Can we all agree..............

[[censored]]

Can we all agree that regardless of what side you are on the pure theater of this summer will be great. I can only imagine the level of tension and hostility that the hearings should bring. Why there may even be a Clarence Thomas like scandal. We can only hope.

Many seem to dislike partisan polictics and the contemptous debate that comes with it. I say bring me a Mountain Dew, a comfortable chair and let's get it on.

[ALawPoker]

I agree, it will be interesting.... but I mean watching news about a war and murder can be interesting. I don't think it's good for the system that the Dems always feel the need to protest. I'm only 22, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the republicans have ever protested a Court appointment like the dems did with Thomas, and will quite likely do again this time. If they have, then equal shame on them. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is a priviledge of whoever wins the White House, I say accept it, and don't try to bring shame and question to the person who will soon have a spot in the nation's highest court.

[JoshuaMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we all agree that regardless of what side you are on the pure theater of this summer will be great. I can only imagine the level of tension and hostility that the hearings should bring. Why there may even be a Clarence Thomas like scandal. We can only hope.

Many seem to dislike partisan polictics and the contemptous debate that comes with it. I say bring me a Mountain Dew, a comfortable chair and let's get it on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely! This should be a wonderful time for senate watching.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Many seem to dislike partisan polictics and the contemptous debate that comes with it.
************************************************** ****
Not me. Bring on the partisan politics.
What I dislike are politicians who value consensus over their their political principles.

Like the fight begin!

[renodoc]

I'm making the popcorn, who's bringing the beer?

Over/Under of Robert Bork face time on Fox News????

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, it will be interesting.... but I mean watching news about a war and murder can be interesting. I don't think it's good for the system that the Dems always feel the need to protest. I'm only 22, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the republicans have ever protested a Court appointment like the dems did with Thomas, and will quite likely do again this time. If they have, then equal shame on them. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is a priviledge of whoever wins the White House, I say accept it, and don't try to bring shame and question to the person who will soon have a spot in the nation's highest court.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Democratic nominee put a pubic hair on a coke can then brought it to his female assistant for a discussion. In other words, I believe Anita Hill, and I think Thomas' nomination deserved protest.

As to the OP: I'm looking forward to it. Probably anyone who frequents this forum is!

-ptmusic

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm making the popcorn, who's bringing the beer?

Over/Under of Robert Bork face time on Fox News????

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. He'll probably be a regular 5 days/week "analyst" type guest for the length of the Senate hearings. Call it about a 5-10 minute segment per day on some show (on the high end if it is a battle royale in the Senate). Repeated twice per day.

Now cut that face time at least in half because of the other "counter" guest and the host who likes to ask long winded questions before he gives the guest "the last word". Now add Bork's best moments used in other Fox shows. Now multiply by the number of weeks and you get an over/under of....

7 hours of Bork's mug on Fox News between now and the confirmation of our new justice.

-ptmusic

[lehighguy]

Jon Stewart has to be shitting his pants with excitement.

[lehighguy]

That analysis is funny as hell /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But I think your watching too much Fox News. It's bad for you.

[[censored]]

Make fun if you must but having him as commentator during the process would be extremely interesting in my opinion and definently something I would want to watch.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, it will be interesting.... but I mean watching news about a war and murder can be interesting. I don't think it's good for the system that the Dems always feel the need to protest. I'm only 22, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the republicans have ever protested a Court appointment like the dems did with Thomas, and will quite likely do again this time. If they have, then equal shame on them. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is a priviledge of whoever wins the White House, I say accept it, and don't try to bring shame and question to the person who will soon have a spot in the nation's highest court.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Democratic nominee put a pubic hair on a coke can then brought it to his female assistant for a discussion. In other words, I believe Anita Hill, and I think Thomas' nomination deserved protest.

As to the OP: I'm looking forward to it. Probably anyone who frequents this forum is!

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]


Or maybe one did, but the republicans didn't make a point to tarnish his soon-to-be-of-the-highest-authority name. That's what I was getting at. Also, Ted Kennedy has already announced they're going to put up a fight BEFORE THEY KNOW WHO IT'S GONNA BE!

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, it will be interesting.... but I mean watching news about a war and murder can be interesting. I don't think it's good for the system that the Dems always feel the need to protest. I'm only 22, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the republicans have ever protested a Court appointment like the dems did with Thomas, and will quite likely do again this time. If they have, then equal shame on them. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is a priviledge of whoever wins the White House, I say accept it, and don't try to bring shame and question to the person who will soon have a spot in the nation's highest court.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Democratic nominee put a pubic hair on a coke can then brought it to his female assistant for a discussion. In other words, I believe Anita Hill, and I think Thomas' nomination deserved protest.

As to the OP: I'm looking forward to it. Probably anyone who frequents this forum is!

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]


Or maybe one did, but the republicans didn't make a point to tarnish his soon-to-be-of-the-highest-authority name. That's what I was getting at. Also, Ted Kennedy has already announced they're going to put up a fight BEFORE THEY KNOW WHO IT'S GONNA BE!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that would be an amazing pubic hair on coke coincidence, and Kennedy did not say that.

-ptmusic

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your watching too much Fox News. It's bad for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right, but I do find it entertaining and informative (though not always in the way Fox intended).

-ptmusic

[lehighguy]

I did for awhile too, for the circus factor, but I find its all one big rerun.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, it will be interesting.... but I mean watching news about a war and murder can be interesting. I don't think it's good for the system that the Dems always feel the need to protest. I'm only 22, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the republicans have ever protested a Court appointment like the dems did with Thomas, and will quite likely do again this time. If they have, then equal shame on them. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is a priviledge of whoever wins the White House, I say accept it, and don't try to bring shame and question to the person who will soon have a spot in the nation's highest court.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Democratic nominee put a pubic hair on a coke can then brought it to his female assistant for a discussion. In other words, I believe Anita Hill, and I think Thomas' nomination deserved protest.

As to the OP: I'm looking forward to it. Probably anyone who frequents this forum is!

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]


Or maybe one did, but the republicans didn't make a point to tarnish his soon-to-be-of-the-highest-authority name. That's what I was getting at. Also, Ted Kennedy has already announced they're going to put up a fight BEFORE THEY KNOW WHO IT'S GONNA BE!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that would be an amazing pubic hair on coke coincidence, and Kennedy did not say that.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm.... I didn't mean that literally. What I meant is that we never would have found out about the "infamous" pubic incident if it were not for democratic interference, which the republicans have never done. Obviously I wasn't suggesting that another justice was responsible for the same type of "scandal." What I meant was that we'll never know, because the republicans have not been such dirt-diggers as to expose such actions.

Try to read into the actual point of my post before you reply with such bunk. Thank you.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I did for awhile too, for the circus factor, but I find its all one big rerun.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you consider a counter-punch to the otherwise extreme left media a "rerun," then I guess you're right. Foxnews is a traditional news network, and doesn't hide that. All the other news networks are liberally biased, and we have one traditional network, and people think it's the devil. Sometimes I wonder whether you left wing loonies actually believe what you say or are just set on advancing your agenda without any regard for sensible argument.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, it will be interesting.... but I mean watching news about a war and murder can be interesting. I don't think it's good for the system that the Dems always feel the need to protest. I'm only 22, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the republicans have ever protested a Court appointment like the dems did with Thomas, and will quite likely do again this time. If they have, then equal shame on them. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is a priviledge of whoever wins the White House, I say accept it, and don't try to bring shame and question to the person who will soon have a spot in the nation's highest court.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Democratic nominee put a pubic hair on a coke can then brought it to his female assistant for a discussion. In other words, I believe Anita Hill, and I think Thomas' nomination deserved protest.

As to the OP: I'm looking forward to it. Probably anyone who frequents this forum is!

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]


Or maybe one did, but the republicans didn't make a point to tarnish his soon-to-be-of-the-highest-authority name. That's what I was getting at. Also, Ted Kennedy has already announced they're going to put up a fight BEFORE THEY KNOW WHO IT'S GONNA BE!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that would be an amazing pubic hair on coke coincidence, and Kennedy did not say that.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm.... I didn't mean that literally. What I meant is that we never would have found out about the "infamous" pubic incident if it were not for democratic interference, which the republicans have never done. Obviously I wasn't suggesting that another justice was responsible for the same type of "scandal." What I meant was that we'll never know, because the republicans have not been such dirt-diggers as to expose such actions.

Try to read into the actual point of my post before you reply with such bunk. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I've read into the actual point of this last post, and I hope you do not literally mean anything you just wrote here either.

Here's something you can certainly take literally from me: every single sentence you just wrote makes me laugh.

-ptmusic

[lehighguy]

Your right, I'm a left wing looney. Can the rest of you guys back me up on that statement /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ACPlayer]

Yup, he is looney.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did for awhile too, for the circus factor, but I find its all one big rerun.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you consider a counter-punch to the otherwise extreme left media a "rerun," then I guess you're right. Foxnews is a traditional news network, and doesn't hide that. All the other news networks are liberally biased, and we have one traditional network, and people think it's the devil. Sometimes I wonder whether you left wing loonies actually believe what you say or are just set on advancing your agenda without any regard for sensible argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are as much a funny stereotype as Spinal Tap. Good stuff, keep it coming!

-ptmusic

p.s. How do you define a "traditional news network"? If you mean the news is traditional, Foxnews itself would disagree: they want to be known as the only "fair and balanced" source for news, where "we report, you decide." They are different, see, and that makes them non-traditional, even "edgy".

If you mean that their news is the only unbiased source for news out there, I have to ask: you realize, of course, that most of their shows are opinion-based, right? Hannity and Colmes is not "traditional news", just because it expresses ideas from both sides of the aisle. Nearly every guest on every show is expressing a deep bias one way or the other.

But if you meant that the network itself is traditional, well there isn't much history for entire tv networks devoted to news, is there? I guess CNN is the tradition that Fox is following! Bwahhahahahaha!

[lehighguy]

I heard Walter Cronkite was traditional. I wasn't alive back then so I don't really know.

[[censored]]

Who says News has to be unbiased in the first place?

Fox News is awesome because IT IS conservative biased. Who in the hell gives a [censored] if a bunch of liberals get their panties in a bunch over it? Look at the start of the conservative revolution and the start of Fox News, that says enough about how important it is.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Who says News has to be unbiased in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not me; don't know why you responded to my post instead of the other guy's. But I do find fault when a media source claims to be unbiased but obviously is (Fox is not the only one guilty of this, of course).

[ QUOTE ]

Fox News is awesome because IT IS conservative biased. Who in the hell gives a [censored] if a bunch of liberals get their panties in a bunch over it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you do. I also find it extremely hypocritical when conservatives get their panties in a bunch about the "liberal media" (not saying you do this).

[ QUOTE ]

Look at the start of the conservative revolution and the start of Fox News, that says enough about how important it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

No disagreement here, unless by "important" you are implying "quality" or "beneficial".

-ptmusic

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard Walter Cronkite was traditional. I wasn't alive back then so I don't really know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a reasonable benchmark for "traditional". Nothing on Foxnews resembles Walter Cronkite's newscast.

-ptmusic

[ALawPoker]

Ptmusic, you are a raging moron and incapable of having a discussion in a mature manner, so I refuse to continue it. I tried to make a couple points, and all you can do is name-call because you disagree with my opinion. You are a joke.

Also, you really don't know what the definition of "traditional" is? Analogy: liberal is to conservative as progressive is to traditional. Fox is marketed towards the conservative/traditional crowd, that's what traditional means. It has nothing to do with following some sort of "tradition." Thanks though, the fact that you spend so much time responding to posts on a "politics" thread and don't even know what a traditional political perspective is makes me laugh, and certifies your idiocy.

I refuse to get into a flamethread with someone like you, this will be my last post on this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Who says News has to be unbiased in the first place?

Fox News is awesome because IT IS conservative biased. Who in the hell gives a [censored] if a bunch of liberals get their panties in a bunch over it? Look at the start of the conservative revolution and the start of Fox News, that says enough about how important it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because intelligent people like to think for themselves? Beacuse they want to be told what the facts are, and then be left to their own minds to form their own opinions? And not have everything "spun" for them?

I've got no problem with "spinning". Just don't call it "news".

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Ptmusic, you are a raging moron and incapable of having a discussion in a mature manner, so I refuse to continue it. I tried to make a couple points, and all you can do is name-call because you disagree with my opinion. You are a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bold denotes major flaws in your arguing tactics.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you really don't know what the definition of "traditional" is? Analogy: liberal is to conservative as progressive is to traditional. Fox is marketed towards the conservative/traditional crowd, that's what traditional means. It has nothing to do with following some sort of "tradition." Thanks though, the fact that you spend so much time responding to posts on a "politics" thread and don't even know what a traditional political perspective is makes me laugh, and certifies your idiocy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked you for your definition of "traditional news network." I took a few guesses. Thank you for telling me what you meant, because my guesses were certainly plausible.

Turns out "conservative" is never mentioned in the definitions for "traditional" in the two major dictionaries I just looked at. So what you meant by "traditional news network" was both incorrect word use AND rather amusing considering that you just admitted they present news from a slanted viewpoint, which is exactly how you criticized every other news network.

[ QUOTE ]
I refuse to get into a flamethread with someone like you, this will be my last post on this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I won't get called a moron by you again? Dang.

-ptmusic

[ALawPoker]

?????

I never denied that foxnews was marketed towards a conservative audience. When did I say otherwise????? What did I say about other news networks??????????????? I didn't plan to EVER respond to anything you have to say EVER again, but when you misquote me like that you leave me no choice. "Conservative" is not mentioned in the dictionary under "traditional" ????? Maybe that's because you're stupid enough to take 'traditional' literally, and do not understand how it applies to politics. I wish I had more posts on this forum so I would have more weight in getting your pathetic opinion removed. I really hope I don't have to respond to this waste of a time post again, but if you mis-quote me and make an equally deplorable argument I may feel the need. Just do everyone a favor and stop posting on these boards. No one appreciates anything you have to offer.

[Unicorns]

[ QUOTE ]
I really hope I don't have to respond to this waste of a time post again, but if you mis-quote me and make an equally deplorable argument I may feel the need. Just do everyone a favor and stop posting on these boards. No one appreciates anything you have to offer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know you don't have to use the message boards when you feel the need to talk to yourself, that's what blogs are for!

[ QUOTE ]
?????

I never denied that foxnews was marketed towards a conservative audience. When did I say otherwise????? What did I say about other news networks??????????????? I didn't plan to EVER respond to anything you have to say EVER again, but when you misquote me like that you leave me no choice. "Conservative" is not mentioned in the dictionary under "traditional" ?????

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your "?" key is stuck. Or maybe you're the guy that sang "96 Tears".

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm only 22, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the republicans have ever protested a Court appointment like the dems did with Thomas, and will quite likely do again this time. If they have, then equal shame on them. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is a priviledge of whoever wins the White House, I say accept it, and don't try to bring shame and question to the person who will soon have a spot in the nation's highest court.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Republicans did it for Abe Fortas because of some corruption charges, but it was also bipartisan. I don't think they could pin anything on him, but they did manage to filibuster him for awhile.

-Gryph

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
?????

I never denied that foxnews was marketed towards a conservative audience. When did I say otherwise?????

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say you denied it, I said that it was amusing that you admitted Fox was biased, when in an earlier thread you accused all other networks of bias.

[ QUOTE ]
What did I say about other news networks???????????????

[/ QUOTE ]
"All the other news networks are liberally biased".

[ QUOTE ]

I didn't plan to EVER respond to anything you have to say EVER again, but when you misquote me like that you leave me no choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't misquote you, and I knew you would come back! Yay!

[ QUOTE ]
"Conservative" is not mentioned in the dictionary under "traditional" ????? Maybe that's because you're stupid enough to take 'traditional' literally, and do not understand how it applies to politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, you insulted me again! I have an idea: why don't you put up a link regarding "traditional news network" that has anything to do with Foxnews, or even conservatism. I just googled the topic, and found nothing of the sort. But I did see this (http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/05/content_328274.htm) on the first google page, which quotes the Executive of a LIBERAL news channel with Al Gore: "Hyatt said the programming will include traditional news formats like documentaries."

Now why would a liberal news executive describe his network as "traditional news formats", if that term were so widely used to describe conservative news?

[ QUOTE ]
I wish I had more posts on this forum so I would have more weight in getting your pathetic opinion removed. I really hope I don't have to respond to this waste of a time post again, but if you mis-quote me and make an equally deplorable argument I may feel the need. Just do everyone a favor and stop posting on these boards. No one appreciates anything you have to offer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, you're good. I guess I'll have to go find a traditional forum to post on.

-ptmusic

[ALawPoker]

PT - First of all, I'm sorry for being overly insulting. I've been piss drunk for every one of these posts except this one. That being said, you kind of deserve a lot of the insults. You argue like a 6 year old; just take everything way to literally and make off-topic points to try to prove that you must be correct since something I said is slightly wrong. It's an annoying way to argue, and I really don't care to continue it. I don't care what you googled, a traditional political perspective (aka traditionalist) is basically a conservative. I don't know why you're trying to refute that, aside from it being entirely true, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand in the first place. If you don't want to concede that (for whatever strange motivation), fine, but I don't care to explain it again. So again, sorry for being overly harsh, but I appologize more to everyone who had to read this thread than to you personally.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
PT - First of all, I'm sorry for being overly insulting. I've been piss drunk for every one of these posts except this one. That being said, you kind of deserve a lot of the insults. You argue like a 6 year old; just take everything way to literally and make off-topic points to try to prove that you must be correct since something I said is slightly wrong. It's an annoying way to argue, and I really don't care to continue it. I don't care what you googled, a traditional political perspective (aka traditionalist) is basically a conservative. I don't know why you're trying to refute that, aside from it being entirely true, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand in the first place. If you don't want to concede that (for whatever strange motivation), fine, but I don't care to explain it again. So again, sorry for being overly harsh, but I appologize more to everyone who had to read this thread than to you personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a LOT of time being drunk, and all joking aside, you might want to check out the psychology forum.

Okay, back to the joking around. You're drinking explains everything, but doesn't excuse it. Then again, whatever, this is an internet forum (on a poker site no less).

Everyone has a voice here. Feel free to continue saying things like the Republicans have never been dirt-diggers to expose a scandal, especially regarding someone of high authority.

And by they way, if you do show me a link that validates anything you said which I subsequently challenged, I will post a (real) apology.

-ptmusic

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PT - First of all, I'm sorry for being overly insulting. I've been piss drunk for every one of these posts except this one. That being said, you kind of deserve a lot of the insults. You argue like a 6 year old; just take everything way to literally and make off-topic points to try to prove that you must be correct since something I said is slightly wrong. It's an annoying way to argue, and I really don't care to continue it. I don't care what you googled, a traditional political perspective (aka traditionalist) is basically a conservative. I don't know why you're trying to refute that, aside from it being entirely true, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand in the first place. If you don't want to concede that (for whatever strange motivation), fine, but I don't care to explain it again. So again, sorry for being overly harsh, but I appologize more to everyone who had to read this thread than to you personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a LOT of time being drunk, and all joking aside, you might want to check out the psychology forum.

Okay, back to the joking around. You're drinking explains everything, but doesn't excuse it. Then again, whatever, this is an internet forum (on a poker site no less).

Everyone has a voice here. Feel free to continue saying things like the Republicans have never been dirt-diggers to expose a scandal, especially regarding someone of high authority.

And by they way, if you do show me a link that validates anything you said which I subsequently challenged, I will post a (real) apology.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of time being drunk? It's 4th of July weekend and I play poker for a living.... why not be drunk? Thanks for referring me to the psychology section, but if I felt like drinking two nights in a row during a holiday was a problem, I'd probably talk to a real doctor rather than consult the psychology section of the 2+2 forum.

I never claimed that the republicans have never done the same. I simply said I don't know of any instance when they did, and asked if they had, and went on to say "if they have, equal shame on them." My argument was not partisan, my point is that I don't like dirt-digging for the sake of dirt-digging, especially when it tarnishes the name of a person who should be highly respected. If there is actual reason to protest the appointment, then certainly do it, but don't bring up every piece of dirt you can find just for the sake of advancing your political capital (regardless of what party you are). When have the Republicans done it, I'm curious to learn. I'm not doubting you, I'm just asking (as I did in my first post).

What do you want a link validating? The traditionalist thing? Here: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/000424.html This is the first thing that comes up when you type "traditionalist conservative" into google. This is the second thing that comes up: http://www.newpantagruel.com/issues/2.2/understanding_traditionalist_c.php I told you, I really don't care to keep trying to convince you that a "traditional" political perspective is a conservative one, but pasting two links is not too much to ask. Please drop this digression here though, if you really still think I made up the word, then I'd rather you keep that opinion than force me to explain it again. If those links are good enough to get a (real) apology from you, then great.

I didn't mean for my apology to seem insincere, I just didn't feel you were particularly entitled to it since our words were equally childish; it seemed people reading the thread were more entitled.

[ptmusic]

Ok, I apologize, thanks for the links. We will have to agree to disagree on word usage in "traditional news network". (Actually your use was fine, but so was my interpretation of your use, in my opinion).

As for the Republicans exposing scandals: in all fairness, the discussion was about Supreme Court nominees when you suggested that Republicans had never done any dirt-digging the way Democrats have. Questions:

- You're not suggesting that Republicans have never done any dirt-digging on any public figure, are you?

- Are you suggesting that Anita Hill was a liar and a setup by the Democrats?

- Based on the history of politics in this country (people are hired every election on both sides to dig dirt), and based specifically on the history of the Republican's dirt-digging on other high authority figures (e.g. Clinton's affairs), do you really believe that Republican's never even attempted any dirt-digging on any Democratic nominees to the SC?

-ptmusic

[ALawPoker]

OK, ya, sure, we can agree to disagree on word usage of "traditional news network," if that makes you happy. I mean if I said "conservative news network" maybe you would have thought I meant it's conservative in the sense that it doesn't waste any money. And then I guess that would have been a fine interpretation of what I meant. Really though, I can see why you got confused with what I meant if you're not familiar with the terminology of "traditional" as it relates to politics, but I wish you would have just accepted my explanation rather than drag it on so long. And I guess now I'm equally guilty for commenting further.

Yes, the original question was about Supreme Court nominees - in fact it was about the protesting process that is soon to transpire. It was at this point that I said I didn't like the fact that the Democrats were planning to blindly partake in this. Sure it sounds like a partisan statement, I can see why it came across as such, but you took it way too defensively. So, in all-fairness, you're correct, I did bring up the partisan-ness (word?), but I didn't mean for that to be the issue. What I meant is that it should never be done, and it seems (to me) to be done moreso by the dems, so shame on them.

To answer your questions:

-No, I'm not suggesting Reps have never done dirt-digging on any public official. What I was saying is that it seems that Reps don't protest every Dem appointment just for the sake of doing it.

-I've never heard of Anita Hill.

-First, I think there's a difference between dirt-digging to try to win an election (dirty, but fair as long as it's true). And dirt-digging to protest a judicial appointment, which is the priviledge of the executive branch and should be an honor for the person selected. Do I think the Republicans have NEVER attempted it? I'd have to say that's unlikely, which is why I asked if they had in my first post. What it does seem like is that the Dems seem to do it a lot more often, and since my opinion is that it is a bad practice, then I have to knock the Dems.

Do you have facts you want to share or a point you want to make from those questions? Do you disagree that a dirt-digging protest for a SC justice is bad for the system?

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

-I've never heard of Anita Hill.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just lost any respect I had (which wasn't much) in regards to this thread. It's hard for me to resist jabbing back at your accusation that I hadn't heard of something (which isn't true, by the way), while you haven't heard of the key figure in the most famous SC nomination scandal in history!

[ QUOTE ]
Do you disagree that a dirt-digging protest for a SC justice is bad for the system?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's no worse than dirt-digging against a sitting President. All sides do it constantly in all walks of political life. Generally, it's pretty bad for our country, but there are times when it's serves a good purpose. So the answer to your question is yes, I disagree that dirt-digging is (always) bad. If it exposes a crime or abusive behavior to others, then it was right to expose that. If it exposes an embarrassing personal scandal, then it was wrong.

And anyone who believes that one side digs more or less dirt than the other is blind: they all do it all the time. They even hire the same people to do it in many cases!

-ptmusic

[ QUOTE ]


-I've never heard of Anita Hill.



[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously hope you're kidding. If you're not, then you are not allowed to post on anything related to the Supreme Court. Ever.

[ALawPoker]

PT - I'm 22 years old and haven't taken an interest to politics until recently. Even still, my interest is casual and not extensive. I'm sorry if not knowing my recent history makes you lose respect for my opinion, which has nothing to do with history in the first place, it has to do only with values. I think you take yourself and this thread a little too seriously. Realize we are at what is primarily a gambling message board. Do no expect everyone to know their political history; especially not a 22 year-old who qualified his original post by saying "I'm only 22 years old and may not know all the facts."

I was never jabbing at you for not knowing what a traditionalist perspective was, I was just trying to explain it. Again, don't be so defensive. Also, you claim it "isn't true" that you didn't know what it was? Then why did you make such a fool out of yourself by suggesting that it meant something else, then demanding I show you a link to prove it's true meaning.... and then appologizing.

I've tried to be civil with you in my last couple replies, and now you go back to bashing me, because I (admittedly) have never heard of Anita Hill. Like I said, I don't know much about political history. But I'm interested in staying somewhat up to date, so I peruse the political section of this forum once in a while, and in this instance I gave my opinion. Is that so bad?


By the way, have you ever been laid in your life?

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

By the way, have you ever been laid in your life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many more times than you, I assure you. I've got 16 years of honing my skills in that department that you don't have.

As for the rest, it's okay to not know something, but expect to get some ridiculing when you don't know something very significant regarding the topic of the thread you are posting in. Also, I wanted to drop it too, but I asked you to show a link between Foxnews and "traditional news networks". I apologized like I said I would because you took the effort to post some links, and because I wanted to drop the subject. I had heard of "traditionist conservatism", but not often, and certainly not in connection with Foxnews. It's not like everyone is talking about "traditionalist conservatism", so it was easy to figure that you were comparing Foxnews to something like Walter Cronkite when you said "traditional news network". If you had said "traditionalist conservative news network", it would have been more clear.

I can relate to you, though. I was quite conservative at your age. I have since moved left, but I still agree with conservatives on lots of issues and I still vote for Republicans here and there.

I hope you don't get too caught up in the philosophies of only one side, and I hope you don't listen to the words of the spokesmen of only one side.

-ptmusic

[ALawPoker]

Boy, I'd hate to comment on philosophical theory and "expect to be ridiculued" for not knowing the history of Confuscious. It's possible to hold a strong opinion without knowing all the history that loosely relates to it, and that opinion should not be "ridiculed" because of it.

I know murder is wrong. I would still know this even if I did not know the name of one murderer.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Boy, I'd hate to comment on philosophical theory and "expect to be ridiculued" for not knowing the history of Confuscious. It's possible to hold a strong opinion without knowing all the history that loosely relates to it, and that opinion should not be "ridiculed" because of it.

I know murder is wrong. I would still know this even if I did not know the name of one murderer.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had never heard of Confucius, and you posted in a 2+2 thread about Chinese philosophy, you'd get ridiculed. Blame the game, not the player.

-ptmusic

[ALawPoker]

This is really a meaningless discussion. Fine, ridicule me for not knowing Anita Hill. I don't really see how it changes my theoretical point (that was the reason for my philosophy analogy, you seemed to miss it). From now on I'll make sure I know all the background information before I dare make a post on the ever-insightful 2+2 politics forum.

Let me remind you, this is a gambling forum. Accept the crowd you have here. On that note, when I see a post about poker strategy (which is a subject about which I do have a lot of information) I don't ridicule someone for not knowing something. This is a place people come to learn; not get ridiculed for what they don't know.