LaxPower Back-Up Stick

seacoaster wrote:OK, so, back to the Court:

Pretty interesting little history lesson:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/opin ... esson.html

"It’s obvious why the parallel between the battle over Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination and that of Clarence Thomas 27 years earlier grabbed the public’s attention. In both cases, late-breaking allegations threatened but failed to derail the confirmation process, and both nominees defended themselves with impassioned denials of wrongdoing.

But history offers another, older parallel that in its way is even more compelling. The issue was not sex but racism. The bombshell burst not just before a confirmation vote, but just afterward, forcing a newly confirmed Supreme Court justice to take to the airwaves to defend himself against mounting calls for his resignation. I’m referring to the experience of Hugo L. Black, the first Supreme Court nominee of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In the wake of the Kavanaugh confirmation, this nearly forgotten episode is worth resurrecting after 81 years.

Black was a Democratic senator from Alabama, a populist and ardent supporter of the New Deal who had backed the president’s failed plan to add additional justices to the Supreme Court who could outvote the conservatives who were invalidating major New Deal programs. The retirement of one of those conservatives, Willis Van Devanter, gave Roosevelt his first chance to make a dent in the Supreme Court.

Black’s nomination in the summer of 1937 was controversial, not only because it was a sharp stick in the eyes of the president’s many political enemies, but because of Black’s limited judicial experience — he was briefly a police court magistrate — and an education viewed as marginal for a Supreme Court justice. Although a graduate of the University of Alabama Law School, Black had never gone to college."

"Shortly after the president announced the nomination, rumors circulated that as a young lawyer in Alabama, Black had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. The N.A.A.C.P. asked for an investigation, but a Senate Judiciary subcommittee rammed the nomination through to the full committee after two hours of consideration. One Democratic senator, William Dieterich of Illinois, accused other senators of trying to “besmirch” Black’s reputation. As the historian William E. Leuchtenberg described the scene in a fascinating 1973 article, “Dieterich’s tirade nearly resulted in a fist fight” as another Democratic senator charged at him.

Supreme Court nominees did not ordinarily appear at their confirmation hearings in those days, but Black’s supporters said he had assured them that he had never joined the Klan. The full committee moved the nomination to the Senate floor. Black was confirmed by a vote of 63 to 16, and the new justice and his wife set sail for a European vacation...."

seacoaster wrote:OK, so, back to the Court:

Pretty interesting little history lesson:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/opin ... esson.html

"It’s obvious why the parallel between the battle over Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination and that of Clarence Thomas 27 years earlier grabbed the public’s attention. In both cases, late-breaking allegations threatened but failed to derail the confirmation process, and both nominees defended themselves with impassioned denials of wrongdoing.

But history offers another, older parallel that in its way is even more compelling. The issue was not sex but racism. The bombshell burst not just before a confirmation vote, but just afterward, forcing a newly confirmed Supreme Court justice to take to the airwaves to defend himself against mounting calls for his resignation. I’m referring to the experience of Hugo L. Black, the first Supreme Court nominee of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In the wake of the Kavanaugh confirmation, this nearly forgotten episode is worth resurrecting after 81 years.

Black was a Democratic senator from Alabama, a populist and ardent supporter of the New Deal who had backed the president’s failed plan to add additional justices to the Supreme Court who could outvote the conservatives who were invalidating major New Deal programs. The retirement of one of those conservatives, Willis Van Devanter, gave Roosevelt his first chance to make a dent in the Supreme Court.

Black’s nomination in the summer of 1937 was controversial, not only because it was a sharp stick in the eyes of the president’s many political enemies, but because of Black’s limited judicial experience — he was briefly a police court magistrate — and an education viewed as marginal for a Supreme Court justice. Although a graduate of the University of Alabama Law School, Black had never gone to college."

"Shortly after the president announced the nomination, rumors circulated that as a young lawyer in Alabama, Black had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. The N.A.A.C.P. asked for an investigation, but a Senate Judiciary subcommittee rammed the nomination through to the full committee after two hours of consideration. One Democratic senator, William Dieterich of Illinois, accused other senators of trying to “besmirch” Black’s reputation. As the historian William E. Leuchtenberg described the scene in a fascinating 1973 article, “Dieterich’s tirade nearly resulted in a fist fight” as another Democratic senator charged at him.

Supreme Court nominees did not ordinarily appear at their confirmation hearings in those days, but Black’s supporters said he had assured them that he had never joined the Klan. The full committee moved the nomination to the Senate floor. Black was confirmed by a vote of 63 to 16, and the new justice and his wife set sail for a European vacation...."

a fan wrote:

youthathletics wrote:ohh me-me -me. This is a lose=lose for whomever answers your question.

Of course it's a lose-lose question.

Dis is right. The definition of socialism---where the people own and manage the means of production or service provider----hasn't changed. Republicans just don't want to hear it.

So they make fun of Ocascio Cortez for being a socialist, right before they send in their taxes to pay for all those public schools and roads, and libraries, and parks, and on and on and on.

We can have 100% private roads. We chose not to. We chose socialism instead.

We can have 100% private schools. We chose not to. We chose socialism instead. Hello UVa!

We can have our farmers operate in the free market with zero assistance from the Federal government. Nope. We chose socialism. And the checks we send to them get bigger with each passing year.

Why do we have public parks if socialism is so bad?

Or why is everyone in my facebook feed that rails against socialism a freaking State University graduate? I desperately want to demand that they give me my tax dollars back if they think socialism is so bad. Go to a private school if you think socialism sucks. Or give me my tax money back. Pick one! I don't care which!

Bandito wrote:Anyone on here want to denounce Hillary and Eric Holder calling for violence against Trump supporters?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... kick-them/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... gain-if-d/

The left is so tolerant. This is hatred to the core. Can't win elections, so they want to attack those who won.

How any of you moonbats can vote for a Democrat seriously shows your lack of morality and intelligence

Bandito wrote:

ggait wrote:

chris rock uses the N word, not racist, he's black.

This is literally the stupidest argument in the history of the world.

Everyone knows the rules. Which are quite simple. If you yourself belong to the denigrated group, then you can use derogatory terms about your own group. So...

Irish people can call each other Micks -- but other people cannot. And Irish people are not allowed to use slurs that apply to Italians, Jews, etc.

Your wife is allowed to use the B word -- but you are not.

Black folks can use the N word -- but white folks cannot.

If you (as a white male) get burned for using the N word or the B word and try to justify that using this argument, you are just an idiot. And you deserve the derisive scorn you get as a racist and/or misogynist.

So simple...

You are a racist plain and simple. Sad to see Democrats defend racism tension among Americans. Democrats again proving they are the racists plain and simple today and throughout our history.

foreverlax wrote:

Bandito wrote:

ggait wrote:

chris rock uses the N word, not racist, he's black.

This is literally the stupidest argument in the history of the world.

Everyone knows the rules. Which are quite simple. If you yourself belong to the denigrated group, then you can use derogatory terms about your own group. So...

Irish people can call each other Micks -- but other people cannot. And Irish people are not allowed to use slurs that apply to Italians, Jews, etc.

Your wife is allowed to use the B word -- but you are not.

Black folks can use the N word -- but white folks cannot.

If you (as a white male) get burned for using the N word or the B word and try to justify that using this argument, you are just an idiot. And you deserve the derisive scorn you get as a racist and/or misogynist.

So simple...

You are a racist plain and simple. Sad to see Democrats defend racism tension among Americans. Democrats again proving they are the racists plain and simple today and throughout our history.

You are just wrong....for some reason you can't understand normal thinking. bang1

Bandito wrote:

foreverlax wrote:

Bandito wrote:

ggait wrote:

chris rock uses the N word, not racist, he's black.

This is literally the stupidest argument in the history of the world.

Everyone knows the rules. Which are quite simple. If you yourself belong to the denigrated group, then you can use derogatory terms about your own group. So...

Irish people can call each other Micks -- but other people cannot. And Irish people are not allowed to use slurs that apply to Italians, Jews, etc.

Your wife is allowed to use the B word -- but you are not.

Black folks can use the N word -- but white folks cannot.

If you (as a white male) get burned for using the N word or the B word and try to justify that using this argument, you are just an idiot. And you deserve the derisive scorn you get as a racist and/or misogynist.

So simple...

You are a racist plain and simple. Sad to see Democrats defend racism tension among Americans. Democrats again proving they are the racists plain and simple today and throughout our history.

You are just wrong....for some reason you can't understand normal thinking. bang1

You are a Democrat and condoning blacks calling each other "Negroes" and "Uncle Toms?" all because they are Republican and have escaped the plantation of the Democrat Party? That is the epitome of racism.

Bandito wrote:
Thanks for letting me know the kind of stupid I am dealing with on here. Market failures are not socialism. Nice try though. You really are an idiot. Capitalism, even in its purest of form has market failures.

Bandito wrote:In the eyes of Democrats and leftists:
Taylor Swift
-"Brave"
-"Showered with praise"
-"An example for all"
-"Role model to the youth"

Kanye West
-"Trump's token black"
-"Mentality ill"
-"Race traitor"
-"Needs an intervention"
-"Unintelligent and not well read"


Democrats are Racists period.

a fan wrote:Nope. No such thing as a market failure in pure capitalism. All it is is a bad day at work. When the market "fails", another one pops up in its place. Because humans need goods and services. The market hasn't failed: businesses and entire markets collapse all the time. It's part of the game.

An easier way for a guy like you to understand socialism is to ask yourself: "did I directly pay for this using money that I earned with no help from the government?" If the answer is "yes", then that's usually capitalism.

If the answer is: "the government paid for this", that's socialism. So next time you're sitting in the bleachers watching the University of Maryland play the University of North Carolina in lacrosse, understand that that is socialism. The government owns and/or manages everything you're seeing: the land, the bleachers, the players, the coaches, the trainers, the sticks, the goals. All of it.

If there's anything else I can do to help you understand socialism or economics, let me know.

a fan wrote:

Bandito wrote:
Thanks for letting me know the kind of stupid I am dealing with on here. Market failures are not socialism. Nice try though. You really are an idiot. Capitalism, even in its purest of form has market failures.

Yeah. You're bragging about a soon to expire $2,400 tax break, and I'm the one who doesn't understand economics. Thanks for making my morning brighter.

Nope. No such thing as a market failure in pure capitalism. All it is is a bad day at work. When the market "fails", another one pops up in its place. Because humans need goods and services. The market hasn't failed: businesses and entire markets collapse all the time. It's part of the game.

An easier way for a guy like you to understand socialism is to ask yourself: "did I directly pay for this using money that I earned with no help from the government?" If the answer is "yes", then that's usually capitalism.

If the answer is: "the government paid for this", that's socialism. So next time you're sitting in the bleachers watching the University of Maryland play the University of North Carolina in lacrosse, understand that that is socialism. The government owns and/or manages everything you're seeing: the land, the bleachers, the players, the coaches, the trainers, the sticks, the goals. All of it.

If there's anything else I can do to help you understand socialism or economics, let me know.

Oh, and I forgot to ask: given your definition of socialism, I have to ask: what is it that Ocascio Cortez wants that is socialism, while the University of Maryland isn't? This should be great. I'm going to go make popcorn.

HooDat wrote:

a fan wrote:Nope. No such thing as a market failure in pure capitalism. All it is is a bad day at work. When the market "fails", another one pops up in its place. Because humans need goods and services. The market hasn't failed: businesses and entire markets collapse all the time. It's part of the game.

An easier way for a guy like you to understand socialism is to ask yourself: "did I directly pay for this using money that I earned with no help from the government?" If the answer is "yes", then that's usually capitalism.

If the answer is: "the government paid for this", that's socialism. So next time you're sitting in the bleachers watching the University of Maryland play the University of North Carolina in lacrosse, understand that that is socialism. The government owns and/or manages everything you're seeing: the land, the bleachers, the players, the coaches, the trainers, the sticks, the goals. All of it.

If there's anything else I can do to help you understand socialism or economics, let me know.

perhaps we need a "Did you Build That?" thread?

In fact - I am going to make one now. I will put it in the civil section, and see if we can behave enough there to allow Admin to let it stay put. I hope we can.....

a fan wrote:

Bandito wrote:
Thanks for letting me know the kind of stupid I am dealing with on here. Market failures are not socialism. Nice try though. You really are an idiot. Capitalism, even in its purest of form has market failures.

Yeah. You're bragging about a soon to expire $2,400 tax break, and I'm the one who doesn't understand economics. Thanks for making my morning brighter.

Nope. No such thing as a market failure in pure capitalism. All it is is a bad day at work. When the market "fails", another one pops up in its place. Because humans need goods and services. The market hasn't failed: businesses and entire markets collapse all the time. It's part of the game.

An easier way for a guy like you to understand socialism is to ask yourself: "did I directly pay for this using money that I earned with no help from the government?" If the answer is "yes", then that's usually capitalism.

If the answer is: "the government paid for this", that's socialism. So next time you're sitting in the bleachers watching the University of Maryland play the University of North Carolina in lacrosse, understand that that is socialism. The government owns and/or manages everything you're seeing: the land, the bleachers, the players, the coaches, the trainers, the sticks, the goals. All of it.

If there's anything else I can do to help you understand socialism or economics, let me know.

Oh, and I forgot to ask: given your definition of socialism, I have to ask: what is it that Ocascio Cortez wants that is socialism, while the University of Maryland isn't? This should be great. I'm going to go make popcorn.

MDlaxfan76 wrote:Manuel, you almost got through that post without being a troll.

I'm not sure what has you so twisted up in knots on so many subjects, but on this one, posters have been pretty clear as to how socialism is defined (you only need to put the google machine on it yourself if you're puzzled) yet you have never defined it yourself, cogently. Instead you resort to an insult as if only you could brilliantly know the true meaning of 'socialism' ...and it's not what is accepted as such by the majority. Huh?

Yes, there are no pure capitalist countries, though Hong Kong in its heyday probably approached it the most closely. Certainly the US has long not been a pure capitalist country, indeed we've long had a significant dose of government ownership or control of various parts of the economy...the definition of, wait for it...socialism.

Where there's reasonable debate to be had is how much is too much, whether capitalism or socialism. How best to handle the inevitable trade-offs.

Reasonable debate, no hate required.

But it doesn't seem to have anything to do with SCOTUS at present, unless you'd like to direct our attention to a case that is percolating up in which these issues would be pertinent?