Hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Irvine511 said:

your second statement is probably one only a male could make. and i say that as not only a male, but a male who is not in danger of getting anyone pregnant, ever.

I'm not sure if you are trying to be sexist, or just ignorant of the possible experiences of others on the board.
 
karls77 said:
He was approved by a margin of 58 to 42. I'd really like to see the breakdown of who voted for and against.

Funny, but few here probably remember that Scalia was approved 98-0.

For someone who is universally thought of as more moderate than Scalia, the opposition did nothing to bolster their case with their no votes.
 
nbcrusader said:


That was the point of my interchange with Irvine. He even stated that he was being a bit humorous.

If you want to start a thread on abortion, do so. I'm not sure an independent evaluation of my interchange with Irvine is the best place to start. :down:

Yes, you made that point to Irvine, and I'm making it to you. His post was a lighthearted way to make quite a serious, valid point. :)

You've attempted to suggest that my mention of abortion was off-subject (hence avoiding the question I raised), but it was discussed previously on this thread, so my comment was entirely appropriate.

Regarding "independent evaluation" LOL you're given me way too much credit. I simply commented that, while you often all on people to be balanced and problem-solve, you haven't attempted to do so yourself. Further, you posted from a "Well the Dems do it to", instead of simply saying that both parties should stop fearmongering. That's worth thinking about, Doug. I obviously can't force you to do so.
 
Sherry Darling said:


Yes, you made that point to Irvine, and I'm making it to you. His post was a lighthearted way to make quite a serious, valid point. :)

You've attempted to suggest that my mention of abortion was off-subject (hence avoiding the question I raised), but it was discussed previously on this thread, so my comment was entirely appropriate.

Regarding "independent evaluation" LOL you're given me way too much credit. I simply commented that, while you often all on people to be balanced and problem-solve, you haven't attempted to do so yourself. Further, you posted from a "Well the Dems do it to", instead of simply saying that both parties should stop fearmongering. That's worth thinking about, Doug. I obviously can't force you to do so.

Perhaps I missed an attempt to be "balanced and problem-solve" with a picture of a coat hanger or a back alley abortion - I take it you thought that was appropriate way to lead discussion. I wasn't going to play the game with a picture of an aborted fetus.

At this point, the abortion issues is still much of a red herring. There still are not enough votes to overturn Roe v. Wade outright. The laws proposed in a number of states will likely fail.
 
Last edited:
randhail said:
During the State of the Union, Alito looked like a guy who took the short bus to school.

Give him a break, it was his first day on the job. He probably was worried about all the forms he has to fill out and learning the secret handshake.. :wink:
 
nbcrusader said:


Give him a break, it was his first day on the job. He probably was worried about all the forms he has to fill out and learning the secret handshake.. :wink:

True, it was probably a look of realizing everyday from here on out will be such a letdown compared to today.
 
nbcrusader said:


I guess I still get the "cause I say so argument" :shrug:



no, the burden of proof is on you to draw parallels between abortion and terrorist attacks if you're going to make the comparison to begin with.

i'm anxious to hear.
 
nbcrusader said:


I'm not sure if you are trying to be sexist, or just ignorant of the possible experiences of others on the board.



i'm saying that it's difficult for you, as a man (and clearly evidenced by your statement), to put your physical self in the shoes of the dead woman who's picture you can see if you click on the link in my earlier post.

has nothing to do with sexism (though way to pull out a liberal "card"! now you've shifted the discussion and i have to ignore the original argument and worry about proving that i'm not sexist before i can say anything else!), and it seems as if, already, the women on the board agree with me.
 
Irvine511 said:
i'm saying that it's difficult for you, as a man (and clearly evidenced by your statement), to put your physical self in the shoes of the dead woman who's picture you can see if you click on the link in my earlier post.

No, I saw the picture. I appreciate the decency to change it to a link instead of its original posting. And I believe we were discussing the likelihood of individuals knowing people who’ve had abortions v. “back alley” abortions. Given that abortion has been legal for about as long as you’ve been alive, the statistical probability of my statement would hold true. Nothing about my ability to “understand” because I am a male.
 
Irvine511 said:
no, the burden of proof is on you to draw parallels between abortion and terrorist attacks if you're going to make the comparison to begin with.

i'm anxious to hear.

I see. Still no response.

My parallel was regarding the methodology of communication. Instead of an analysis of Supreme Court decisions on abortion related issues, the votes of the various members and the potential impact of Alito replacing O’Connor, we get a picture of a coat hanger. Not much different from using a change in color level to replace an explanation of a potential terrorist threat. I think we can move beyond simple pictures and look at the various factors underlying the issue.
 
nbcrusader said:


No, I saw the picture. I appreciate the decency to change it to a link instead of its original posting. And I believe we were discussing the likelihood of individuals knowing people who’ve had abortions v. “back alley” abortions. Given that abortion has been legal for about as long as you’ve been alive, the statistical probability of my statement would hold true. Nothing about my ability to “understand” because I am a male.



right --- because i don't know any women older than me.
 
nbcrusader said:

My parallel was regarding the methodology of communication. Instead of an analysis of Supreme Court decisions on abortion related issues, the votes of the various members and the potential impact of Alito replacing O’Connor, we get a picture of a coat hanger. Not much different from using a change in color level to replace an explanation of a potential terrorist threat. I think we can move beyond simple pictures and look at the various factors underlying the issue.


oh, okay, now you've created a comparison instead of implying that there simply was one and using that as the basis of an argument.

i think there's a huge, huge difference between the amount of women, pre-Roe, who had back-alley abortions (most probably not by coat hangers, but the methods use back then were probably little better) and the amount of people who have been the vicitm of a terrorist attack in the US. one is a reference to a technique that has become a symbol of a reason why abortion was made legal -- to protect women, and to enable women to determine when they will and will not be pregnant -- that has a strong historical basis in reality.

the "terror alert system" is a very modern creation, was used as little more than a political tool (as Tom Ridge has since admitted) to frighten urban residents and the nation at large with ominious warnings of unspecified threats -- you didn't know where, you didn't know when, you didn't know how, but somewhere something awful was going to happen, and the televised images of 9-11 were often invoked to lend credibility to this sense of fear.

the difference is that a coat hanger represents a long and specific history of a procedure that has affected thousands (millions?) of women with limited choice and agency, and the terror-alert system represents a murky threat that might or might not happen to someone at any given time.

there's a world of difference.

under the broad banner of "Political Symbols Used to Mean Things," there's a comparison. but that's about it.
 
Irvine511 said:



oh, okay, now you've created a comparison instead of implying that there simply was one and using that as the basis of an argument.

i think there's a huge, huge difference between the amount of women, pre-Roe, who had back-alley abortions (most probably not by coat hangers, but the methods use back then were probably little better) and the amount of people who have been the vicitm of a terrorist attack in the US. one is a reference to a technique that has become a symbol of a reason why abortion was made legal -- to protect women, and to enable women to determine when they will and will not be pregnant -- that has a strong historical basis in reality.

the "terror alert system" is a very modern creation, was used as little more than a political tool (as Tom Ridge has since admitted) to frighten urban residents and the nation at large with ominious warnings of unspecified threats -- you didn't know where, you didn't know when, you didn't know how, but somewhere something awful was going to happen, and the televised images of 9-11 were often invoked to lend credibility to this sense of fear.

the difference is that a coat hanger represents a long and specific history of a procedure that has affected thousands (millions?) of women with limited choice and agency, and the terror-alert system represents a murky threat that might or might not happen to someone at any given time.

there's a world of difference.

under the broad banner of "Political Symbols Used to Mean Things," there's a comparison. but that's about it.

My point was you relied on a symbol instead of establishing an argument. The impact of the coat hanger in this context is well recognized. I only asked for substance to your base argument.
 
nbcrusader said:


My point was you relied on a symbol instead of establishing an argument. The impact of the coat hanger in this context is well recognized. I only asked for substance to your base argument.



since it is so well recognized, the symbol itself is the argument.

what substance do you need that wouldn't be a repitition of established history?
 
Irvine511 said:
since it is so well recognized, the symbol itself is the argument.

what substance do you need that wouldn't be a repitition of established history?

The gap between Alito's confirmation and the coat hanger is immense and the value is limited to the energizing of a political base.

I think we can move beyond that level of discussion here.
 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In his first day on the job, Justice Samuel Alito broke ranks Wednesday night with the Supreme Court's conservatives by refusing to allow Missouri to execute death-row inmate Michael Taylor.

Alito sided with five other liberal and moderate justices in rejecting a second request to allow the state of Missouri to execute Taylor.

A clear failure of the VRWC.... :angry:
 
nbcrusader said:
A clear failure of the VRWC.... :angry:


Seeing as your fond of using that phrase in an ironic way:-

"David Brock, a conservative turned liberal pundit, has said that there was, in fact, an effort to dredge up scandals against Clinton, which he had been party to; this was documented in his book, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. He commented in an interview on The Daily Show that Hillary Clinton was essentially correct but wrong in the idea that it was "vast", saying it was actually a relatively small group. Adam Curtis also discusses these concepts in his documentary series The Power of Nightmares."

(from wikipedia.org)

Just a matter of interest NB, do you reject the idea of ALL right wing conspiracies?
 
I am sure there are plenty of energies spent advancing one political party's agenda over another, or looking for ways to undermine a political opponent. An unfortunate part of today's political landscape.

Given that a conspiracy only needs two or more people; then, yes I am sure they exist.

But the reference to the VRWC is that mythical beast that frustrates every attempt by the Democrats to regain significance in the current political landscape.
 
nbcrusader said:
I am sure there are plenty of energies spent advancing one political party's agenda over another, or looking for ways to undermine a political opponent. An unfortunate part of today's political landscape.

True.
 
I should add that it is one of the main reasons I detest politics and would never seek political office.

At the end of the day, it isn't about "best interests". Its about money and power.
 
nbcrusader said:
At the end of the day, it isn't about "best interests". Its about money and power.



it is, and i would argue that, at the end of the day, the people who are using the Democrats for money and power are simply less evil than the people who are using the Republicans for money and power.

sad that this is the only discernable difference.
 
:giggle:

ruth%20bader%20ginsburg%20and%20samuel%20alito.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom