Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[Anastasis 23720]

It's only denigration if you think states are bad.

(like idiot libertarians do)

Equivocates the existence of states with statism. Calls others idiots.

[David Dennison 19542]

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The context of the preceding posts, state=elite, is the basis of my post.

Newsflash: Our system is one of the only ones in the world that allows someone of no means to make the rules.

Newsflash: that right was only guaranteed to everyone in 1965.

We have a lot of work to do.

[bad_teammate 13524]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Equivocates the existence of states with statism. Calls others idiots.

 

Central-government controlled armed forces authorized to imprison and kill in order to protect private property is not statist?

[bad_teammate 13524]

"Naww man, 'statism' means 'bad', like 'socialism' means 'bad' and 'librul' means 'bad'!"

[Anastasis 23720]

24 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Private property is, in fact, a statist concept...

I am glad that you and bt are here to convince us that up is down and white is black. 

[formermav43 4630]

nm 

Edited September 10, 2018 by formermav43

[David Dennison 19542]

18 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I am glad that you and bt are here to convince us that up is down and white is black. 

I suppose now you're going to tell us how private property rights are enforced without the state.

 

[Anastasis 23720]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I suppose now you're going to tell us how private property rights are enforced without the state.

I see the problem.  You think that statism is defined by the existence of the state. If your definition of statism is so broad as to include the full range of basically all non-anarchist views on the role and form of government, than you render the term essentially meaningless in modern political dialog. Which is probably a decent strategy if your intent is only to muddy and undermine the use of a term commonly deployed in criticism of forms of government where broad control is increasingly concentrated in a centralized authority.

[Captainant 28539]

It's impressive how y'all have managed to derail this thread so badly when there's hard evidence out there that kavanaugh perjured himself and has a criminal complaint and an ethics complaint filed against him. And Leahy called kavanaugh out today saying that he lied under oath and on the record. 

[bad_teammate 13524]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

If your definition of statism is so broad as to include the full range of basically all non-anarchist views on the role and form of government, than you render the term essentially meaningless in modern political dialog. 

There are plenty of non-anarchist views on the role of government that do not involve a heavily armed central government who kills and imprisons to protect private property. Your complete lack of an imagination or concept of life on earth beyond center-right politics continues to depress.

[David Dennison 19542]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I see the problem.  You think that statism is defined by the existence of the state. If your definition of statism is so broad as to include the full range of basically all non-anarchist views on the role and form of government, than you render the term essentially meaningless in modern political dialog. Which is probably a decent strategy if your intent is only to muddy and undermine the use of a term commonly deployed in criticism of forms of government where broad control is increasingly concentrated in a centralized authority.

Are you going to seriously argue that broad control is not concentrated in a centralized authority in this country?

Seriously?

[pyrohornIII 4846]

Back to Kavanaugh.   How recent is this move to have a handler/manager to help someone get into the SC?  I think if someone needs coaching on how to say what, then they aren't good enough for the job.   When did your image become more important than your body of work for this position?  

If needing this sort of support mechanism isn't a huge sign of how these appointments have become politicized, then I don't understand the reasoning behind the image coach.

To me, whether he gets appointed or not, this should not be the only point the press and others should be making.    Those in the senate in charge of vetting someone for the highest court in the land should be turning over every rock to find the wisest,  not trying to hide shit that might bring their side's nominee down.

With everything going on with Trump and his disregard for law, this seems a perfect place to point out how far astray we have come from the original concepts in all three branches.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

It's impressive how y'all have managed to derail this thread so badly when there's hard evidence out there that kavanaugh perjured himself and has a criminal complaint and an ethics complaint filed against him. And Leahy called kavanaugh out today saying that he lied under oath and on the record. 

People tend to check out when nothing matters and shit like this is a foregone conclusion. 

[Biff Tannen 46168]

1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

Back to Kavanaugh.   How recent is this move to have a handler/manager to help someone get into the SC?  I think if someone needs coaching on how to say what, then they aren't good enough for the job.   When did your image become more important than your body of work for this position?  

If needing this sort of support mechanism isn't a huge sign of how these appointments have become politicized, then I don't understand the reasoning behind the image coach.

To me, whether he gets appointed or not, this should not be the only point the press and others should be making.    Those in the senate in charge of vetting someone for the highest court in the land should be turning over every rock to find the wisest,  not trying to hide shit that might bring their side's nominee down.

With everything going on with Trump and his disregard for law, this seems a perfect place to point out how far astray we have come from the original concepts in all three branches.

John Oliver had a short segment at the beginning of his show last night about this very subject.

[yoladu 4191]

On 9/7/2018 at 6:06 PM, yoladu said:

Kavanaugh has not impressed.

Gorsuch? i mean, who knows. He seems like a ghost.

Even Garland. Yeah, we never really got a chance to impress, but he is not exactly an inspiring guy.

is this the best we have? Uninspiring dopey white guys who seem to have limited world views.

to follow up on my own post, it is interesting that the make up of the committee also reflects on the dopey white guy malaise...

11 GOP members : 10 white males, and 1 Cuban American male.

9 Dem members : 4 white males, 1 black male, 2 white women and 2 women of color.

I guess it shouldn't be shocking that the white male majority in the committee is going to confirm someone they are comfortable with and who likely share common a common background and world view.

However, those with the power to nominate and confirm Justices are being executed by an ever shrinking demographic in this country. Yet, these judges will rule on decisions that will affect an increasing diverse America for generations.

[Buzzrock 15136]

Come on, you're better than that. 
The for-profit prison industry is incredibly lucrative, and many companies rely on a cheap prison labor to manufacture their goods.  It is a fact that the prison industry could not sustain itself if it had to pay a going wage for many of the internal services provided by inmates.  The fact that external, for-profit corporations also make money off those prisoners is just icing on the cake.
Per capita incarceration rates have tripled in a little over 30 years.  The poor bear most of this.  The war on drugs is partially responsible, and most likely has caused a chain reaction that explains the biggest correlation to incarceration -- single parent households.  Ward and June Cleaver's kids somehow have managed to escape this burden.  Hmmm.

That’s all true. I was just poking fun at the constant hyperbole in here.

[JBJ 3827]

 

On 9/9/2018 at 5:34 PM, bad_teammate said:

Central-government controlled armed forces authorized to imprison and kill in order to protect private property is not statist?

Do you ever read what you write and think a bit before posting?

[David Dennison 19542]

4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Do you ever read what you write and think a bit before posting?

But he's right. 

[High Plains Drifter 11189]

15 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

Back to Kavanaugh.   How recent is this move to have a handler/manager to help someone get into the SC?  I think if someone needs coaching on how to say what, then they aren't good enough for the job.   When did your image become more important than your body of work for this position?  

 

Pretty common, not sure how recent. Both sides do it.

[JBJ 3827]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

But he's right. 

So if someone burns's down the GM Wentzville plant: Is he is going to be tried and imprisoned by a cabal of bureaucrats in DC?  Or by local citizens of Arlington and Tarrant County?

Affirming and protecting individual rights is statist?

He's not only not right, he's loosing his grasp on reality.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

*losing, or loosening.

carry on.

[David Dennison 19542]

41 minutes ago, JBJ said:

So if someone burns's down the GM Wentzville plant: Is he is going to be tried and imprisoned by a cabal of bureaucrats in DC?  Or by local citizens of Arlington and Tarrant County?

Affirming and protecting individual rights is statist?

He's not only not right, he's loosing his grasp on reality.

And those localities exist because . . . 

The local citizens are citizens of . . .

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by David Dennison

[JBJ 3827]

Don't troll.  Answer the questions or explain your thoughts. 

The state affirming citizens to charge, try, and sentence crimes (or having the right for your crimes to be judge in that manner) is the same as the state affirming private property rights. 

It's classical liberalism: Individual rights affirmed over state, public, or common rights.

Statism would be doing the exact opposite: affirming State rights over individual: Stalinism, facism, asset forfeiture, and eminent domain come to mind.

Being organized into a nation doesn't change that dynamic.

[Chad Fuck 18135]

You guys need to start a "definition of 'statist'" thread and go jerk off there.

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Don't troll.  Answer the questions or explain your thoughts. 

The state affirming citizens to charge, try, and sentence crimes (or having the right for your crimes to be judge in that manner) is the same as the state affirming private property rights. 

It's classical liberalism: Individual rights affirmed over state, public, or common rights.

Statism would be doing the exact opposite: affirming State rights over individual: Stalinism, facism, asset forfeiture, and eminent domain come to mind.

Being organized into a nation doesn't change that dynamic.

Hmmmmm.

[wildcat09 29579]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

So if someone burns's down the GM Wentzville plant: Is he is going to be tried and imprisoned by a cabal of bureaucrats in DC?  Or by local citizens of Arlington and Tarrant County?

Affirming and protecting individual rights is statist?

He's not only not right, he's loosing his grasp on reality.

Statism has a federalism component to it now?

[David Dennison 19542]

This sounds oddly familiar.

stat·ism

ˈstādˌizəm/

noun

 

1. a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

[JBJ 3827]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Hmmmmm.

Goal posts are over there.  You won't find Anastasis or me arguing otherwise.

 

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Statism has a federalism component to it now?

No, try learning english.

 

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

This sounds oddly familiar.

stat·ism

ˈstādˌizəm/

noun

 

1. a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

Like a system of government that refuses to affirm private property rights?

Edited September 11, 2018 by JBJ

[Biff Tannen 46168]

 

[David Dennison 19542]

I think we can all agree that there are statist aspects of our system of government. The degree to which the federal government controls our economy and society is up for debate. The fact that it exercises a degree of control is not.

[Huckleberry 34657]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Goal posts are over there.  You won't find Anastasis or me arguing otherwise.

 

No, try learning english.

 

Like a system of government that refuses to affirm private property rights?

I agree they're going overboard with statism, but that is a horrendous misreading of the supplied definition. The state, in this example, has control over social and economic affairs by being the mechanism which affirms one citizen's right to the land over another's. The definition does not require that the state affirms its own property rights, merely that it controls social and economic affairs, which it clearly does in this example.

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I agree they're going overboard with statism, but that is a horrendous misreading of the supplied definition. The state, in this example, has control over social and economic affairs by being the mechanism which affirms one citizen's right to the land over another's. The definition does not require that the state affirms its own property rights, merely that it controls social and economic affairs, which it clearly does in this example.

In other words, the definition of statism is nuanced. Classic liberalism can co-exist with statism. The United States is a perfect example.

[JBJ 3827]

57 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The definition does not require that the state affirms its own property rights, merely that it controls social and economic affairs, which it clearly does in this example.

So in this example: Statism's "substancial and central" control of property means the state protecting the property rights of individuals?

I think you are missing the crux of the concept.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

So in this example: Statism's "substancial and central" control of property means the state protecting the property rights of individuals?

I think you are missing the crux of the concept.

And, in the case of the United States, having quite a large role in the financing and purchase of said private property, particularly by individuals in the middle and lower middle classes.

[Huckleberry 34657]

No, I'm not missing it at all. The provided definition requires only substantial and central control over social and economic affairs. The State clearly exercises such control in this example. You appear to be denying that the use of force when required to enforce one's right to property over another is not substantial and central control. I think that's plainly incorrect.

 

[JBJ 3827]

Force to maintain an individual's right.  The government doesn't claim ownership of Wentzville or forcibly direct them to assemble tanks when it falls victim to an arsonist.  GM stills owns and controls the plant.  There's a gaping distinction there.

[Huckleberry 34657]

Right, the problem is that you are attempting to argue using your personal definition of statism. I am pointing out that the example falls under the provided definition of statism. I mean we can use whatever definition we want, but the conversation won't progress very far.

[David Dennison 19542]

16 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Force to maintain an individual's right.  The government doesn't claim ownership of Wentzville or forcibly direct them to assemble tanks when it falls victim to an arsonist.  GM stills owns and controls the plant.  There's a gaping distinction there.

GM owns and controls the plant because the government allows it to own and control the plant. 

The good news is, in a democracy, we are the government that allows GM to own and control the plant. 

We are the state.

Edited September 11, 2018 by David Dennison

[Anastasis 23720]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The good news is, in a democracy, we are the government that allows GM to own and control the plant. 

We are the state.

The bad news is that there are many aspects for which we look far more like a corporatocracy than a democracy. 

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The bad news is that there are many aspects for which we look far more like a corporatocracy than a democracy. 

I do not disagree with that statement.

[jimmyjazz 47205]

Y'all some pedantic motherfuckers.

#irony

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

GM owns and controls the plant because the government allows it to own and control the plant. 

The good news is, in a democracy, we are the government that allows GM to own and control the plant. 

We are the state.

We aren’t a democracy. And never have been one.  

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

We aren’t a democracy. And never have been one.  

But we are democratic. Our republic is a form of democracy.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

11 hours ago, yoladu said:

to follow up on my own post, it is interesting that the make up of the committee also reflects on the dopey white guy malaise...

11 GOP members : 10 white males, and 1 Cuban American male.

9 Dem members : 4 white males, 1 black male, 2 white women and 2 women of color.

I guess it shouldn't be shocking that the white male majority in the committee is going to confirm someone they are comfortable with and who likely share common a common background and world view.

However, those with the power to nominate and confirm Justices are being executed by an ever shrinking demographic in this country. Yet, these judges will rule on decisions that will affect an increasing diverse America for generations.

This is so fucking racist. Get a clue. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

As if!

[Incredulity 11876]

12 hours ago, David Dennison said:

GM owns and controls the plant because the government allows it to own and control the plant. 

The good news is, in a democracy, we are the government that allows GM to own and control the plant. 

We are the state.

I am the walrus.

[Captainant 28539]

9 hours ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

This is so fucking racist. Get a clue. 

TIL it's racist to say that white men may have different life experiences than non-white folks which may lead to different values and decision making processes. Heaven forbid the uppity minorities have representation that aligns with their values. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

14 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Burn it up, sounds too liberal for Murica