ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 It appears that only the party on the outside may raise issues and condemn the party on the inside without being responsible for similar prior bad acts. Given the above maxim of American politics: Sail On, Oh Ship of State Sadly so true! How does the tit-for-tat play end in a zero sum game? How do we bust out of this winner take all, fight to death scenarios?
Logic Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 To be fair, I am in agreement that Wikipedia is not a quality "source". That being said, everything I posted in the quote from that link was factual. It wasn't as if it was erroneous information.Furthermore, I wouldn't call newbsusters.org, the National Review, or Fox News "reliable, fact-based reporting" either, yet I see those "sources" used here constantly.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Who knows what he'll do if he gets in. GOP appointments do what they like, Souter never once sided with what those who voted Reagan/Bush were hoping, The best would be the Dems sending up someone who goes against their any of their 3 most cherished causes. And history tends to show that. It is a lifetime bench appointment. Again... I like Gorsuch. Conservative, but there is a liberal streak in him. He believes in living conservatively... I like that. His mother was appointed to EPA by Reagan, I think he will keep enviro issues safe. He's an outdoor lover from CO. Maybe he will bring common sense to those issues.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 To be fair, I am in agreement that Wikipedia is not a quality "source". That being said, everything I posted in the quote from that link was factual. It wasn't as if it was erroneous information. Furthermore, I wouldn't call newbsusters.org, the National Review, or Fox News "reliable, fact-based reporting" either, yet I see those "sources" used here constantly. They aren't used as sources, they are linked as nothing more than reading material, and usually by a single poster. Anyone who uses an opinion piece as a source for anything other than the opinion of it's author usually gets slapped pretty thoroughly here.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) They aren't used as sources, they are linked as nothing more than reading material, and usually by a single poster. Anyone who uses an opinion piece as a source for anything other than the opinion of it's author usually gets slapped pretty thoroughly here. There are footnoted that are linked to sources. I agree with the notion it should be used informally. Though, one can follow the source trail (if it exists). Edited March 22, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 To be fair, I am in agreement that Wikipedia is not a quality "source". That being said, everything I posted in the quote from that link was factual. It wasn't as if it was erroneous information. Furthermore, I wouldn't call newbsusters.org, the National Review, or Fox News "reliable, fact-based reporting" either, yet I see those "sources" used here constantly. If you can link to Wikipedia, you can link to the sources its based on and skip the wikiediting.
GG Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 If you can link to Wikipedia, you can link to the sources its based on and skip the wikiediting. Newbies should also know that linking anything other than primary sources are subject to extreme ridicule.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) Newbies should also know that linking anything other than primary sources are subject to extreme ridicule. Or at least acknowledge it is Wiki and check to make sure that the source trail is intact. There is absolutely a place for Wiki and this board is one of them... Again if you use it probably. People know what they are getting when they Wiki. It is a DIYer jump on point if you check the Wiki sources. Edited March 22, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Newbies should also know that linking anything other than primary sources are subject to extreme ridicule. Newbies should also know that I've contributed to Wikipedia. So if they want to use it as a primary source, they're en passant confirming my veracity as a source. That alone should be reason enough not to use it.
Nanker Posted March 22, 2017 Author Posted March 22, 2017 Try The Sun instead. I hear that's quite reputable.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) Newbies should also know that I've contributed to Wikipedia. So if they want to use it as a primary source, they're en passant confirming my veracity as a source. That alone should be reason enough not to use it. I have also contributed... Even scarier! You can probably guess... LoL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_(water_navigation Come to think of it... The picture isn't in there anymore! Bastards! Whoever edited took it out... Must be English, those Brits are so Locknocentric. ;-) I think somebody moved us here. I am gonna have to go through: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Waterway With a fine tooth comb! "Some winters ice floes, especially around the locks and dams, preclude towboats and barges from navigating the Illinois." Ah ha! Bastards! Totally wrong! Never! Edited March 22, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois
B-Man Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 Are Senate Democrats Wanting to Cut a Deal Over the Gorsuch Nomination? According to Politico, Senate Democrats are hoping to strike a deal with Senate Republicans to ensure Trump’s Supreme Court Justice nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, is confirmed. In exchange for confirmation, Politico reports, Democrats “are most likely” to request a deal that would exchange Gorsuch’s confirmation for the preservation of the filibuster for any subsequent Supreme Court bench openings. Gorsuch is likely to be confirmed with or without a deal, so there’s seemingly zero reason for Senate Republicans to even entertain such a deal if it was being discussed. (more…) That won't please the majority liberals..........................how will it be spun ? We may need the next DNC E-mail release to find out
row_33 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) And history tends to show that. It is a lifetime bench appointment. Again... I like Gorsuch. Conservative, but there is a liberal streak in him. He believes in living conservatively... I like that. His mother was appointed to EPA by Reagan, I think he will keep enviro issues safe. He's an outdoor lover from CO. Maybe he will bring common sense to those issues. I wouldn't expect him to overturn any established law of the land in dramatic fashion, and would not be disappointed by this, despite some personal views that hope he would... the powers that be in the GOP, outside of face of the Goldwater and Reagan years, aren't big C Conservatives and never have been. Edited March 23, 2017 by row_33
B-Man Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 Democrats Choose Stupidity: They Will Filibuster Neil Gorsuch Nomination.
snafu Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 Democrats Choose Stupidity: They Will Filibuster Neil Gorsuch Nomination. Not really looking down the road, are they? Are they banking on having no other vacancies come up for three more years?
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 Not really looking down the road, are they? Are they banking on having no other vacancies come up for three more years? "Maybe the Republicans will forget about Reid's nuclear option, it was so long ago..." Not that I'm surprised at the childishness. Senate Republicans earned this bull **** when they circular-filed Garland's nomination. Just...disappointed. I kind-of wish Gorsuch would say "You know what? !@#$ you. You're being ridiculous." and withdraw his nomination.
snafu Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 "Maybe the Republicans will forget about Reid's nuclear option, it was so long ago..." Not that I'm surprised at the childishness. Senate Republicans earned this bull **** when they circular-filed Garland's nomination. Just...disappointed. I kind-of wish Gorsuch would say "You know what? !@#$ you. You're being ridiculous." and withdraw his nomination. Disappointed is right, mild even. Nobody on either side of the aisle votes for this juvenile partisan bull****. And as for Gorsuch that's a tough call to make. I would think about it but wouldn't do it -- though he's already got his job for life. That would be interesting, because Trump would go more conservative with his next nomination as a response to this nonsense.
B-Man Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) It seems odd that Schumer didn’t even wait until the hearing on Gursuch’s nomination has been concluded to announce the Democrats’ filibuster. This would appear to support the view that the decision is political and has little to do with the merits of Gorsuch’s nomination. I don’t know how to explain Schumer’s announcement, except as evidence that 1) Senate Democrats perceive that they need to cater to the party’s hysterical base, and 2) they are convinced that the filibuster, as to Supreme Court nominees, is dead in any event. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/democrats-to-filibuster-gorsuch.php Edited March 23, 2017 by B-Man
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 It seems odd that Schumer didn’t even wait until the hearing on Gursuch’s nomination has been concluded to announce the Democrats’ filibuster. This would appear to support the view that the decision is political and has little to do with the merits of Gorsuch’s nomination. I don’t know how to explain Schumer’s announcement, except as evidence that 1) Senate Democrats perceive that they need to cater to the party’s hysterical base, and 2) they are convinced that the filibuster, as to Supreme Court nominees, is dead in any event. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/democrats-to-filibuster-gorsuch.php 2a) And they are hoping that with a SCOTUS nomination, when the Republicans suspend the filibuster everyone will blame them and forget about Reid's "nuclear option."
Recommended Posts