Take on Kagan?

Dixie said:
What? Just wow? That's all I get? I finally do something to impress you, and I get four words from you? How about.... "Wow Dixie, that's a very fair and pragmatic viewpoint to hold, you're really not the crazy extremist I thought you were!" or.... "Wow Dixie, I thought you'd follow in lockstep with Rush on this, and I was wrong, you really did show me that, and I'm impressed!" or this... "Wow Dix, your principles of constitutional executive power really DO matter to you, it's NOT all about towing a party line, I was totally wrong about that and I apologize... you fucking rule, dude!"

Nope, alls I get is a "just Wow!" :cof1:
Click to expand...

One consistant position out of hundrids does not make you rule.....

I still think you are the crazy extremist I thought you were... but with an incredable pragmatic and fair viewpoint on this issue..... " Had I thought about it, I would have been wrong about you on this issue!


On this issue, you fucking rule dude!
 
NigelTufnel said:
This is pretty standard fare from you and yours: (1) find out some experience the nominee lacks; (2) declare it a necessary qualification, (3) declare the nominee underqualified.
Click to expand...
Yeah, people who consider people for employment often do that.
 
Jarod said:
So, you are saying she may be a scholar, but you dont know because she has not published enough so you dont have the evidence?
Click to expand...
No, I am saying that so far the only professors that I know of who got tenured (or apparently offered Tenure in the case of Obama) without publishing are those two (yes, even Churchill published, it's publish or die for every professor I know). Without it there is less to consider, hence my statement about "blank page". What we lack about this nominee is the same thing we lacked about Obama, a record.
 
Damocles said:
No, I am saying that so far the only professors that I know of who got tenured without publishing are those two (yes, even Churchill published, it's publish or die for every professor I know). Without it there is less to consider, hence my statement about "blank page".
Click to expand...

They have both published.
 
Jarod said:
They have both published.
Click to expand...
Not even close to the amount others are required to have done, don't be deliberately obtuse. My BIL and MIL, in order to become tenured, wrote more articles in each year of employment than either of these two in their entire employment history.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You'll have to forgive poor Id, she's got to go get her talking points from Rush Sean and Glen before she can answer you.

Poor gutless coward doesn't have one single thought of her own bouncing round that tiny brain of hers...
Click to expand...


BWA-HAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!



While YOU get them from Michael Savage!

Oh this is too RICH for words!!!!!!

:good4u::cof1::good4u::cof1::good4u::cof1::good4u:
 
Damocles said:
Not even close to the amount others are required to have done, don't be deliberately obtuse. My BIL and MIL, in order to become tenured, wrote more articles in each year of employment than either of these two in their entire employment history.
Click to expand...

I dount either had ever been editors of the Harvard Law Review...
 
Jarod said:
I dount either had ever been editors of the Harvard Law Review...
Click to expand...
Which doesn't change my point whatsoever. The reality is, they seem both to have been given a pass to tenure without the requirement that I have seen from every single other professor out there.

This doesn't make her unqualified, but it does make it more difficult to deliver on information regarding her opinions, etc and other information used by the Senate in their advise and consent role.
 
Damocles said:
Which doesn't change my point whatsoever. The reality is, they seem both to have been given a pass to tenure without the requirement that I have seen from every single other professor out there.

This doesn't make her unqualified, but it does make it more difficult to deliver on information regarding her opinions, etc and other information used by the Senate in their advise and consent role.
Click to expand...

Yup......
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/10/us/politics/20100505-kagan-opinions.html

Above is a link to some of her positions as reported by the tabloid NY Times. Thoughts? I don't know much about her, but a cursory look at the above makes her seem pretty moderate. Though since the above came from the Times, the validity of the piece is obviously taken with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...


She's a radical right winger, just not right wing into the next universe like nonhuman scum like you would want.
 
Was just at the gym and saw on CNN her quote regarding the Senators questioning Clarence Thomas where she said they need to ask him tough questions about his positions on issues such as abortion and affirmative action (or something to that extent). I wonder if she'll call out the Senators to ask her tougher questions?
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
Was just at the gym and saw on CNN her quote regarding the Senators questioning Clarence Thomas where she said they need to ask him tough questions about his positions on issues such as abortion and affirmative action (or something to that extent). I wonder if she'll call the Senators to ask her tougher questions?
Click to expand...

Oh I am sooooooooooooooo sure she will....! /sarcasm
 
She argued before the SC for her views on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and was shot down 8 to 1.....shes a nut...a left wing-nut....a liberal nut....
 
Superfreak said:
the far right has already started whining about her. That happened just about the time it leaked that she was the pick. The 'argument' against her is her trying to boot out the military from recruiting at Harvard, her lack of judicial experience and her support of more executive powers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20004519-504564.html
Click to expand...
She supports bans on hate speech and pornography , which means she is opposed to free speech. She has gone to Princeton Oxford, Harvard law, so she will continue the Ivory tower tradition of judicial thought. As for her lack of judicial experience, a man that conservatives lauded, William Rehnquist was never a judge before being nominated to the court either, along with Brandies, Black and Powell. She has the barring of military recruiters from Havard Law school on her record, a fight she ultimately lost. She is left of center but lacks any real writings to show that she is much of a legal powerhouse. A real powerhouse like Cass Sunstein, who works for the administration now, would have been a really great nominee. He would not please lefties or righties. I disagree with him on taxes, love him on marriage, think he is loony in his view of animal rights, but not PETA loony. You should go read about him Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Ambox_scales.svg" class="image"><img alt="Ambox scales.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Ambox_scales.svg/40px-Ambox_scales.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/5c/Ambox_scales.svg/40px-Ambox_scales.svg.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top