Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[GavJ]

Not what I expected from Virginia, for some reason.

Federal judges are not exactly average citizens.
Fortunately.

[Sirus]

Not what I expected from Virginia, for some reason.

Federal judges are not exactly average citizens.
Fortunately.

The fact that they are federal doesn't mean that they are automatically more progressive or whatever.
Case in point, Scalia.

[GavJ]

In my experience most judges are far more reasonable and less biased either way than Scalia. He's a really far outlier.
In general, judges not on the supreme court are also somewhat less biased and tend to go more by precedent and rules and logical conclusions than by cowboyish whims.
Case in point, the majority of the federal or state judges that  have struck down local homosexuality laws have done so merely by way of mainly leaning on the recent SCOTUS case, essentially saying "the same logic as at the federal level applies lower too, guys, when we test it out and apply it in principle."

[palsch]

Well lower circuits are considerably more bound by precedent than the Supreme Court, and attempting to go against it tends to get your rulings struck down. You do get firebrands and even entire circuit courts who are known for challenging existing law. The Ninth Circuit had a strong reputation for going hard to the left. And getting 80% of their rulings overturned on appeal.

[FearfulJesuit]

More loonies to be elected to the House this November.

[Dutchling]

More loonies to be elected to the House this November.

The contrast between her face and throat is fascinating.

[nenjin]

That's just how Conservatives like their blond bombshell politicians.

Inhumanely smooth where visible, prunishly wrinkled underneath.

Basically, someone in the upper ranks of Conservatism seems to think Ann Coulter is the epitome of the Conservative Female look. Me, personally, I don't go in for walking corpses animated by money and racial animosity.

[Loud Whispers]

Basically, someone in the upper ranks of Conservatism seems to think Ann Coulter is the epitome of the Conservative Female look. Me, personally, I don't go in for walking corpses animated by money and racial animosity.

I actually find the idea of a Frankensteinian Romney cadaver to be rather amusing, it certainly warrants a movie at the least.

[GavJ]

I think it was somebody in this thread a couple weeks ago who was asking for a website where they could lay out all the basic standard arguments for various issues to stop wasting people's time rehashing them on every internet forum.

http://www.procon.org/

Just stumbled on this. Not quite exactly what was requested, but close.

[BurnedToast]

I think it was somebody in this thread a couple weeks ago who was asking for a website where they could lay out all the basic standard arguments for various issues to stop wasting people's time rehashing them on every internet forum.

http://www.procon.org/

Just stumbled on this. Not quite exactly what was requested, but close.

After a quick check, I don't think I'd recommend anyone use that site for anything. There appears to be no fact checking at all, for example:

In addition, the vaccine additive thimerosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flu vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. [39]

Which is flat out lies. There is *ZERO* scientific evidence that thimerosal causes autism, and the cite is merely to a table that shows the second half (there's still a tiny bit in some vaccines) is true, with no comment one way or another on the first half.

Furthermore, many of the other cites are just to people's personal webpages. If any kook with a website can get a bullet point that's presented as equally valid to a statement from a reputable organization such as the CDC or IoM, then the site is totally worthless.

[GavJ]

No it's not worthless. The request I'm referring to was for a website that presents COMMON ARGUMENTS for controversial modern topics.

Absolute factual accuracy is not necessary and in fact not even desirable if what you want is an outline of common arguments that are made. Because many common arguments are wrong, and if you only allow rigorously proven ones, then you'd be censoring arguments that do in fact occur commonly, which would undermine the stated purpose of getting an overview of how discussions usually go.




You're describing a different sort of resource and a different desire -- a place that you might use to actually make decisions. I'm suggesting it only as an example of what people asked for earlier, which is a different concept -- a resource that merely summarizes how arguments tend to play out.

(I have no idea what that website itself INTENDS to serve as, but it does effectively serve as a good example of the latter sort of resource regardless)

[freeformschooler]

No it's not worthless. The request I'm referring to was for a website that presents COMMON ARGUMENTS for controversial modern topics.

Absolute factual accuracy is not necessary and in fact not even desirable if what you want is an outline of common arguments that are made. Because many common arguments are wrong, and if you only allow rigorously proven ones, then you'd be censoring arguments that do in fact occur commonly, which would undermine the stated purpose of getting an overview of how discussions usually go.

If they are presenting mere common arguments then they should not have the pretension of "sourcing" them as one would for an encyclopedia full of facts. The site is useful, but that bit is misleading.

[GavJ]

No it's not worthless. The request I'm referring to was for a website that presents COMMON ARGUMENTS for controversial modern topics.

Absolute factual accuracy is not necessary and in fact not even desirable if what you want is an outline of common arguments that are made. Because many common arguments are wrong, and if you only allow rigorously proven ones, then you'd be censoring arguments that do in fact occur commonly, which would undermine the stated purpose of getting an overview of how discussions usually go.

If they are presenting mere common arguments then they should not have the pretension of "sourcing" them as one would for an encyclopedia full of facts. The site is useful, but that bit is misleading.

You would want to provide a source for the purpose of showing that somebody HAS made that argument.
Again, I'm not sure if that is their intention, but you would still want sources in the type of site that I am describing and that was requested awhile back. Just not sources of fact, but sources of it being an argument that is actually made.

Which is actually the prototypical usage of a citation. Citations are generally used to merely indicate who you are talking about, not to indicate somebody who is right about the topic.
As an author of actual journal articles myself, I commonly do things like "Some people are wrong about X (citation) for Y reasons."

[palsch]

Kentucky's uninsured rates before and after Obamacare (with Medicare expansion);

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Some assumptions there, but the 75% previously uninsured rate for ACA signups seems to be the accepted figure, with an overal 40-48% reduction in the total uninsured population (40% confirmed back in April, 48% projected). High res .pdf from here.

For comparison...

[penguinofhonor]

Hey, Kentucky's actually improving for once. Thanks, Obama!