This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.
By JK37
#553323 BYD - please explain. Who is Bork, and what was/is the significance?
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#553326
JK37 wrote:BYD - please explain. Who is Bork, and what was/is the significance?


Who is Bork? Dang I’m old.
Possibly the most qualified Jurist ever nominated to the court. Incredibly Conservative. Was railroaded by Ted Kennedy of all people and other Dems. (One Charge was for smoking pot ha). Republicans caved and pulled his nomination
Incredible moment in history and just about every SCOTUS pick since has been framed in that light. I look for the exact same thing to happen this time. But I don’t see Trump folding
User avatar
By LUminary
#553327
BuryYourDuke wrote:Remember that Kennedy was the replacement for Robert Bork. What a different country this could be had that not occurred.

Lesson? Never cuck. Never give into the pressure. Never say you’re sorry (in politics).


Actually, Kennedy was the replacement for Ginsburg, who was the replacement for Bork, if I remember correctly. But same domino result I guess. Kennedy was a game changer on a couple of significant issues. Interesting that several Republican-appointed justices have turned out to be not so conservative.
User avatar
By Class of 20Something
#553328
LUminary wrote:
BuryYourDuke wrote:Remember that Kennedy was the replacement for Robert Bork. What a different country this could be had that not occurred.

Lesson? Never cuck. Never give into the pressure. Never say you’re sorry (in politics).


Actually, Kennedy was the replacement for Ginsburg, who was the replacement for Bork, if I remember correctly. But same domino result I guess. Kennedy was a game changer on a couple of significant issues. Interesting that several Republican-appointed justices have turned out to be not so conservative.


I don't think Gorsuch will be an issue. We shall see who is next on the list.
User avatar
By makarov97
#553372
JK37 wrote:BYD - please explain. Who is Bork, and what was/is the significance?


If you ever get the chance, read "The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law" by Robert Bork.

The first part of the book is the single greatest explanation (for the layperson) of the proper method of Constitutional interpretation. The second part of the book lays out the screw-job that the Democrats performed on him, (it will also be the blueprint for what the left will throw at whoever the upcoming nominee is.)
User avatar
By makarov97
#553373
Purple Haize wrote:
JK37 wrote:BYD - please explain. Who is Bork, and what was/is the significance?


Who is Bork? Dang I’m old.
Possibly the most qualified Jurist ever nominated to the court. Incredibly Conservative. Was railroaded by Ted Kennedy of all people and other Dems. (One Charge was for smoking pot ha). Republicans caved and pulled his nomination
Incredible moment in history and just about every SCOTUS pick since has been framed in that light. I look for the exact same thing to happen this time. But I don’t see Trump folding


Bork wasn't accused of smoking pot, he was just accused of not being sufficiently liberal for the Democrats (who controlled the Senate.)

Reagan then nominated Douglas H. Ginsburg, and the press pulled the "HE SMOKED WEED" line out and he withdrew his name from consideration.

Reagan then settled for Kennedy.
User avatar
By makarov97
#553375
LUminary wrote:
BuryYourDuke wrote:Remember that Kennedy was the replacement for Robert Bork. What a different country this could be had that not occurred.

Lesson? Never cuck. Never give into the pressure. Never say you’re sorry (in politics).


Actually, Kennedy was the replacement for Ginsburg, who was the replacement for Bork, if I remember correctly. But same domino result I guess. Kennedy was a game changer on a couple of significant issues. Interesting that several Republican-appointed justices have turned out to be not so conservative.


Correct.

You are also correct on the problems that Republican Presidents have had with their nominees.

Warren, Blackman, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter were all deeply disappointing nominees.

The last Democrat appointed Supreme Court justice that wandered from the liberal plantation was Byron White, who was appointed by JFK in 1962.

He's literally the only one that didn't toe the "living constitution" "legislate from the bench" line.
By lynchburgwildcats
#553392
Class of 20Something wrote:
ballcoach15 wrote:Hopefully someday a cure will be found for liberalism.


I think a cure for apathetic Christians would be far more world changing.

I think a cure for religion would be much more beneficial.
By lynchburgwildcats
#553393
Class of 20Something wrote:
Jonathan Carone wrote:
RubberMallet wrote:The lefts current tactics do nothing to appease NEW voters. only to bolster the far left and begin alienate the mid left. They still need the moderates for at least another good 10 years. and they are doing all they can to lose them. It might not be votes for the GOP and trump but it will be non votes for democrats when they can't afford to lose them at all.


This is what I've noticed too. And I actually think it's happening on both sides, just the left is more noticeable. As each side runs towards the extremes, the people in the middle are being left behind.


I actually think this is how we can end up with a third party that actually has a chance. The issue with Libertarians is how BROAD that definition is.

Libertarian's doing anything of any real consequence politically in the USA is a pure pipe dream. It had/has a lot of popularity with younger people, then they grew up and figured out how it's all a bunch of unrealistic BS. It's the right's equivalent of socialism on the left. Idealistic, utopia nonsense that will never succeed longterm in the real world unless people are happy with complete chaos and disfunction.
By thepostman
#553394
lynchburgwildcats wrote:
Class of 20Something wrote:
ballcoach15 wrote:Hopefully someday a cure will be found for liberalism.


I think a cure for apathetic Christians would be far more world changing.

I think a cure for religion would be much more beneficial.


Both of these statements (abolishing liberalism and religion) are equally ridiculous. Not shocking who the posters were.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#553435
BuryYourDuke wrote:Man watching these Senate Republicans tripping over each other to cuck on Roe vs Wade is so disheartening.


But Trump being Trump I wouldn’t be surprised if he nominated a strong Pro Life Woman to SCOTUS. That would take away half the arguments from the Left and spare the weaker Republicans from genuflecting around the issue. And it would make Liberal heads explode having 4 Women on SCOTUS
Last edited by Purple Haize on July 1st, 2018, 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Class of 20Something
#553437
Purple Haize wrote:
BuryYourDuke wrote:Man watching these Senate Republicans tripping over each other to cuck on Roe vs Wade is so disheartening.


But Trump being Trump I wouldn’t be surprised if he nominated a strong Pro Life Woman to SCOTUS. That would take away half the arguments from the Left and spare the weaker Republicans from genuflecting around the issue


Geeze that would be fantastic.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#553618
thepostman wrote:President out in Montana being classy...


Would totally love to see him give Warren a 23 and Me or Ancestry . Com DNA kit :D

I have come to this realization. I was very disappointed that W NEVER punched back when his critics went after him and flat out lied. Now we have a President who is going to punch you back. The constant in both these situations is that they are being punched
By thepostman
#553622 I don't care if he punches back but making light of sexual assault is crossing the line. Of course he knows that and probably did it just to get the media talking to distract them from what is really going on. He is really good at that.
By JK37
#553648
thepostman wrote:I don't care if he punches back but making light of sexual assault is crossing the line. Of course he knows that and probably did it just to get the media talking to distract them from what is really going on. He is really good at that.


Yes he is, and that’s not all.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#553652
thepostman wrote:I don't care if he punches back but making light of sexual assault is crossing the line. Of course he knows that and probably did it just to get the media talking to distract them from what is really going on. He is really good at that.


Half the people saying #metoo are making light of sexual assault. That movement has lost all credibility. When women who have had a guy make an unwanted pass at them think it’s the same as being raped or having a guy say they look nice is akin to date rape I can’t takr you seriously. How many comedians or colleagues have you heard jokingly say #metoo, as a punch line? He wasn’t making light of sexual assault. He was making light of the SJW who co-opted a movement
User avatar
By Class of 20Something
#553653 So who is the scotus going to be? My money is on Amy Barrett. She was too conservative and Catholic to get 60 votes but at 51 I think she can get past.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#553655
Class of 20Something wrote:So who is the scotus going to be? My money is on Amy Barrett. She was too conservative and Catholic to get 60 votes but at 51 I think she can get past.


That’s who I’m hoping for. Young married pro life female. She will bring out the ugly in the Democrats (and Republicans) who try to oppose her.
By Yacht Rock
#553656 To say the #metoo movement has lost all credibility is silly. I've been following this closely as it relates to the business world and I've facilitated state mandated sexual harassment training in the past. I haven't seen a lot of folks equalize criminal assaults and unwanted sexual advances. The similarity is simply that people are willing to come forward. It's forced a lot of businesses to look at what they allow some of their employees to get away with and forced others to put together some clear rules on workplace relationships, etc. Overall, this movement has been good for helping both victims of abuse and victims of harassment come forward and that's not a bad thing.
By thepostman
#553660
Purple Haize wrote:
thepostman wrote:I don't care if he punches back but making light of sexual assault is crossing the line. Of course he knows that and probably did it just to get the media talking to distract them from what is really going on. He is really good at that.


Half the people saying #metoo are making light of sexual assault. That movement has lost all credibility. When women who have had a guy make an unwanted pass at them think it’s the same as being raped or having a guy say they look nice is akin to date rape I can’t takr you seriously. How many comedians or colleagues have you heard jokingly say #metoo, as a punch line? He wasn’t making light of sexual assault. He was making light of the SJW who co-opted a movement


I haven't really heard any comedians joke around about the meeto movement and as far as colleagues go, nobody I currently work with have joked around about it. I have seen some former coworkers make light of it but they are also terrible people so it wasnt surprising.

But I'm use to you attempting to justify Trumps awful behavior because he is going to get the right SCOTUS judges in which I understand but it doesn't mean he is free of criticism.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#553661
thepostman wrote:
Purple Haize wrote:
thepostman wrote:I don't care if he punches back but making light of sexual assault is crossing the line. Of course he knows that and probably did it just to get the media talking to distract them from what is really going on. He is really good at that.


Half the people saying #metoo are making light of sexual assault. That movement has lost all credibility. When women who have had a guy make an unwanted pass at them think it’s the same as being raped or having a guy say they look nice is akin to date rape I can’t takr you seriously. How many comedians or colleagues have you heard jokingly say #metoo, as a punch line? He wasn’t making light of sexual assault. He was making light of the SJW who co-opted a movement


I haven't really heard any comedians joke around about the meeto movement and as far as colleagues go, nobody I currently work with have joked around about it. I have seen some former coworkers make light of it but they are also terrible people so it wasnt surprising.

But I'm use to you attempting to justify Trumps awful behavior because he is going to get the right SCOTUS judges in which I understand but it doesn't mean he is free of criticism.


We work in different Worlds. I’ve heard both males and females I interact with end sentences with “#metoo” to make light of a situation. I said comedians because I saw the same thing on TV but to be honest can’t remember the show. Perhaps I just hang around all the terrible people you know. I’ve laid out the reasons it’s lost credibility with me and others. But I just see a massive difference between what Harvey W did and some teenage boy making a pass at a girl and getting shut down. If that makes me a terrible person, than so be it. But I’m not alone and the list is growing
By Yacht Rock
#553662 I don’t think many people are saying that’s the same thing. There are a few but it’s far in the minority and just the same noise that be seen in almost any cause. The extremists don’t make the cause less credible. They make themselves less credible.

That being said, romantic propositions and flirting in the workplace have become part of this discussion and a lot of companies are realizing that either they didn’t have proper rules to follow when it came to that sort of thing or that they didn’t empower their employees with knowledge of what’s okay, what’s not okay, or didn’t create a safe space for reporting such behavior. I’m not saying I’m against workplace romance (it’s how I met my wife) but I’ve seen enough poor behavior over the years from a Human Resources and management standpoint to understand that what is happening is necessary.
User avatar
By jbock13
#553710 Really disappointed by his pick for Supreme Court.
By thepostman
#553712 I'm more confused than anything.

Out of curiosity what disappoints you particularly? I have an idea and think we are probably on the same page but don't want to assume.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#553716 I’m not thrilled but I don’t hate it. I do know it’s way better than any HRC pick. I give it an enthusiastic meh. He can’t be that bad. He like hoops
User avatar
By Class of 20Something
#553851
BuryYourDuke wrote:I mean...what is it you guys want? Of the 4 finalists he was the best choice IMO. The lady with the Haitian kids wouldn’t have been bad either. If we pick up seats in the Senate I would guess she is in line for the cryptkeeper’s seat once she finally rests with her ancestors.


:rofl :rofl :rofl
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#553863 I haven’t dived deep into the Strozk storyline because I grasped the broad strokes. But I listened to some of the circus hearings today and HOLY COW. Hearing the actual texts back and forth were just mind blowing. Imagine if you were under investigation and it came to light the lead investigator a series a communications half as derogatory, inflammatory and voluminous about you. Would you feel they were being even handed and impartial?
God bless the Dems on the Committee. They threw every Parliamentary procedural road block they could
Last edited by Purple Haize on July 13th, 2018, 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By oldflame
#553895
Purple Haize wrote:I haven’t dived deep into the Strozk storyline because I grasped the broad strokes. But I listened to some of the circus hearings today and HOLY COW. Hearing the actual texts back and forth were just mind blowing. Imagine if you were under investigation and it came to light the lead investigator a series a communications half as derogatory, inflammatory and voluminous about you. Would you feel they were being even handed and impartial?
God blasts the Dems on the Committee. They threw every Parliamentary procedural road block they could


Watched quite a bit of this on youtube live stream. My response was a lot like yours. This guy using his work phone to text those things makes Hugh Freeze look like a genius. The idiocy of arrogance. It´s pretty clear that under the Obama JD, FBI guys (some of them anyway) were basically doing whatever they wanted, which would explain why a guy like this was willing to do pretty much anything to try to keep it that way.
By thepostman
#553897 Government employees using government phones for such things!!?? Say it isn't so.

Books upon books could be written....
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#553917
thepostman wrote:Government employees using government phones for such things!!?? Say it isn't so.

Books upon books could be written....


To me it’s irrelevant what phone he was using. Although I would imagine he was using his ‘work’ phone so his wife couldn’t access his texts to Mrs Page!
Basically this is what I got out of his appearance yesterday:
Strozyk- Trump is a douch whom I hate. He is a danger to the Country he must be stopped and I’m the man to do it
Also Strozyk - My texts in no way showed bias and I am insulted you would think that. I can consduxt an unbiased investigation
By thepostman
#553918 I'm not sticking up for the guy. He clearly allowed his political leanings effect him.

He hasn't been the first and he won't be the last.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#556372 He’s doing fine

In 2014, the average federal employee salary was $84,153, approximately 50% more than the average private sector worker earned. This discrepancy increases to 78% when benefits are included. The average federal worker costs the government (aka taxpayers) $119,934
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/moneytip ... 55508.html

Median US Household income
Median household income in the U.S. rose to an estimated $59,055 in January 2018, an increase of nearly 0.4% from our December 2017 estimate of $58,829

https://seekingalpha.com/article/415222 ... old-income
User avatar
By TH Spangler
#556374
Purple Haize wrote:He’s doing fine

In 2014, the average federal employee salary was $84,153, approximately 50% more than the average private sector worker earned. This discrepancy increases to 78% when benefits are included. The average federal worker costs the government (aka taxpayers) $119,934
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/moneytip ... 55508.html

Median US Household income
Median household income in the U.S. rose to an estimated $59,055 in January 2018, an increase of nearly 0.4% from our December 2017 estimate of $58,829

https://seekingalpha.com/article/415222 ... old-income


I worked in the private sector for 40 years and had family and friends in the public sector, civil service. I watched this insanity occur. :dontgetit
User avatar
By RubberMallet
#556395 its a great gig. we have the arsenal island on the mississippi where a ton of people i know have federal jobs. easy work, difficult to be fired, best benefits on the planet, ridiculous retirement. you can start at a GS7 for 40k and be a GS12 making 80+ in 5-6 years. Have a buddy who is a printer for the DOD is a GS13 high step almost making 100g a year. to operate machinery.
User avatar
By TH Spangler
#556402
RubberMallet wrote:its a great gig. we have the arsenal island on the mississippi where a ton of people i know have federal jobs. easy work, difficult to be fired, best benefits on the planet, ridiculous retirement. you can start at a GS7 for 40k and be a GS12 making 80+ in 5-6 years. Have a buddy who is a printer for the DOD is a GS13 high step almost making 100g a year. to operate machinery.


Yepper, no college required either!
By thepostman
#556423 I work with a ton of GS's. Let's just say most are extremely overpaid for what they actually do.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#556461
BuryYourDuke wrote:Federal employees are definitely overpaid.

BUT...comparing the average salary vs the median is pretty intellectually dishonest.


Does this make you feel less sullied :roll:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/pe ... /93002252/

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#557484
alabama24 wrote:I am generally against "anonymous sources," but this was a good read: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opin ... &smtyp=cur


48 hour rule.
Plus, they (news outlets and WH ) already know who it is
What news actually broke here?
I got half way through and was disgusted with the “Holier Than Though” “We Know What’s Best For You” tone
Initially I think this only proves point that there IS a Deep State.
I’m not 100% sure this is real
See my first comment :D
By JK37
#557509 I read the Pence angle specifically shot down by a lib reporter.

But let’s play along: what’s Pence’s angle here? Distance himself to setup his own run?
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#557515
TH Spangler wrote:POTUS is about to declassified 20 pages. Until then distractions, distractions. :idea:


It’s the newest “shiny object”. I mean if someone got paid a nickel for every time the Press tried to tell us “we have Trump now” they’d be filthy rich. I have lost count of how many stories have come out claiming to be THE Bombshell that will bring down the Trump Administration. Remember last week it was Michael Cohen. Only to find out it was a complete fabrication? This week started with Woodward’s book.....until at least 3 people he quoted in the book came out and said Woodward I’d lying....including a beautifully worded letter by Gen Matthis.
Pence was the early favorite. But why would he do that. Makes no logical sense
Sarah Sanders is now being whispered. Again.. why?
Those two do have something in common though......

Give it the obligatory couple of days for the pearl clutching and vapors heaving and predictions of doom to subside.
By thepostman
#557516 I'm not a trump guy at all but there are a ton of holes in that Op-ed and isn't very believable. If it is somehow true it doesn't make you some kind of hero that you stuck around. Quite the opposite.

I'm of the belief it is simply a distraction piece. But for what?
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#557517
thepostman wrote:I'm not a trump guy at all but there are a ton of holes in that Op-ed and isn't very believable. If it is somehow true it doesn't make you some kind of hero that you stuck around. Quite the opposite.

I'm of the belief it is simply a distraction piece. But for what?


Grasping at straws? I mean the author admits America is safer and more prosperous under Trump. That hardly fits the NYT narrative. Maybe their strategy of constantly attacking Trump over everything and making the smallest thing from 2 scoops of ice cream to flag etiquette an impeachable Offense is running out of content?
User avatar
By Jonathan Carone
#557532
JK37 wrote:I read the Pence angle specifically shot down by a lib reporter.

But let’s play along: what’s Pence’s angle here? Distance himself to setup his own run?


That’s why I mentioned framing Pence.
User avatar
By Jonathan Carone
#557537 It’s not crazy at all. People disguise their voice when writing all the time. If you were a high level official and wanted to write this op-ed, you would do it in a way that created confusion on who it was written by and didn’t make it obvious you wrote it.

As for the article itself, I don’t think it’s fake. I believe people in the Trump administration are doing exactly what it implies they’re doing.

But at the same time, I already thought that before this came out. There’s nothing new in this other than someone trying to either make a name for themselves or distract from something else going on. It’s not a bombshell or even particularly interesting.