|
Post by nittanylionvb on May 29, 2009 20:11:13 GMT -5
One more thing while I am reliving my glory days. The greatest injustice in the history of college football was suffered by the Nittany Lions back in 1969, my freshman year. We went undefeated. I even went to the Orange Bowl to watch us beat Missouri.
Then President Nixon declared Texas to be National Champion. Back then, that was enough that everyone including the media and coaches accepted Texas as the Champion that year. Talk about the BCS system being unfair!
I don’t say this to prove anything about me because anyone could look it up on the Internet. But in the real-time quiz, ask me about players like Mike Reid, Jack Ham, Chuck Burkhart, Lydell Mitchell.
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 29, 2009 20:16:14 GMT -5
This implies a couple of things (correct me if I misunderstand):
1) We have a way of determining who is the best for this position -- i.e., the brightest. 2) The SC decisions are comparable to brain surgery.
Or do appts to the supreme court not fall under your stipulation -- a competition for the best, etc.?
Here's another take. Let's say you are in the hospital for extensive tests. Would you want the best brain surgeon to run those tests? Or would you want people with experience in conducting tests and, more to the point, people with experience conducting tests for the various medical specialties?
Anyhow. I have not seen any credible argument -- so far -- that Sotomayor is not qualified for the position. All I've seen is the right wing media going out of their way, again, to play games with the truth. At this point, Obama could save some guy from drowning and they'd find a way to twist it into some liberal plot to keep whitey in his place.
Havoc at the home front. Best I can do for now.
|
|
|
Post by nittanylionvb on May 29, 2009 20:19:28 GMT -5
I really think we should concentrate on the posts and not the posters. I suspect, for instance, that you are the same person posting under at least two other monikers. Why? Style and substance of your posts. It's annoying, because it makes it seem like I am arguing with more people than I actually am DO YOU ANNOY YOURSELF? OR WOULD YOU CALL YOURSELF THE ULTIMATE HYPOCRITE?
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 29, 2009 20:20:50 GMT -5
Oh, you can do better than that. Maybe I and this other poster were just too lazy to change the birth year to the correct year. Is it the same *date*? That would be odd. I will not be changing my age. It's incorrect, of course, but I never cared. I still don't. I really think we should concentrate on the posts and not the posters. I suspect, for instance, that you are the same person posting under at least two other monikers. Why? Style and substance of your posts. It's annoying, because it makes it seem like I am arguing with more people than I actually am, but whatever. Except for Bill, of course. I will continue to call him names because he deserves those names. I issue a challenge to prove who is the real deal? I am a true nittany lion. I started at Penn State in 1969 and graduated in 1973. I propose a public “real–time” contest conducted by a neutral poster to ask myself and Ms. Schadenfreude about our colleges during the period we attended. The rules are: questions will be formulated and posted by the neutral poster and we will answer them immediately so neither of us can research the answers. Ask such questions as minutia about our football teams during the years we attended (which I am somewhat of an expert because I went to almost every PSU home game during the glory days). Ask the name of the dean of our major; the names of our professors; the dorms being constructed back then; anything at random that only a real student of the school would know. The only condition is that my opponent can not claim he/she went to the same school as his/her more famous alter ego. Are you game for a throw-down to prove who is the real deal, Ms. Schadenfreude? I do not understand this challenge. I don't understand what you are trying to prove. I don't understand what I would be defending. I don't understand what this has to do with *anything* that has been discussed previously.
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 29, 2009 21:08:55 GMT -5
I really think we should concentrate on the posts and not the posters. I suspect, for instance, that you are the same person posting under at least two other monikers. Why? Style and substance of your posts. It's annoying, because it makes it seem like I am arguing with more people than I actually am DO YOU ANNOY YOURSELF? OR WOULD YOU CALL YOURSELF THE ULTIMATE HYPOCRITE? I don't understand this either. What are you talking about? Are you saying I'm talking to myself? Are you me? Are you I, I mean? I suppose it's possible. That would indeed be annoying. And don't you know it's rude to use all caps? Tsk. Tsk.
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on May 30, 2009 1:45:58 GMT -5
... Whenever there is a competition for the best, the brighest, the strongest, the person who can jump the highest, and so forth, my answer is no. So you might say my viewpoint is Darwinian. Here's an example: Let's say I need to have brain surgery. I want the best neurosurgeon working on my brain. I don't want someone to choose who is going to operate on me based upon whether they are Asian, Black, White, Male, Female, Gay, or whatever. Are you claiming that Clarence Thomas was even remotely close to being one of the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?? Not only does Sotomayor have more judicial experience than ANY current sitting Supreme Court Justice had WHEN they were nominated; I don't see how the GOP can even begin to question her qualifications when they appointed someone like Clarence Thomas??
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 30, 2009 3:18:17 GMT -5
All I've seen is the right wing media going out of their way, again, to play games with the truth. At this point, Obama could save some guy from drowning and they'd find a way to twist it into some liberal plot to keep whitey in his place. Get used to it. That's the way politics are played in America.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on May 30, 2009 8:13:26 GMT -5
Chipper..
I agree..
I think the MOVIE ...SWING VOTE should be mandatory study in HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE CIVICS LESSON.
Remember how each party's leaders PIMPED THEMSELVES to get that 1 last vote?
Hoe they switched planks..?
POLITICIANS screw the party faithful...each election cycle.
BUSH on BAILOUTS and NOT VETOING DEMOCRATIC SPENDING.
OBAMA ON CORPORATE BAILOUTS ..and prosecution of the wars along with raising TAXES on everything ...
REPUBLICANS APPOINT minorities and women..yet are TERMED AS RACIEST and OLD WHITE MEN PARTY.
DEMOCRATS run on BETTER GOVERNMENT..yet it is only a LARGER government they provide...not more efficient.
The court is seen as liberal or conservative...I want it to be correct ...I WANT MY BRAIN ..as well as MY GOVERNMENT to be operating with the best we have fixing and working on it.
Would you want the military to be filled with weak...non shooting ..peace loving wimps...just to be diversified?
Would you want your PRO Basket ball team to have slow ,short white guys to reflect society?
Would you want your Church led by atheist ?
Would you want anything to be diversified if IT MEANT A LESSER DEGREE OF EFFECTIVENESS?
WE elected a BLACK DUDE as PRESIDENT who never GOVERNED before..never ran a business...never worked like us in private business.
We now have Diversity..
TIME will judge whether a ALL DEMOCRATIC RULED COUNTRY ...with no diversity ...no minority opinion allowed by liberals.. will better this country ..
I EXPECT NOT.
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 30, 2009 10:52:25 GMT -5
Please note that Bill is comparing Sotomayor (on the Supreme Court) to a slow, short white guy on an NBA team.
No, nothing wrong with his posts.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on May 30, 2009 13:16:32 GMT -5
mm.now that you mention it ,
She is short.. she is heavy...thus SLOOOOW. and from PR ..where basketball isn't played at a high level.
How can she rule on any Black case?
But in the real world ..she is appointed by OBAMA who just gave 50 BILLION to the AUTO COMPANIES that have failed and filed for BANKRUPTCY
How could she ever rule that was UN CONSTITUTIONAL?
OBAMA and pay for play...Chicago politics. MINORITY EMOTION. UNIONS screwing over AMERICA.
Who paid to play..UNIONS.
UNION WELFARE.
sheep.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on May 30, 2009 13:30:15 GMT -5
This implies a couple of things (correct me if I misunderstand): 1) We have a way of determining who is the best for this position -- i.e., the brightest. 2) The SC decisions are comparable to brain surgery. Or do appts to the supreme court not fall under your stipulation -- a competition for the best, etc.? Here's another take. Let's say you are in the hospital for extensive tests. Would you want the best brain surgeon to run those tests? Or would you want people with experience in conducting tests and, more to the point, people with experience conducting tests for the various medical specialties? Anyhow. I have not seen any credible argument -- so far -- that Sotomayor is not qualified for the position. All I've seen is the right wing media going out of their way, again, to play games with the truth. At this point, Obama could save some guy from drowning and they'd find a way to twist it into some liberal plot to keep whitey in his place. Havoc at the home front. Best I can do for now. No test or condition is 100% fair. For example, Finals of 100 meter dash at the Olympics. During the race a gust of wind comes up that only effects the runner in Lane 1. Yes, I know, pretty improbable, but a possibility. All you and I can do is attempt to level the playing field as best as humanly possible. Sotomayer may be the most qualified, but I don't like the fact that white men were summarily dismissed from the competition. This smells and feels like reverse discrimination to me.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 30, 2009 14:56:36 GMT -5
Sotomayer may be the most qualified, but I don't like the fact that white men were summarily dismissed from the competition. This smells and feels like reverse discrimination to me. How do you know? Were you there in the room? It is kind of funny when, for hundreds of years, everyone except white men were summarily dismissed from the competition, but now if anybody who is not a white man is nominated people scream about "reverse discrimination". That carries the implicit assumption that some white men are actually more qualified.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on May 30, 2009 16:36:33 GMT -5
This thread sounds nearly identical to the POY and AA award threads. Each year there are dozens of players who are worthy of those awards, but only a limited number can receive them. Someone who also is arguably worthy of an award is always left off. People always bitch about it. It's always irrelevant.
If Ms. Sotomayor lacks the juridical qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court, then I hope her confirmation fails. If she does have the juridical qualifications to serve, then the people who are complaining so energetically are simply self-pleasuring their argumentative nature.
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on May 30, 2009 17:51:47 GMT -5
... Sotomayer may be the most qualified, but I don't like the fact that white men were summarily dismissed from the competition. This smells and feels like reverse discrimination to me. Geez hammer, just how many old white men do you want on the Supreme Court? Aren't enough there already to satisfy you? Quit your bitchin'.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 30, 2009 19:49:19 GMT -5
This thread sounds nearly identical to the POY and AA award threads. Each year there are dozens of players who are worthy of those awards, but only a limited number can receive them. Someone who also is arguably worthy of an award is always left off. People always b#@$ about it. It's always irrelevant. Nice way to put it. That's also the way I look at it, but I didn't come up with a nice metaphor.
|
|