|
Post by jdredd on Jul 20, 2009 18:56:15 GMT -5
The law of nature is "Eat or be eaten". Man invented laws to supercede the law of nature. Do we want to go back to the strong preying on the weak, the law of the jungle? I suppose some do.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jul 20, 2009 19:08:20 GMT -5
The law of nature is "Eat or be eaten". Man invented laws to supercede the law of nature. Do we want to go back to the strong preying on the weak, the law of the jungle? I suppose some do. How about we go to the policy of "Take the opportunity you have and do something by applying some effort". No law or policy is going to make it right for them otherwise!
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Jul 21, 2009 14:35:17 GMT -5
There are laws of nature and there are laws of nature. Not all laws are related to others. For example, whether a whale turd floats or sinks may be subject to a law of nature. A Megalodon eating that whale is because of a different law of nature altogether and the two are unrelated except in that the whale will no longer produce turds, whether they tend to float or sink. If one is mentioned in a conversation, it does serves no purpose to twist the meaning by bringing up the other. To do so could get one bitten and then, we may see if one floats or sinks, bringing two laws of nature together.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jul 21, 2009 18:56:04 GMT -5
There are laws of nature and there are laws of nature. Not all laws are related to others. For example, whether a whale turd floats or sinks may be subject to a law of nature. A Megalodon eating that whale is because of a different law of nature altogether and the two are unrelated except in that the whale will no longer produce turds, whether they tend to float or sink. If one is mentioned in a conversation, it does serves no purpose to twist the meaning by bringing up the other. To do so could get one bitten and then, we may see if one floats or sinks, bringing two laws of nature together. Here here, one does not learn phsyco-babble like that jeepin in the desert - articulated with precision even
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jul 21, 2009 18:57:12 GMT -5
Hatch, ps That is a good reason wifey won't post here, you circle the wagon and make it too hard to penetrate the heart
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 21, 2009 20:51:01 GMT -5
There are laws of nature and there are laws of nature. Not all laws are related to others. For example, whether a whale turd floats or sinks may be subject to a law of nature. A Megalodon eating that whale is because of a different law of nature altogether and the two are unrelated except in that the whale will no longer produce turds, whether they tend to float or sink. If one is mentioned in a conversation, it does serves no purpose to twist the meaning by bringing up the other. To do so could get one bitten and then, we may see if one floats or sinks, bringing two laws of nature together. Yer funnin me, aren't ya?
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Jul 22, 2009 9:08:03 GMT -5
Yer funnin me, aren't ya? Yeah, kinda sorta.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jul 22, 2009 13:06:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 8, 2009 3:38:02 GMT -5
Well, Ms. Sotomayor is in now, but as I've said before I wouldn't be surprised if she actually became one of conservatism's favorite justices. She was very evasive on her stand on abortion.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Aug 8, 2009 14:21:36 GMT -5
Well, Ms. Sotomayor is in now, but as I've said before I wouldn't be surprised if she actually became one of conservatism's favorite justices. She was very evasive on her stand on abortion. I doubt it. We don't do racism - she does. We don't do sexism - she does. isms = labels = separation = divisive = liberals
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 8, 2009 15:36:00 GMT -5
Well, Ms. Sotomayor is in now, but as I've said before I wouldn't be surprised if she actually became one of conservatism's favorite justices. She was very evasive on her stand on abortion. I doubt it. We don't do racism - she does. We don't do sexism - she does. isms = labels = separation = divisive = liberals I stayed home this morning long enough to see and hear her take the oath - Chief Justice Roberts was very careful to read it -s l o w l y - I watched her close her eyes with each repeat but she got through it and she is sworn to uphold and remain blind to her up bringing! God Bless and Guide her!
|
|
|
Post by dj on Aug 8, 2009 15:49:13 GMT -5
Well, Ms. Sotomayor is in now, but as I've said before I wouldn't be surprised if she actually became one of conservatism's favorite justices. She was very evasive on her stand on abortion. I doubt it. We don't do racism - she does. We don't do sexism - she does. isms = labels = separation = divisive = liberals The idea that Sonya Sotomayor has ever made any decisions based on race or gender is absurd. It is fabricated. A review of all of her decisions makes this quite clear. In nearly 100 cases which had anything to do with race in any way before her as a circuit judge, the decisions found AGAINST charges of racism on all but about 3 decisions. She is also not a rogue. In all but a couple of those decisions, there was at least one Republican nominated judge on the panel, and nearly every single decision was unanimous, meaning Sotomayor rarely disagreed with the conservatives on her panels. I agree with jdredd that I think Ms. Sotomayor will turn out to be a solid moderate voice and will probably pleasantly surprise conservatives over time. I also think if the Republicans had put up more of a fight against her it would have come back to haunt them. I will be interesting to see what will happen when Obama nominates an actual liberal to the court. I'm going to have the popcorn ready for that one.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Aug 8, 2009 16:22:40 GMT -5
The idea that Sonya Sotomayor has ever made any decisions based on race or gender is absurd. It is fabricated. A review of all of her decisions makes this quite clear. In nearly 100 cases which had anything to do with race in any way before her as a circuit judge, the decisions found AGAINST charges of racism on all but about 3 decisions. She is also not a rogue. In all but a couple of those decisions, there was at least one Republican nominated judge on the panel, and nearly every single decision was unanimous, meaning Sotomayor rarely disagreed with the conservatives on her panels. I agree with jdredd that I think Ms. Sotomayor will turn out to be a solid moderate voice and will probably pleasantly surprise conservatives over time. I also think if the Republicans had put up more of a fight against her it would have come back to haunt them. I will be interesting to see what will happen when Obama nominates an actual liberal to the court. I'm going to have the popcorn ready for that one. The Republicans are not like the Democrats - the Republicans respect balance. They comprehend that with a Dem president there will be a liberal leaning Supreme Court nominee. Liberal = Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Eugenics is just one area of concern, there are others. The case with the Firefighters/exam was racist - no matter the spin placed on it. It does not matter what the city's obligations were or were not. The judicial system should remain just and not wear the glasses of discrimination/favoritism. Racism is racism is racism --- whether it is what some refer to as reverse discrimination or more simply racism. Her comments have been highly sexist and racist, she belongs to a racist organization, etc. Hopefully none of that will be relevant from now on. Hopefully she will not allow bias, emotion or any other non-logic, non-judicial factor impede her judgements. Johng - I am with you on the optimistic angle. I will give her the benefit of doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Aug 8, 2009 16:25:18 GMT -5
Time will tell but it could have been a lot worst
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 10, 2009 16:53:46 GMT -5
Just wait the next one will be and I am hoping Ginburg has enough rebel left in her to hold out till Obama is gone...
|
|