I agree,and several of us responded to that post in non-personal terms. Why didn't you answer those people instead of ignoring them and concentrating on the one that made the personal accusation?
Because that response basically fortified me in my belief that it's largely fruitless to even attempt to discuss political issues here from a right-wing/conservative perspective. You notice that I really haven't done it at all in years. There are reasons for that, in part professional but largely because I find it too frustrating around here. And posters like JSLF are the reason why I quit. I made a mistake even posting in this thread, and I'm going to revert back to my earlier policy and just shut up entirely.

As for the point in your earlier post, I will briefly point out that Romney's inherent political principle is conservative leaning pragmatism, i.e. whatever works, within certain bounds governed by a general ideological orientation. (This, actually, is sort of what Obama sold himself as during the 2008 race, and then promptly revealed himself to be a standard-issue liberal ideologue.) A lot of the "flip-flop" accusations and such simply carry no weight whatsoever with me, as they completely ignore the fact that we live in a nation where the ideological center of gravity w/r/t economic/government/spending issues has shifted sharply to the right (or rather to the libertarian) over the last several years. We simply aren't the same country in terms of general attitudes towards size and power of Federal government as we once were in 1990s or even the early '00s. Positions that were kosher for conservatives and Republicans now are on the liberal side of the spectrum -- and this is a wonderful, wonderful thing, but I don't hold it against politicians who were around during that era for having taken positions then, in order to be responsive to the will of their constituents, which is why they're elected, that they have had to evolve on as the sands have shifted.

I find "rock solid ideologues" who don't change regardless of how the electorate changes to be largely deplorable, NOT admirable. I think people who fetishize that quality as "noble" or "principled" are fooling themselves. You might want that as a personal quality in a friend, but politicians are supposed to run the friggin' country, and I see no virtue whatsoever in glorifying, literally, the idea of a non-responsive government full of elected officials who do what THEY want and don't give a damn about what YOU want.
Page 2 of 14 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(448 - 4:01pm, Oct 25)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(935 - 4:00pm, Oct 25)
Last: Textbook Editor

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prospect Deven Marrero enjoying turnaround in Arizona Fall League | MiLB.com News | The Official Site of Minor League Baseball
(10 - 3:57pm, Oct 25)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogPhils' philospophy beginning to evolve | phillies.com
(10 - 3:54pm, Oct 25)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3781 - 3:52pm, Oct 25)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogYost's managerial decisions make for extra-entertaining World Series | FOX Sports
(6 - 3:46pm, Oct 25)
Last: Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond

NewsblogDave Dombrowski: Injury worse than expected, Miguel Cabrera 'is as tough as you can possibly be' | MLive.com
(18 - 3:41pm, Oct 25)
Last: Lars6788

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 4 OMNICHATTER
(3 - 3:38pm, Oct 25)
Last: Bourbon Samurai

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(22 - 3:31pm, Oct 25)
Last: esseff

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(19 - 2:59pm, Oct 25)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(85 - 2:23pm, Oct 25)
Last: puck

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(392 - 2:08pm, Oct 25)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogGambling Bochy creature of habit when it comes to pitchers | CSN Bay Area
(3 - 1:14pm, Oct 25)
Last: esseff

NewsblogMLB - Royals' Ned Yost keeps managing to win - ESPN
(9 - 12:55pm, Oct 25)
Last: The elusive Robert Denby

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(7 - 11:46am, Oct 25)
Last: lieiam

Page rendered in 0.6718 seconds
52 querie(s) executed