Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . .


 Science > Abortion > Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . .

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 14

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 
Topic: Science > Abortion
User: "Barney Lyon"
Date: 08 Feb 2005 10:23:00 PM
Object: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . .
.. . . and still the Repubs shout about "obstructionism." More of their
lies.
Lost amidst the recent press about potential judicial nominations
battles and the Republican's "nuclear" strategy are the facts about the
federal judiciary today.
The fact is that our federal courts are, both quantitatively and
ideologically, beyond the tipping point. Already, more than
three-quarters of the federal appellate courts in our country are
dominated by Republican appointees. This is a dramatic difference from
2000, when Democratic and Republican appointees were represented in
almost equal number on the circuit courts. The difference will become
even more stark over the next four years as this President's
nominations agenda continues on its divisive path.
Although Republicans talk of obstruction, the fact is that President
Bush had more of his judges confirmed in his first term than either
President Reagan, the first President Bush, or President Clinton had
confirmed in their first four years. President Bush had 204 of his
appointees to the federal bench confirmed, out of a total of 877
judicial seats. President Bush filled the seats he inherited as a
result of Republican obstruction of Clinton nominees - plus newly
created seats -- with his own appointees, many of whom were selected
for ideological reasons rather than through the customary and
well-established bipartisan judicial selection commissions.
The result is that, with 32 of President Bush's circuit court nominees
confirmed by the Senate, ten out of the 13 appellate circuits in this
country currently have more Republican appointees than Democratic
appointees. If all of the President's currently pending circuit court
nominees are confirmed, 11 of the 13 circuits will tilt right. Had all
of President Clinton's nominees been confirmed, the circuit courts
would have been evenly split.
Moreover, of the ten circuit courts that currently have more Republican
appointees today, six of them are significantly out of balance, such
that Republicans enjoy at least a two-to-one advantage over the
Democratic appointees. On no appellate court today do Democratic
appointees have that advantage, not even on the Ninth Circuit, which is
regularly referred to by some Republicans as "out of the mainstream."
When Democratic appointees enjoyed just a 60% majority on the Ninth
Circuit, some Republican senators argued that no more Democrats should
be confirmed to that court. Were that principle to apply today, the
Senate should not confirm any more Republican nominees to the ten
circuits already dominated by Republican appointees. Of course,
Republicans are not advocating this position today, but the public
should be.
The circuit courts of appeals are the courts of last resort for 99% of
cases. They are where final decisions are made on issues such as
workers' rights, women's rights, civil rights, and the rights of
criminal defendants.
Studies have shown that party affiliation matters in how judges vote.
For example, a recent report by Professor Cass Sunstein at the
University of Chicago Law School found that appellate judges appointed
by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and this President Bush have
more conservative voting patterns than judges appointed by any other
president in the past 80 years. These differences are particularly
pronounced in cases involving campaign finance, discrimination and
civil rights.
.

User: "David W. Barnes"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 08 Feb 2005 10:47:41 PM
In article <1107922980.360791.231390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Barney Lyon <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote:

. . . and still the Repubs shout about "obstructionism." More of their

lies.

Lost amidst the recent press about potential judicial nominations
battles and the Republican's "nuclear" strategy are the facts about the
federal judiciary today.

The fact is that our federal courts are, both quantitatively and
ideologically, beyond the tipping point. Already, more than
three-quarters of the federal appellate courts in our country are
dominated by Republican appointees. This is a dramatic difference from
2000, when Democratic and Republican appointees were represented in
almost equal number on the circuit courts. The difference will become
even more stark over the next four years as this President's
nominations agenda continues on its divisive path.

Although Republicans talk of obstruction, the fact is that President
Bush had more of his judges confirmed in his first term than either
President Reagan, the first President Bush, or President Clinton had
confirmed in their first four years. President Bush had 204 of his
appointees to the federal bench confirmed, out of a total of 877
judicial seats. President Bush filled the seats he inherited as a
result of Republican obstruction of Clinton nominees - plus newly
created seats -- with his own appointees, many of whom were selected
for ideological reasons rather than through the customary and
well-established bipartisan judicial selection commissions.

The result is that, with 32 of President Bush's circuit court nominees
confirmed by the Senate, ten out of the 13 appellate circuits in this
country currently have more Republican appointees than Democratic
appointees. If all of the President's currently pending circuit court
nominees are confirmed, 11 of the 13 circuits will tilt right. Had all
of President Clinton's nominees been confirmed, the circuit courts
would have been evenly split.

Moreover, of the ten circuit courts that currently have more Republican
appointees today, six of them are significantly out of balance, such
that Republicans enjoy at least a two-to-one advantage over the
Democratic appointees. On no appellate court today do Democratic
appointees have that advantage, not even on the Ninth Circuit, which is
regularly referred to by some Republicans as "out of the mainstream."
When Democratic appointees enjoyed just a 60% majority on the Ninth
Circuit, some Republican senators argued that no more Democrats should
be confirmed to that court. Were that principle to apply today, the
Senate should not confirm any more Republican nominees to the ten
circuits already dominated by Republican appointees. Of course,
Republicans are not advocating this position today, but the public
should be.

The circuit courts of appeals are the courts of last resort for 99% of
cases. They are where final decisions are made on issues such as
workers' rights, women's rights, civil rights, and the rights of
criminal defendants.

Studies have shown that party affiliation matters in how judges vote.
For example, a recent report by Professor Cass Sunstein at the
University of Chicago Law School found that appellate judges appointed
by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and this President Bush have
more conservative voting patterns than judges appointed by any other
president in the past 80 years. These differences are particularly
pronounced in cases involving campaign finance, discrimination and
civil rights.

As a hard core liberal, I don't like the idea that Bush is appointing
so many "conservative" judges on a basic, gut, knee jerk, level.
However, as a lawyer who practices almost exclusively in federal court
(nearly every day) I can tell you the good news. So called
"conservative" judges aren't that bad. Yes, there are a few who are so
conservative they are a little crazy, but the vast majority are highly
intelligent individuals who know their stuff. Best of all, they follow
the law. And that is all we can hope for.
The problem in this country is not "liberal" or "conservative" judges.
The problem is the new Republicans. Their hate is taking over the
country. Their simple minded approach is short sighted and bad for
society.
I can't tell you how many times over the years I have had a case in
front of a "conservative" judge where I walked away thinking "That guy
was great! I hope we get him (or her) again." There have also been
many times so called "liberal" judge shafted us.
One the more interesting aspects of the judiciary is, Federal Judges
are appointed for life. Often, so called "conservative" judges get
more liberal once they take the bench because they no longer have to
worry about their jobs. They also see what conservative policies are
doing to the country and lighten up. Generally, I have had great luck
with both liberal and conservative judges. But if you appreciated just
how intelligent and knowledgeable one must be to be a Federal Judge,
you'd see why I don't worry much about them. The law is on the side of
liberals. Even the conservative judges follow the law. It is called
professionalism - and they nearly all have that (liberal, conservative,
or otherwise). Too bad for conservatives...
.
User: "Barney Lyon"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 09 Feb 2005 12:01:04 AM
I appreciate your comments.
I don't know what kind of law you practice - I assume you're not an
appellate attorney.
The higher up the judge, the more political he/she is. The more
involved in politics he/she is. At the lowest levels (city and county
judges, municipal and superior courts), they have to run for the job or
be appointed by that state's governor.
Judges that a lawyer in general practice (divorce, probate, criminal,
civil, etc.) is going to come up before don't have much room for
"creative expression" from the bench. It's kind of a meat & potatoes
job - most everything is laid out in front of you, like sentencing
guidelines.
It's at the appellate level that "activism" charges get leveled. And
the higher up you go, the more politically active and connected that
judge is, so more "activism" charges can be expected.
What do you think a conservative nominee to the USSC would think about
stare decisis and Roe? What do you think a Bush nominee would think
about it? Would it surprise you to learn that Clarence Thomas doesn't
believe in it?
What did you think of Alberto Gonzales' answers during his confirmation
hearing?
What did you think of the decision in Bush v. Gore?
I've got a few dozen more questions, but let's start there.
.
User: "David W. Barnes"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 09 Feb 2005 09:17:31 AM
In article <1107928864.117902.201050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Barney Lyon <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote:

I appreciate your comments.

I don't know what kind of law you practice - I assume you're not an
appellate attorney.

No. Although I have had to appeal a couple of cases. And I do
*mostly* federal civil litigation. (I am one of those nasty "trial
lawyers." We sue people.)


The higher up the judge, the more political he/she is. The more
involved in politics he/she is. At the lowest levels (city and county
judges, municipal and superior courts), they have to run for the job or
be appointed by that state's governor.

I agree that elected judges are very politically involved. Which is
why I really appreciate the Federal System that places judges in
position for life. They are far less political.


Judges that a lawyer in general practice (divorce, probate, criminal,
civil, etc.) is going to come up before don't have much room for
"creative expression" from the bench. It's kind of a meat & potatoes
job - most everything is laid out in front of you, like sentencing
guidelines.

Sentencing guidelines are, in my opinion, improper. As for "creative
expression," it doesn't happen as often as people think, on either side
- liberal or conservative.


It's at the appellate level that "activism" charges get leveled. And
the higher up you go, the more politically active and connected that
judge is, so more "activism" charges can be expected.

I agree that people are bitching about "activism," but disagree that it
goes on to an improper degree. (Generally - there are exceptions.)


What do you think a conservative nominee to the USSC would think about
stare decisis and Roe? What do you think a Bush nominee would think
about it? Would it surprise you to learn that Clarence Thomas doesn't
believe in it?

Stare Decisis is an important doctrine. Kennedy, for instance, opposes
Roe but upholds it - and rightfully so - due to Stare Decisis. Scalia
is a very intelligent man, but his politics and thinking border on
fascism and I believe him to be dangerous. Clarence Thomas, in my
opinion, is a poor justice. I would generally not say something like
that as I respect all the justices, but I feel Thomas was a very poor
choice by a politically motivated President and his opinions don't mean
much to me. He simply follows whatever Scalia does, for instance. I
like Rehnquist, but he is a political activist so he makes me
uncomfortable since I am a liberal and he is a conservative.


What did you think of Alberto Gonzales' answers during his confirmation
hearing?

I ashamed to admit I didn't follow it very closely. I have been very
busy. I don't dislike Gonzales as much as many liberals, however. I
do think it is a very politically motivated appointment, however.


What did you think of the decision in Bush v. Gore?

I think it should never have been accepted by the United States Supreme
Court and it will haunt them for years to come. It was clearly
politically motivated, was a poor decision, and worst of all, placed a
very black mark on The Court.


I've got a few dozen more questions, but let's start there.

I'm getting ready for work or I'd offer more. I LOVE talking law.
.
User: "stoney"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 12 Feb 2005 10:31:17 AM
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:17:31 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <1107928864.117902.201050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Barney Lyon <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote:

I appreciate your comments.

I don't know what kind of law you practice - I assume you're not an
appellate attorney.


No. Although I have had to appeal a couple of cases. And I do
*mostly* federal civil litigation. (I am one of those nasty "trial
lawyers." We sue people.)

[]

What did you think of the decision in Bush v. Gore?


I think it should never have been accepted by the United States Supreme
Court and it will haunt them for years to come. It was clearly
politically motivated, was a poor decision, and worst of all, placed a
very black mark on The Court.

I've got a few dozen more questions, but let's start there.


I'm getting ready for work or I'd offer more. I LOVE talking law.

( chuckling ) I got a visual of a gentleman who's eyes gleam at the
thought of metaphorically beating others over the head with their own
'book of rules.'
Hmmm...'trial lawyers'....+ word manipulation=lawyer tribe. :)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.



User: "stoney"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 12 Feb 2005 10:25:39 AM
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:47:41 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <1107922980.360791.231390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Barney Lyon <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote:

. . . and still the Repubs shout about "obstructionism." More of their

lies.

Lost amidst the recent press about potential judicial nominations
battles and the Republican's "nuclear" strategy are the facts about the
federal judiciary today.

The fact is that our federal courts are, both quantitatively and
ideologically, beyond the tipping point. Already, more than
three-quarters of the federal appellate courts in our country are
dominated by Republican appointees. This is a dramatic difference from
2000, when Democratic and Republican appointees were represented in
almost equal number on the circuit courts. The difference will become
even more stark over the next four years as this President's
nominations agenda continues on its divisive path.

[]

As a hard core liberal, I don't like the idea that Bush is appointing
so many "conservative" judges on a basic, gut, knee jerk, level.
However, as a lawyer who practices almost exclusively in federal court
(nearly every day) I can tell you the good news. So called
"conservative" judges aren't that bad. Yes, there are a few who are so
conservative they are a little crazy, but the vast majority are highly
intelligent individuals who know their stuff. Best of all, they follow
the law. And that is all we can hope for.

The problem in this country is not "liberal" or "conservative" judges.
The problem is the new Republicans. Their hate is taking over the
country. Their simple minded approach is short sighted and bad for
society.

I can't tell you how many times over the years I have had a case in
front of a "conservative" judge where I walked away thinking "That guy
was great! I hope we get him (or her) again." There have also been
many times so called "liberal" judge shafted us.

One the more interesting aspects of the judiciary is, Federal Judges
are appointed for life. Often, so called "conservative" judges get
more liberal once they take the bench because they no longer have to
worry about their jobs. They also see what conservative policies are
doing to the country and lighten up. Generally, I have had great luck
with both liberal and conservative judges. But if you appreciated just
how intelligent and knowledgeable one must be to be a Federal Judge,
you'd see why I don't worry much about them. The law is on the side of
liberals. Even the conservative judges follow the law. It is called
professionalism - and they nearly all have that (liberal, conservative,
or otherwise). Too bad for conservatives...

I wasn't sure if professionalism existed anymore. I'm glad to see it
still exists.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
User: "David W. Barnes"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 12 Feb 2005 10:33:53 AM
In article <acbs01pih0chkmehlr2e3s0vfcvq3vbpk5@4ax.com>, stoney
<stoney@the.net> wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:47:41 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <1107922980.360791.231390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Barney Lyon <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote:

. . . and still the Repubs shout about "obstructionism." More of their

lies.

Lost amidst the recent press about potential judicial nominations
battles and the Republican's "nuclear" strategy are the facts about the
federal judiciary today.

The fact is that our federal courts are, both quantitatively and
ideologically, beyond the tipping point. Already, more than
three-quarters of the federal appellate courts in our country are
dominated by Republican appointees. This is a dramatic difference from
2000, when Democratic and Republican appointees were represented in
almost equal number on the circuit courts. The difference will become
even more stark over the next four years as this President's
nominations agenda continues on its divisive path.


[]

As a hard core liberal, I don't like the idea that Bush is appointing
so many "conservative" judges on a basic, gut, knee jerk, level.
However, as a lawyer who practices almost exclusively in federal court
(nearly every day) I can tell you the good news. So called
"conservative" judges aren't that bad. Yes, there are a few who are so
conservative they are a little crazy, but the vast majority are highly
intelligent individuals who know their stuff. Best of all, they follow
the law. And that is all we can hope for.

The problem in this country is not "liberal" or "conservative" judges.
The problem is the new Republicans. Their hate is taking over the
country. Their simple minded approach is short sighted and bad for
society.

I can't tell you how many times over the years I have had a case in
front of a "conservative" judge where I walked away thinking "That guy
was great! I hope we get him (or her) again." There have also been
many times so called "liberal" judge shafted us.

One the more interesting aspects of the judiciary is, Federal Judges
are appointed for life. Often, so called "conservative" judges get
more liberal once they take the bench because they no longer have to
worry about their jobs. They also see what conservative policies are
doing to the country and lighten up. Generally, I have had great luck
with both liberal and conservative judges. But if you appreciated just
how intelligent and knowledgeable one must be to be a Federal Judge,
you'd see why I don't worry much about them. The law is on the side of
liberals. Even the conservative judges follow the law. It is called
professionalism - and they nearly all have that (liberal, conservative,
or otherwise). Too bad for conservatives...


I wasn't sure if professionalism existed anymore. I'm glad to see it
still exists.

I have always been pleasantly surprised by conservative judges. The
problem isn't liberals or conservatives, Republicans or Democrats, per
se. The problem is a movement of hate and ignorance that is permeating
this country. And it is driven by the Republican Party.
.
User: "stoney"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 13 Feb 2005 02:12:21 PM
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:33:53 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <acbs01pih0chkmehlr2e3s0vfcvq3vbpk5@4ax.com>, stoney
<stoney@the.net> wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:47:41 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

[]

One the more interesting aspects of the judiciary is, Federal Judges
are appointed for life. Often, so called "conservative" judges get
more liberal once they take the bench because they no longer have to
worry about their jobs. They also see what conservative policies are
doing to the country and lighten up. Generally, I have had great luck
with both liberal and conservative judges. But if you appreciated just
how intelligent and knowledgeable one must be to be a Federal Judge,
you'd see why I don't worry much about them. The law is on the side of
liberals. Even the conservative judges follow the law. It is called
professionalism - and they nearly all have that (liberal, conservative,
or otherwise). Too bad for conservatives...


I wasn't sure if professionalism existed anymore. I'm glad to see it
still exists.


I have always been pleasantly surprised by conservative judges. The
problem isn't liberals or conservatives, Republicans or Democrats, per
se. The problem is a movement of hate and ignorance that is permeating
this country. And it is driven by the Republican Party.

As I said. What their 'label' is is immaterial to me.
Professionalism spans all labels. Christians (in the main) love
hatred and ignorance.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.



User: "Bulba!"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 08 Feb 2005 10:53:29 PM
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:47:41 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

The problem in this country is not "liberal" or "conservative" judges.
The problem is the new Republicans. Their hate is taking over the
country.

Hate of what?

Their simple minded approach is short sighted and bad for
society.

Simple-minded approach to what?
--
When what a leftist says isn't untrue, it's only by accident.
.
User: "David W. Barnes"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 09 Feb 2005 09:17:31 AM
In article <dj5j011b1kg7crd3c65ur9s3pqkojfmmf8@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:47:41 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

The problem in this country is not "liberal" or "conservative" judges.
The problem is the new Republicans. Their hate is taking over the
country.


Hate of what?

It depends - personally, I think much of it come from an inner hatred
of themselves.


Their simple minded approach is short sighted and bad for
society.


Simple-minded approach to what?

Solutions.
Drugs? Just say no.
Abortion? Just don't have sex.
Crime? Throw them all in jail.
Taxes? Just give people a "refund."
Energy? Just drill more holes.
Terrorism? Just kill the "terrorists."
Guns? Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Welfare? Just get a job.
.
User: "Bulba!"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 09 Feb 2005 02:52:23 PM
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:17:31 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:47:41 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

The problem in this country is not "liberal" or "conservative" judges.
The problem is the new Republicans. Their hate is taking over the
country.


Hate of what?


It depends - personally, I think much of it come from an inner hatred
of themselves.

ROTFL
Do you have any more psychologic theories? They must be
very amusing.
Well, it's true that Democrats are the stupid party - and the
leftists are stupider people. At least when it comes to the
research, most of the Democrats are actually more poorly
educated and score worse on verbal and text comprehension
tests.
Here, this is what _professional_ psychologist has to say
on leftist psyche:
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/leftpath.html

Their simple minded approach is short sighted and bad for
society.


Simple-minded approach to what?


Solutions.

Drugs? Just say no.

Personal position. See CATO.

Abortion? Just don't have sex.

Rubbish. There's very diverse pool of opinions
here. Just you, being typically leftist in your obsession
of simplifying the image of your opponents claim that.
There even are catholics that support abortion.
Example: http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/index.htm

Crime? Throw them all in jail.

As opposed to leftie "feel their pain" ad hoc
theories that we're all supposed to suffer so
you felt good about yourselves?

Taxes? Just give people a "refund."

That's just practice of politics, simpleton.
Again, see CATO vs Pat Buchanan vs
Thatcherites vs Reaganities vs libertarians
vs 50 types of economists, etc.

Energy? Just drill more holes.

Yep. As long as oil is still worth smth. Pretty
soon it will not be worth a dime, well, except
material for chemicals other than fuels maybe.
Stone age did not come to an end for
shortage of stones, dear Polyanna.

Terrorism? Just kill the "terrorists."

There is no negotiation with true believers
and followers of Sayed Al Quytb and other
madmen like that. That's just not possible.
You can't reason with a death cultist.
But even then there is no agreement on
what to do with them. See:
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no4/frd-hanson.html
There is not even agreement between old-time
isolationist conservatives and libertarian
hawks and libertarian doves on this subject.

Guns? Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Yeehaw!
Excuse me while I barf at image of myself
that you hold in your simplistic imagination.

Welfare? Just get a job.

Provided you can get a job, for if you have
tax-funded welfare, jobs are fewer and fewer
and fewer. I live in Europe. I know what I'm
talking about in this regard. I have a job
(more than one actually). But the unemployment
is becoming simpy terrifying. It's outright
scary.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16476
Yes, you lefties have become reactionaries:
you just want to hold on and defend whatever
idiocy you have concocted. Hitchens is right
on target on that.
Yes, you're out! out! out! losers!
Our panzers are gonna crush you. ;o)
--
When what a leftist says isn't untrue, it's only by accident.
.
User: "David W. Barnes"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 09 Feb 2005 10:21:10 PM
In article <q2tk015b7mplo2m90se85vf66u8afkh4s6@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:17:31 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:47:41 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

The problem in this country is not "liberal" or "conservative" judges.
The problem is the new Republicans. Their hate is taking over the
country.


Hate of what?


It depends - personally, I think much of it come from an inner hatred
of themselves.


ROTFL

Truth hurts, doesn't it?


Do you have any more psychologic theories? They must be
very amusing.

Is that it? Wishful thinking?


Well, it's true that Democrats are the stupid party - and the
leftists are stupider people.
At least when it comes to the
research, most of the Democrats are actually more poorly
educated and score worse on verbal and text comprehension
tests.

<Yawn> Studies prove that as one becomes more educated, one is more
likely to become more liberal.


Here, this is what _professional_ psychologist has to say
on leftist psyche:

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/leftpath.html

LOL! Right. John J. Ray - the conservative with values. Married
four times, Nazi, racist, anti-Semite, etc. That John J. Ray?




Their simple minded approach is short sighted and bad for
society.


Simple-minded approach to what?


Solutions.

Drugs? Just say no.


Personal position. See CATO.

It is the simple minded Republican position.


Abortion? Just don't have sex.


Rubbish. There's very diverse pool of opinions
here. Just you, being typically leftist in your obsession
of simplifying the image of your opponents claim that.

There even are catholics that support abortion.
Example: http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/index.htm

It is the simple minded Republican position.


Crime? Throw them all in jail.


As opposed to leftie "feel their pain" ad hoc
theories that we're all supposed to suffer so
you felt good about yourselves?

Republican "hard on crime" programs release more violent offenders into
the community - but it is simple minded, so it sells.


Taxes? Just give people a "refund."


That's just practice of politics, simpleton.
Again, see CATO vs Pat Buchanan vs
Thatcherites vs Reaganities vs libertarians
vs 50 types of economists, etc.

Don't just say, "see this." You sound like YOU can't support you
position, you just swear you simple minded answer are legitimate.


Energy? Just drill more holes.


Yep. As long as oil is still worth smth. Pretty
soon it will not be worth a dime, well, except
material for chemicals other than fuels maybe.

Stone age did not come to an end for
shortage of stones, dear Polyanna.

It is the simple minded Republican position.


Terrorism? Just kill the "terrorists."


There is no negotiation with true believers
and followers of Sayed Al Quytb and other
madmen like that.

That madman is in the White House.

That's just not possible.
You can't reason with a death cultist.
But even then there is no agreement on
what to do with them. See:

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no4/frd-hanson.html

There is not even agreement between old-time
isolationist conservatives and libertarian
hawks and libertarian doves on this subject.

It is the simple minded Republican propaganda.


Guns? Guns don't kill people, people kill people.


Yeehaw!

Excuse me while I barf at image of myself
that you hold in your simplistic imagination.

In that one you didn't even TRY to explain yourself.


Welfare? Just get a job.


Provided you can get a job, for if you have
tax-funded welfare, jobs are fewer and fewer
and fewer. I live in Europe. I know what I'm
talking about in this regard. I have a job
(more than one actually). But the unemployment
is becoming simpy terrifying. It's outright
scary.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16476

Yes, you lefties have become reactionaries:
you just want to hold on and defend whatever
idiocy you have concocted. Hitchens is right
on target on that.

Yes, you're out! out! out! losers!

Our panzers are gonna crush you. ;o)

Sieg Heil...
.
User: "Bulba!"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 10 Feb 2005 09:30:03 AM
"Yet Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than
Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans
have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats.
Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further,
Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the
GSS--a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test.
If one breaks down the data by party affiliation and political
orientation, the most highly educated group is conservative
Republicans, who also score highest on the vocabulary and analogical
reasoning tests. Liberal Democrats score only insignificantly lower
than conservative Republicans. The least educated subgroups are
moderate and conservative Democrats, who also score at the bottom (or
very near the bottom) on vocabulary and analogy tests.
The irony here is that if there were substantial numbers of Republican
political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists at Duke and
other elite schools, Professor Brandon might already know that in the
United States, the two most similar groups in educational attainment
and verbal proficiency are liberal Democrats and conservative
Republicans--and that ordinary, non-liberal Democrats are among the
least educated political groups."
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014093.php#014093
--
When what a leftist says isn't untrue, it's only by accident.
.
User: "David W. Barnes"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 10 Feb 2005 10:27:12 AM
In article <4fvm019sohhe75mr90si7rof77svaftfec@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

"Yet Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than
Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans
have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats.
Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further,
Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the
GSS--a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test.

If one breaks down the data by party affiliation and political
orientation, the most highly educated group is conservative
Republicans, who also score highest on the vocabulary and analogical
reasoning tests. Liberal Democrats score only insignificantly lower
than conservative Republicans. The least educated subgroups are
moderate and conservative Democrats, who also score at the bottom (or
very near the bottom) on vocabulary and analogy tests.

The irony here is that if there were substantial numbers of Republican
political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists at Duke and
other elite schools, Professor Brandon might already know that in the
United States, the two most similar groups in educational attainment
and verbal proficiency are liberal Democrats and conservative
Republicans--and that ordinary, non-liberal Democrats are among the
least educated political groups."

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014093.php#014093

Look - you can offer all the Right Wing non-supported propaganda you
like, but the facts are, the more educated one is, the more likely one
is to take liberal positions.
Here is one of MANY such examples:
A recent poll in Wall Street had a breakdown by education on how
people stood on the abortion issue. Here are the results:
Percentage of people who say abortion should be legal:
Less than high school diploma 47%
High School diploma 65%
College 72%
Postgrad 79%
The same is true with the Death Penalty, Religion, Welfare, Taxes, etc.
Here is another:
"Higher education correlates to lower levels of belief, the survey
showed. Fifty-two percent of college graduates are religious compared
with 54% of people with a high school education and 70% of those who
completed only primary school."
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/46.htm
Finally, look at GW Bush.
.
User: "Bulba!"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 10 Feb 2005 04:57:36 PM
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:27:12 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <4fvm019sohhe75mr90si7rof77svaftfec@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

"Yet Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than
Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans
have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats.
Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further,
Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the
GSS--a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test.

If one breaks down the data by party affiliation and political
orientation, the most highly educated group is conservative
Republicans, who also score highest on the vocabulary and analogical
reasoning tests. Liberal Democrats score only insignificantly lower
than conservative Republicans. The least educated subgroups are
moderate and conservative Democrats, who also score at the bottom (or
very near the bottom) on vocabulary and analogy tests.

The irony here is that if there were substantial numbers of Republican
political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists at Duke and
other elite schools, Professor Brandon might already know that in the
United States, the two most similar groups in educational attainment
and verbal proficiency are liberal Democrats and conservative
Republicans--and that ordinary, non-liberal Democrats are among the
least educated political groups."

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014093.php#014093


Look - you can offer all the Right Wing non-supported propaganda you
like, but the facts are, the more educated one is, the more likely one
is to take liberal positions.

Hmm, I've heard smth about childish examples.
Please feel free

Here is one of MANY such examples:
A recent poll in Wall Street had a breakdown by education on how
people stood on the abortion issue. Here are the results:
Percentage of people who say abortion should be legal:
Less than high school diploma 47%
High School diploma 65%
College 72%
Postgrad 79%

<sarcasm>well that's just left-liberal sponsored
propaganda, ergo untrue and can be dismissed out
of hand</sarcasm>
I'm not as unfair and dishonest as you are and
I will accept those numbers - nevertheless, it's
just a poll and hardly well-conducted scientific
research.
Let's even assume that it is: all that this correlation
shows is that people's opinions vary with education.
That was NOT your initial argument, i.e. that Republicans
are less educated/dumber than Democrats. You
have changed the subject on the fly, wittingly or
unwittingly.
Yes, I know that you make jump "the opinions of people
with more education are more like what people usually
associate with left-liberal agenda". That still doesn't
prove what party affiliation those people have - and
we know who typically reads the WSJ regularly.
Moreover, that still doesn't prove anything re merit
or lack of merit behind those opinions. People holding
opposite opinions on abortion for instance happen to
be in every camp, even if in different proportions.
To recap, you have not shown what the initial argument
was about, but smth different.

The same is true with the Death Penalty, Religion, Welfare, Taxes, etc.

Until there is good, reliable data, all that you have made is
assertion.

Here is another:

"Higher education correlates to lower levels of belief, the survey
showed. Fifty-two percent of college graduates are religious compared
with 54% of people with a high school education and 70% of those who
completed only primary school."
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/46.htm
Finally, look at GW Bush.

"I found that the percentage of voters sampled who said they attended
church at least weekly was the same—42 percent—in both 2000 and 2004.
The percentage never attending church was also the same, at 15
percent. The middle group, those attending occasionally, was, you
guessed it, 42 percent each time. Interestingly, while Bush slightly
improved his standing among frequent churchgoers, by about a point in
2004, his support grew by 3 to 4 points among those attending seldom
or never.
Yep, it was the atheist vote that really put Bush over the top in
2004. "
http://www.reason.com/hod/jh110804.shtml
--
When what a leftist says isn't untrue, it's only by accident.
.
User: "David W. Barnes"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 10 Feb 2005 10:05:45 PM
In article <k1pn015dgh7tl8mntqipfg9so56kfhck9k@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:27:12 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <4fvm019sohhe75mr90si7rof77svaftfec@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

"Yet Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than
Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans
have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats.
Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further,
Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the
GSS--a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test.

If one breaks down the data by party affiliation and political
orientation, the most highly educated group is conservative
Republicans, who also score highest on the vocabulary and analogical
reasoning tests. Liberal Democrats score only insignificantly lower
than conservative Republicans. The least educated subgroups are
moderate and conservative Democrats, who also score at the bottom (or
very near the bottom) on vocabulary and analogy tests.

The irony here is that if there were substantial numbers of Republican
political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists at Duke and
other elite schools, Professor Brandon might already know that in the
United States, the two most similar groups in educational attainment
and verbal proficiency are liberal Democrats and conservative
Republicans--and that ordinary, non-liberal Democrats are among the
least educated political groups."

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014093.php#014093


Look - you can offer all the Right Wing non-supported propaganda you
like, but the facts are, the more educated one is, the more likely one
is to take liberal positions.


Hmm, I've heard smth about childish examples.

Please feel free

Here is one of MANY such examples:


A recent poll in Wall Street had a breakdown by education on how
people stood on the abortion issue. Here are the results:


Percentage of people who say abortion should be legal:


Less than high school diploma 47%
High School diploma 65%
College 72%
Postgrad 79%


<sarcasm>well that's just left-liberal sponsored
propaganda, ergo untrue and can be dismissed out
of hand</sarcasm>

Moron. You are boring...


I'm

.
User: "Bulba!"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 10 Feb 2005 10:16:22 PM
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:05:45 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <k1pn015dgh7tl8mntqipfg9so56kfhck9k@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:27:12 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <4fvm019sohhe75mr90si7rof77svaftfec@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

"Yet Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than
Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans
have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats.
Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further,
Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the
GSS--a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test.

If one breaks down the data by party affiliation and political
orientation, the most highly educated group is conservative
Republicans, who also score highest on the vocabulary and analogical
reasoning tests. Liberal Democrats score only insignificantly lower
than conservative Republicans. The least educated subgroups are
moderate and conservative Democrats, who also score at the bottom (or
very near the bottom) on vocabulary and analogy tests.

The irony here is that if there were substantial numbers of Republican
political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists at Duke and
other elite schools, Professor Brandon might already know that in the
United States, the two most similar groups in educational attainment
and verbal proficiency are liberal Democrats and conservative
Republicans--and that ordinary, non-liberal Democrats are among the
least educated political groups."

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014093.php#014093


Look - you can offer all the Right Wing non-supported propaganda you
like, but the facts are, the more educated one is, the more likely one
is to take liberal positions.


Hmm, I've heard smth about childish examples.

Please feel free

Here is one of MANY such examples:


A recent poll in Wall Street had a breakdown by education on how
people stood on the abortion issue. Here are the results:


Percentage of people who say abortion should be legal:


Less than high school diploma 47%
High School diploma 65%
College 72%
Postgrad 79%


<sarcasm>well that's just left-liberal sponsored
propaganda, ergo untrue and can be dismissed out
of hand</sarcasm>


Moron. You are boring...

Anyway, how old are you? Honestly.
--
I have come to kick *****, chew bubble gum and do the following:
from __future__ import py3k
And it doesn't work.
.
User: "David W. Barnes"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 10 Feb 2005 10:23:48 PM
In article <1cco01d894p5bi9sn82djcjdd7dtttfdki@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:05:45 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <k1pn015dgh7tl8mntqipfg9so56kfhck9k@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:27:12 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <4fvm019sohhe75mr90si7rof77svaftfec@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

"Yet Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than
Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans
have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats.
Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further,
Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the
GSS--a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test.

If one breaks down the data by party affiliation and political
orientation, the most highly educated group is conservative
Republicans, who also score highest on the vocabulary and analogical
reasoning tests. Liberal Democrats score only insignificantly lower
than conservative Republicans. The least educated subgroups are
moderate and conservative Democrats, who also score at the bottom (or
very near the bottom) on vocabulary and analogy tests.

The irony here is that if there were substantial numbers of Republican
political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists at Duke and
other elite schools, Professor Brandon might already know that in the
United States, the two most similar groups in educational attainment
and verbal proficiency are liberal Democrats and conservative
Republicans--and that ordinary, non-liberal Democrats are among the
least educated political groups."

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014093.php#014093


Look - you can offer all the Right Wing non-supported propaganda you
like, but the facts are, the more educated one is, the more likely one
is to take liberal positions.


Hmm, I've heard smth about childish examples.

Please feel free

Here is one of MANY such examples:


A recent poll in Wall Street had a breakdown by education on how
people stood on the abortion issue. Here are the results:


Percentage of people who say abortion should be legal:


Less than high school diploma 47%
High School diploma 65%
College 72%
Postgrad 79%


<sarcasm>well that's just left-liberal sponsored
propaganda, ergo untrue and can be dismissed out
of hand</sarcasm>


Moron. You are boring...


Anyway, how old are you? Honestly.

Old enough to tell when I am wasting my time with an idiot who does as
he is told by his fellow fascists.
.
User: "Bulba!"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 10 Feb 2005 10:53:53 PM
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:23:48 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <1cco01d894p5bi9sn82djcjdd7dtttfdki@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:05:45 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <k1pn015dgh7tl8mntqipfg9so56kfhck9k@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:27:12 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:

In article <4fvm019sohhe75mr90si7rof77svaftfec@4ax.com>, Bulba!
<bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

"Yet Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than
Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans
have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats.
Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further,
Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the
GSS--a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test.

If one breaks down the data by party affiliation and political
orientation, the most highly educated group is conservative
Republicans, who also score highest on the vocabulary and analogical
reasoning tests. Liberal Democrats score only insignificantly lower
than conservative Republicans. The least educated subgroups are
moderate and conservative Democrats, who also score at the bottom (or
very near the bottom) on vocabulary and analogy tests.

The irony here is that if there were substantial numbers of Republican
political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists at Duke and
other elite schools, Professor Brandon might already know that in the
United States, the two most similar groups in educational attainment
and verbal proficiency are liberal Democrats and conservative
Republicans--and that ordinary, non-liberal Democrats are among the
least educated political groups."

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014093.php#014093


Look - you can offer all the Right Wing non-supported propaganda you
like, but the facts are, the more educated one is, the more likely one
is to take liberal positions.


Hmm, I've heard smth about childish examples.

Please feel free

Here is one of MANY such examples:


A recent poll in Wall Street had a breakdown by education on how
people stood on the abortion issue. Here are the results:


Percentage of people who say abortion should be legal:


Less than high school diploma 47%
High School diploma 65%
College 72%
Postgrad 79%


<sarcasm>well that's just left-liberal sponsored
propaganda, ergo untrue and can be dismissed out
of hand</sarcasm>


Moron. You are boring...


Anyway, how old are you? Honestly.


Old enough to tell when I am wasting my time with an idiot who does as
he is told by his fellow fascists.

Right. Looks like you're four year old.
--
I have come to kick *****, chew bubble gum and do the following:
from __future__ import py3k
And it doesn't work.
.






User: "Dubh Ghall"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 10 Feb 2005 03:03:45 PM
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:30:03 +0100, Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

"Yet Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than
Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans
have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats.

Of course, statistics are funny things.
What the figures do nor tell, is what questions were asked. To me, the figures
only say that republicans are slower learners than democrats.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan

January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
User: "Bulba!"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 10 Feb 2005 05:01:23 PM
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:03:45 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:30:03 +0100, Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

"Yet Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than
Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans
have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats.



Of course, statistics are funny things.

What the figures do nor tell, is what questions were asked.

Gee, that's hard: google for GSS methodology. Or order
the publication.

o me, the figures
only say that republicans are slower learners than democrats.

Except like the opponent would like it, when Dems in
particular cases take more time for education, they are
not slower learners, but they actually learn more?
BTW, did you take time to actually read the two
following sentences? I.e.:
"Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree.
Further, Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in
the GSS--a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test."
See, the more you all left-liberals write, the more you prove
who's really a dumb party.
--
When what a leftist says isn't untrue, it's only by accident.
.
User: "Dubh Ghall"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 11 Feb 2005 06:51:06 AM
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:01:23 +0100, Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:03:45 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:30:03 +0100, Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

"Yet Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than
Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans
have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats.



Of course, statistics are funny things.

What the figures do nor tell, is what questions were asked.


Gee, that's hard: google for GSS methodology.

Done that, read it straight of the University of Chicago's web site.


See, the more you all left-liberals write, the more you prove
who's really a dumb party.

There you go, jumping to conclusions again.
I am neither American, nor liberal. I am, politically, a conservative.
That is *conservative* as in "a little right of center", not "conservative", as
in, "extremist, right wing, religious lunatic".
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan

January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
User: "Bulba!"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 11 Feb 2005 11:37:56 AM
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:51:06 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:

"Yet Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than
Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans
have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats.



Of course, statistics are funny things.

What the figures do nor tell, is what questions were asked.


Gee, that's hard: google for GSS methodology.


Done that, read it straight of the University of Chicago's web site.

Note that this guy quoted WSJ poll, and even completely ignored
if this was a poll where the polling workers go to people and
ask them questions or if it is one of those polls where people
send the answers by themselves - the latter kind is more or less
as good as toilet paper.
What pissed me off is characterising rather generic survey,
like GSS, is being labelled "simplistic Republican propaganda".
I don't even care that much for American Republican party
here really. What pisses me off is the tendency of leftists
to dismiss anything that doesn't play into the shallowest
leftist / left-liberal prejudices as paid propaganda, precisely
at the same time when what they present is the dumbest
propaganda and the most badly misinterpreted data you
could find around.
Is GSS imperfect? Or maybe even tweaked here and there
a bit? Possibly - but the tendency to dismiss it out of
hand just because it doesn't fit the prejudice is so
typically leftist.
Yes, I admit freely I despise left-liberals - but that doesn't
have to prove automatically that I'm wrong in that. Hey,
Ricardo hated the landowners, too. Does that mean that
economics he worked out using this motivation is inadequate
or irrelevant?

See, the more you all left-liberals write, the more you prove
who's really a dumb party.


There you go, jumping to conclusions again.

I am neither American, nor liberal. I am, politically, a conservative.

Good for you - I mean honestly, that's great. Personally, I'm not a
conservative, I'm a libertarian (and not American either), so you
see, the Republican dog in this fight is not even mine.
Incidentally, I think that deficits of Bush are anathema and they
are very bad for American economy in the long run and for the
world in the long run as well. So it's not like I care for Repubs
here a lot anyway. I simply see them as lesser evil. While leftists
everywhere are simply an arrogant, intolerant and harmful
pest that bizarrely thinks it's open-minded and oh so good for
"the people".
It's like dealing with a madman that thinks that stealing your
money and censoring your speech is so good for you, so you
should be grateful for it. I find few things more infuriating
than such an attitude.
--
I have come to kick *****, chew bubble gum and do the following:
from __future__ import py3k
And it doesn't work.
.
User: "Dubh Ghall"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 11 Feb 2005 03:36:10 PM
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:37:56 +0100, Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

Good for you - I mean honestly, that's great. Personally, I'm not a
conservative, I'm a libertarian (and not American either), so you
see, the Republican dog in this fight is not even mine.

In that case Bubba, I see little to be gained by continuing to read your
childish tripe.
Plonk.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan

January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.



User: "Dubh Ghall"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 11 Feb 2005 06:41:10 AM
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:01:23 +0100, Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

See, the more you all left-liberals write, the more you prove
who's really a dumb party.

There you go, conclusion jumping, again.
Not only am I not a democrat, I am not an American, and politically, I am a
conservative.
That is CONSERVATIVE, a little to the right of center, "extremist, right wing,
religious, lunatic".
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan

January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
User: "Bulba!"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 11 Feb 2005 11:23:57 AM
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:41:10 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:

See, the more you all left-liberals write, the more you prove
who's really a dumb party.

There you go, conclusion jumping, again.

I honestly don't think so. I have devoted quite a lot of thought
and observation to that actually. I'd have to write a half million
words to explain this why I see this as such, I have shown
here just a small example.

Not only am I not a democrat, I am not an American, and politically, I am a
conservative.

So? You may get to the wrong conclusions in the same way as the
leftists to misinterpret smth in the same way without meaning
to at all.
As Keynes wrote, little but ideas controls practical men - if they
get a wrong idea, they make wrong conclusions. I've seen
conservatives unwittingly being trapped in the 'lump of labour'
fallacy as badly as the most deranged antiglobalist, err,
alterglobalist, for instance. It had nothing to do with their other
beliefs or motivations. I'm not saying becoming left-liberal makes
you dumb and arrogant. I rather mean that being dumb and arrogant at
the same time makes you left-liberal. I don't mean it as insult, but
rather as cause-effect phenomenon. Anyway, it's complicated.

That is CONSERVATIVE, a little to the right of center, "extremist, right wing,
religious, lunatic".

See what I mean? Exactly such mindset as you demonstrated in irony
here. This is what seems to be prevalent among left-liberals,
honestly. I mean, even genuine fascists are more willing to actually
listen to you than they are. I don't mean the attitude or opinion
somebody holds, I mean the willingness to at least hear the arguments
of opposition.
The only exception to this rule I know is Rabbi Tikkun, this
guy:
http://groups.google.pl/groups?selm=cn09l6%24u4j%241%40pencil.math.missouri.edu&output=gplain
Note that personally I'm not very religious, I mean the attitude
of rabbi towards the concerns that people have, contrast it
to the left-liberal intellectual _attitude_.
--
I have come to kick *****, chew bubble gum and do the following:
from __future__ import py3k
And it doesn't work.
.
User: "Dubh Ghall"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 11 Feb 2005 03:31:31 PM
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:23:57 +0100, Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:41:10 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:


See, the more you all left-liberals write, the more you prove
who's really a dumb party.


There you go, conclusion jumping, again.


I honestly don't think so. I have devoted quite a lot of thought
and observation to that actually. I'd have to write a half million
words to explain this why I see this as such, I have shown
here just a small example.

Of course you have.
snip someone else's thoughts.

That is CONSERVATIVE, a little to the right of center, "extremist, right wing,
religious, lunatic".


See what I mean?

Could you only have stayed your glee, at my incomplete post, and checked
farther, that you might ascertain if that were what was intended, rather than
the result of a thirty second, power out, you would have found the full text.
But that would have been too easy, for you, wouldn't it, who would rather jump
on what was technically a typo, than check first, and thus, avoid sticking his
other foot in his mouth, as well.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan

January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
User: "Bulba!"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 11 Feb 2005 04:08:45 PM
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:31:31 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:

That is CONSERVATIVE, a little to the right of center, "extremist, right wing,
religious, lunatic".


See what I mean?

Could you only have stayed your glee, at my incomplete post, and checked
farther, that you might ascertain if that were what was intended, rather than
the result of a thirty second, power out, you would have found the full text.

Well it wasn't there on my news server when I read this particular
post.

But that would have been too easy, for you, wouldn't it, who would rather jump
on what was technically a typo, than check first, and thus, avoid sticking his
other foot in his mouth, as well.

What's your point really?
--
Democracy is like a baseball bat or a gun:
it is fair to use it - in self-defense.
.


User: "ebr2"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 11 Feb 2005 11:39:44 AM
Read the following link in it's Entirety. It is fully documented as you
will see. May change a few minds in the newsgroups you spam into.
http://www.padrak.com/alt/BUSHBOOK_INDEX.html
.


User: "Dubh Ghall"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 11 Feb 2005 08:51:53 AM
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:41:10 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:01:23 +0100, Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

See, the more you all left-liberals write, the more you prove
who's really a dumb party.


There you go, conclusion jumping, again.

Not only am I not a democrat, I am not an American, and politically, I am a
conservative.

That is CONSERVATIVE, a little to the right of center, "extremist, right wing,
religious, lunatic".

Bloody power cuts!
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan

January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.




User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: Repub appointees outnumber Dem appointees in federal courts . . . 10 Feb 2005 10:32:50 AM
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:30:03 +0100, Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com> wrote:

When what a leftist says isn't untrue, it's only by accident.

<plonk> yet another lying hypocrite from the Rush-Lim