<p>I agree, that is why I dislike it very much when names are called, when people are lumped into a group and called hysterical, that kind of comment is not useful.</p>
<p>Justice Roberts seems like a really nice, capable guy. O’Connor’s strong praise is hard to ignore.</p>
<p>If I were his son, I would been all over the place, too. Not that they could have gotten me into that Buster Brown outfit, of course.</p>
<p>Read the Federalist Society Website
<a href=“http://www.fed-soc.org/[/url]”>http://www.fed-soc.org/</a></p>
<p>He is capable, but I am worried about his stance on the environment and business, the patriot act, the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Acts, Church and State, Privacy issues, etc.</p>
<p>But there is just not enough information yet to make any kind of judgement (pun intended)</p>
<p>First, thank you to Carolyn, Driver (again) and Logosprincipal, Ive hardly heard kinder words ever addressed to me.</p>
<p>Then, to the point:</p>
<p>To call a whole group of people hysterical shows a bias, as well trying to insult.</p>
<p>Actually, what I wrote was, it seems to me that TOO OFTEN those who self-identify as liberals come across as hysterical. I did not mean to imply, nor do I think, that a whole group of people ARE hysterical, liberal or otherwise; they often are, at least here on CC (though I mentioned no names), the comments repeatedly come in vast flourishes and compound waves almost as if there is no expectation that they could be addressed in any discreet or reasoned fashion
if addressed at all.
Frankly, I have not noticed the same tendency in some of the more conservative/traditional posts (although, certainly the same phenomenon exists in both conservative and liberal pundits, as you say)that doesnt make conservatives more right (:correct;)) than liberals (though, of course I often believe they are), it just seems that the majority of those posting what appear to be traditional/conservative views more often than not truly hope for a direct response to a specific event or cultural phenomenon (often to prove it is misguided or wrong, yet
).</p>
<p>Anyhow, let me be clear, I do not think all liberals are hysterical; most of my friends are liberal (Im 17 after all; that whole “wisdom” thing;)) and I like and respect all of them a great deal. We have different views; its simply not that big of a dealIm a small d democrat; that is, I believe in it and prefer to live in it. </p>
<p>I heard a college friend of Justice Roberts interviewed on the radio, the friend said he had voted Democratic his whole life, but that John Roberts has always been one of his closest friendsI like that, and I think Id like to remain that way myself through Dartmouth and beyond.</p>
<p>I see no comments saying the conservatives pundents act in the same manner, which they do…</p>
<p>Not to parse words, but I wasnt really addressing any pundits as I doubt they frequent, or at least post on, CC (maybe mini ?); they, I assume, have neither the time nor the intellect of most of my favorite posters here.</p>
<p>And right now, in Iraq, the Constitution is being written</p>
<p>And it is my sincere belief that it will be preferable to the one the Iraqi people lacked 3 years ago, Im sure we all hope for the best, liberal and conservative alike; there will be nothing to rejoice in if this all fails.</p>
<p>Okay,rebuttels everyone…I was busy today:
roe vs wade: eroded is bad enough. Think of having to inform parents when they might be abusive.</p>
<p>Communitarinism does sound interesting.</p>
<p>funding father…Conservatives think laws should be made democratically? Give me a break. Lobbiests help make the laws. Rich white men (also know as “corporations” as people. I am big in recruiting for IT…for 26 years. I have seen the changes when management used to care about the people. No more. Stupid decisions are made. I speak to the applicants working for companies who will do anything for the profit, NOT FOR THE INVESTORS, but for the managers to get bigger bonuses. Most of Merrill lynch’s jobs were moved overseas because one of the top managers had his own off shoring company. At first. It was not even working well, but they continued to send it after all he was making big bucks. Now most of the work is done in India. I would never, never trust a company to have mine, much less it’s own employees best interests in mind. Very few companies are run by women. Think HP, carly acted just like a greedy man…she had to or she wouldn’t have made it that high up the ladder. Maybe if more women reached the top, we wouldn’t have to call the faceless greed companies "Rich White Men. The companies hire lobbiests and we pay the price. Mercury in the air? Well…too hard to fix it, too expensive, maybe next century. That is not democracy. It’s the rich white man’s country. You all laugh, but I have heard stories of such abuse at corporations against their own employees (no raises for the employees, tons of extra work and lots of bonuses for management for saving money!) Abuses against the consumers abound. How many well made products have you seen lately? Even consumer reports says since no sheets are made here there aren’t any really good ones to recommend. Our earth is also being abused etc. etc. Hide your head and put your trust in corps and their lobbyists, but this is not what was meant by the Founding fathers and their vision of democracy.
Next:
Browninfall. You should really read the NYTimes. Krugman, that very bright Princeton economist already dealt with those numbers, THAT HE CALLED A BLIP. They will disappear, as they were only there for some curious way that the figures were drawn. We know trickle down economics didn’t work in reagen’s time…we spent years “paying” for it. It still down’t work. Let’s look again, later and see if the numbers go back down. Also, again, I’m in recruiting for computers. Jobs are still not plentiful and more and more going overseas and not just in the computer field, I mean in every field. I was going to write a second book on employement… what to do when your job is sent overseas, but there wasn’t much that couldn’t be sent there…except belly dancing, perhaps plumbing…that’s about it. The big surprise will be to the CEO’s, once everyone is overseas they can hire a manager closer to the workers, for less money, too!!!</p>
<p>Re; tax cuts…Why do we still have the AMT when the very rich got their tax cuts. The middle class on the two coast are paying a lot, and the rich are buying Hummer’s with the extra tax refunds they were given for buying them!! Anyone not on the coasts may not have hit the AMT…you lose ALL deductions, all because they didn’t adjust it for inflation when it was develped to make sure the rich paid their fair share in taxes. The very rich are doing just fine. The rich white men, who run the companies and our current government (what Bush a common cowboy??? he’s a very very rich white man, from a dynesty.) I think I heard a quote from Cheney, that the tax cuts “are our due”. He meant for the white boys club in government currently. The tax cuts remain while child care is cut and jobs and medicine and support for the environment AND are cut we had to have a very very expensive war…or two. No one ever has had a very expensive war while giving out big tax cuts. Since when did Conservatives believe in big deficits. These are not your father’s conservatives. </p>
<p>Fountain Siren, My neighbor did not undergo a religious conversion, I have no religion, I’m disgusted by them all. The fact they have you brainwashed to believe that the right can serve you, as a woman better. That can only come from being brought up slightly subservient to men. I think some time at Dartmouth will be fabulous for you. Nice blue state, nice liberal ivy and you might learn some things. Please do take a course in woman’s studies, I did at college and learned alot about Margeret Sanger and no birth control allowed and all the woman who fought and starved themselves to get the vote for women. There’s Sojourner Truth and the “Ain’t I a woman speach”. I never thought the same way again. I will not back down after these couragous women went through hell to get me my rights…to vote, to make own my own decisions about my body and to have the right to manage my own money and work. We never would have been given these rights by Rich white men, we had to fight to get them, sometimes to the death. </p>
<p>Again funding father…the supreme courts is there to protect us when the elected representatives don’t and corporation want to stretch the rules to take advantage of the little person. They are ultra important to protect the little guy. Our elected reprentatives no longer are “by the people for the people.” They are almost all rich, because you can’t get there if you are not already rich. We have no one protecting the regular people…the governement is too bound to the corporations. The supreme court can make sure we’re not forgotten, that’s why this is so incredibly important.</p>
<p>to all: yes I admit to my passion and I will call someone out if I think their ideas are ill conceived. I think I use reason. I do think that not all of us are necessarily as liberal as you think in all aspects, but going against an administrative as scary, deceitful and slimy as this one makes one slightly hysterical and lean as far as possible in the other direction (mind you, the dems might be considered rich white men too, they’re getting money from corps, too, but I think they try a little more to protect us. Passion runs high…if you care about our country and you think it’s heading in such a wrong direction you will tend to be passionate.
oddysy…thank you for making the point about religion and where does it stop?? Especially when you think God is on your side!!</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom…thanks 
Always well said…</p>
<p>Lauras50, your welcome</p>
<p>And I agree, if we get complacent, we will go back in time, and we have seen it with African American’s voting in the last elections and all the problems they had, in Florida and Ohio, we see it with erosion of access to birth control, we see it in the teaching of Creationism as Science (or whatever it is called) in Public schools, we see it in the environment and it losing protections, we see it in the lack of public research and push for alternative energies, we see it with cuts in medical access, we see it in more homeless on the street, including many many veterans, we see it with discrimination, we see it with a few white men deciding things behind closed doors, we see it with billions of dollars missing in Iraq, we see it in fighting what will surely be unending war, we see it with the rest of the world not trusting us and in many cases hating us and our arrogance, we see it in a huge deficit and our children being left with huge debts, we see it with the poor getting poorer and the rich, well, raking it in, we see with tens of thousands of people being laid of each week, we see it with our privacy being taken away, we see it justifying torture, people in captivity with no right to even an attorney or a hearing, we see it with sick people not getting care…I could go on</p>
<p>THat is why we can’t just always have polite discourse. “I am mad and I am not gonna take it anymore”</p>
<p>
Washington Post</p>
<p>I saw that, strick, it’s the first negative I’ve seen for him. Everyone should belong to the Federalist Society.</p>
<p>Now that actually is interesting, but can we trust a white house spokesman?? And there are weapons of mass destuction in Iraq…? I heard he was a member, too. Can we trust the Washington Post? It’s a $50 dilemma.</p>
<p>What I am observing are people who have beliefs that they would never call religious, and yet they seem to be incapable of rationally considering differing opinions. One would think that they consider themselves to have personally received divine revelation, or perhaps they believe that they are a source of it. My question is: How does one have a reasonable discussion with people such as this? </p>
<p>For every position that is widely held by those who believe the Bible to be Gods Word, there are those who hold the same opinion for other reasons. Abortion, homosexual marriage, and intelligent design would be examples of this. I can believe something to be true because of the Bible, but that doesnt mean that there are not plenty of arguments for that position that are separate from divine revelation.</p>
<p>CGM,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually I am much more interested in what his views are on the Constitution. When acting as a judge he is not supposed to have opinions on those issues, he is to determine whether those laws violate the constitution.</p>
<p>The real issue is whether you want the supreme court to take the debate out of the public forum by ‘deciding’ an issue. Roe v Wade is perhaps the best example of the court taking the debate out of the public forum. I believe that is why there is much more passion around that issue in the US than in most other countries. Those countries allowed the political process to settle the issue, not a set of unelected officials.</p>
<p>Yulsie,</p>
<p>United Airlines flight 268 departs DCA, 12:58 pm on Friday. Destination, Great Britain. That’s the earliest flight I could find for you. God Save the queen. And while you are at it, please deliver some fresh-baked, homemade granola to the poor, oppressed, downtrodden homocidal Muslim bombers. They need love too. I can tell you which trains to take once you get there…</p>
<p>PS If you decide not to go, I hear the Montana Militiamen are looking for a new general. The last one left for England.</p>
<p>Riggs, if you look at the top of the whole CC forum, you will see they are thinking of taking politics off the site because of digs at certain religions. It started with Roger Dooley who started the site, but then another person wrote in stating he was upset with the digs at muslims. Be careful, as we don’t want to get kicked off. You might want to rush to vote saying we DO WANT politics to continue…</p>
<p>Eagle…Congress makes the laws, but the supreme court clarifies them, as you will see when different suits come in that try to push the envelope in different directions, So they don’t make them, but they do try to decipher what the often murky laws mean in real life, Therefore, your “case” isn’t even relevant. They make sure that the laws do follow the constitution, but they only make those decisions when people bring up a case in a murky area that needs clarification, after it’s been up the chain of other courts that couldn’t decide because it was too murky. We do need a final arbitrator and that’s them. Most of our laws are written quickly without being read over by many members of congress and they have some massive loopholes and areas that sometimes don’t even follow the constitution.</p>
<p>lauras50</p>
<p>Paul Krugman’s a white man. I’m surprised you quoted him. All I can say is that the facts speak for themselves. Income tax receipts have gone up significantly since the Bush tax cuts. The same thing happened when Reagan became President. When he entered office in 1980, he unfortunately inherited one of the worst recessions of modern times from Jimmy Carter. Federal tax receipts doubled from $517 billion to $1,032 billion from the time he entered office to the time that he left.
Facts are stubborn things, aren’t they?</p>
<p>As for your beloved Krugman - former advisor to the evil Enron, Krugman and the New York Times have a vested interest in finding some other explanation for the substantial increase in federal tax revenues as they argued so vehemently against the 2003 tax cuts when they were being voted on. Of course, they don’t want to give credit where credit is due because it shows that they didn’t know what they were talking about when they argued against the tax cuts. </p>
<p>As an aside, I do read the New York Times. One of the recent columns that I found most interesting was one written by Daniel Okrent who was the NYT public editor until May 25th. He wrote while he was employed by the NYT that “Op-ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing, and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.”</p>
<p>Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors told Fortune magazine in a recent article that Krugman “just makes stuff up.” It looks to me like Krugman’s done it again.</p>
<p>Princeton thnks he’s good enough and i think if you look back you will see he was right many times, certainly far more correct on issues than Bush has been on ANYTHING. Wmd anyone??? Privatization of Social security…which HE ADMITS won’t help the shortfall.
When I use the term Rich WHITE MEN, I don’t use it for individuals, I use it meaning…the nameless faceless massive corporations masquarading as “people”. Everything is done for the profit of corps and the three people who are the top managers who then pocket all the profit…even when they fail. Bush as CIO of corp USA could also be counted as a Rich White Man. Even Nixon, once elected, felt he represented ALL the people and he said so, Bush NEVER thought he should represent everyone, just the ones who got him into power…</p>
<p>In your first sentence you claim that Krugman is “far more correct on issues than Bush has been on ANYTHING”, yet I have been pointing out to you a specific, factual instance in which President Bush was correct and rich white man Krugman was not - when I use the term rich white man, I mean rich white man. Why do liberals like yourself find it so hard to give credit where credit is due?</p>
<p>I asked you to wait until a year or so to see if it was the blip that Krugman said. Hey, you can’t tell it’s a blip when it first appears…
After all didn’t Bush say mission accomplished WAY WAY before it was That’s what happens when you judge the final game, moment by moment, instead of through hindsight when all the facts are in.</p>
<p>“I think I heard a quote from Cheney, that the tax cuts “are our due”. He meant for the white boys club in government currently.”</p>
<p>They are our due becuase its our money which was unrightfully taken…obviously! All I can say is…wow.</p>
<p>CHeney was talking about his rich friends, he certainly wasn’t talking about all of us middle class people being hit by the AMT.</p>
<p>Laura50,</p>
<p>Sorry but I must disagree. I used the Roe v Wade decision because of how it legislated from the bench as opposed to interpreting the constitution. The law they were interpretting could have been struck down with out setting the 3-month and 6-month state intervention guidelines. </p>
<p>These are the guidelines that the retiring justice Sandra Day O’Conner said “were on a collision course with itself”. The rationale for her statement was that with advance medical technology the right of the state to enter into the equation is earlier than when the decision was made. So how do we remake that legislation.</p>
<p>None of this states whether abortion should be legal or not just that it should be left to the congress to make the law and revise it if necessary. It then becomes part of the public debate that can be influenced by all of us.</p>