Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bryan

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    still right here
  1. Bryan

    Hoffman Concedes

    1) So does Michael Moore. That doesn't make him a good candidate for the GOP. 2) If the district isn't really all that conservative in the first place then what is the big deal with a Democrat winning it? If you meant all along to imply that NY23 was pretty much a RINO district you could have mentioned that in the OP. If you can find a national trend in the NY23 race then you can probably find every Roman Catholic saint in Saturday's cloud formations as well--obscured though they are with various puffs of water vapor.
  2. Bryan

    Hoffman Concedes

    Scozzafava endorsing the Democrat, you mean? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. If favors a number of interpretations. One, that the choice of Scozzafava was a blunder (though she shot herself in the foot in addition with some odd behavior during what there was of her campaign). The Democrats chose a moderate Democrat to run. That was smart. It comes down to the fact that the GOP just did not have a good candidate to run in NY23. Hoffman, for example, was susceptible to the charge of carpetbagging. Well, if one added the Scozzafava vote to the Hoffman vote then Hoffman should
  3. Bryan

    Hoffman Concedes

    The spin and counterspin on this board is hilarious. Just going to point out a few things. 1) Scozzafava was not the incumbent in NY23. It was a special election with no incumbent ("The R's had a moderate and popular incumbent who was a shoo-in"???). Why nobody mentioned that Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat after she dropped out of the race is anybody's guess. She was arguably to the political left of the Democrat in the race. 2) President Obama placed at least some importance on the NJ governor's race. If not, then he would not have spent time campaigning for Corzine. This is beyo
  4. Yep. Mistake on my part (except I never admit mistakes, so keep it quiet).
  5. The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett. http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/...obocall-corzine Now there's an electoral strategy for you. Note: (it was correctly pointed out that the thread title names the DNC as admitting responsibility, whereas the responsibility was admitted by the DSC. I can't amend the title of the thread at this point, so this will have to serve as the correction. My apologies for the error.)
  6. And do I not understand that because I have not bothered to comment on it (appeal to silence) or because I have conflated two concepts (still waiting for the quotation(s) as evidence)? If I don't get it, then why did you switch my point from legal reasoning to the legal conclusion? Is it that you don't understand that more than one method of reasoning can reach a single conclusion? Or are you just naturally dishonest? And somehow you still haven't gotten around to the text of Ginsburg's footnote, where she states that the rationale for the legal reasoning is presented instead of remandi
  7. And you think the people surveyed answered with that in mind? Scientists must be pretty stupid if that's the case. Can't they just read the questions and answer them accordingly?
  8. LaClair flunks spot-check for accuracy: And odd issue to see on a survey, I thought. (M)ost scientists say they believe claims that the Bush administration suppressed some research findings by government scientists. http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549 Does anyone need for me to point out how LaClair embellished the findings of the survey? We'll just have to wait a few years to see how Obama fares when this question is asked with some history behind it. Perhaps Obama will be able to rely on poor coverage of his less heroic deeds. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/po...ry5
  9. Are you trying to say that the footnote quotation was taken out of context? Was it your insincerity that sabotaged your grammar? There's no way the footnote is taken out of context. It has sufficient internal context to stand on its own. And here is the paragraph to which the footnote was attached (curious you didn't do this in order to justify your claim that it was taken out of context): III A Applying what I view as the proper standard to the record thus far made, I would hold that New Haven had ample cause to believe its selection process was flawed and not justified by business
  10. It means that you keep asserting/implying that I don't understand a particular distinction in the law but you repeatedly fail to provide evidence in support of that assertion/implication. I'll end the game with this post. Pay attention. Right, but it doesn't mention intentions at all. It's as though you're still working from the liar's manual and pretending not to understand the question. Keep paying attention. Right, and I've already explained that partial agreement does not make the disagreement I'm pointing out go away. But for some reason you ignore that (following the liar's ma
  11. Yes there is, because as noted previously, Obama has had great success in getting big legislation passed. And it is entirely fair to judge Obama both as to the legislation he has signed as well as for the things he proposes doing. Right. And in 1994 the GOP gained power in Congress. The economy had already begun to rebound under George H. W. Bush, so neither Congress under Clinton needed to get that done. But as I also noted, the biggest economic growth occurred late in Clinton's presidency. A tax increase by Obama retroactive to 1993 will have a tough time getting through Congress.
  12. Yes you do. You're just misreading my statement. Put another way, if the flower is considered dead at the point when all the petals fall off and for that particular reason, then that is the demarcation point. If that was the issue then "Guest" should have said that theologians aren't doing theology when they do science. But that isn't what "Guest" wrote, is it?
  13. Straw man. If you really believe that's what the display meant, then your powers of analysis are close to nil. If you knew better and made the argument anyway then you're dishonest.
  14. Bryan

    Stimulus Disaster

    Obviously. But investments in research can occur even if it isn't the government doing the investing, and the breakthroughs do not necessarily happen because they were purchased through overwhelming dedication of capital. The bulk of investment takes place after the breakthrough, when investors see the value of the idea and put their money behind it with the reasonable expectation of getting something back (profit). Obama's plan turns that mode of investment on its head. The investment in this case precedes the breakthrough and is apparently expected to produce the needed breakthroughs.
  15. Bryan

    Stimulus Disaster

    Yes. Your question suggests that you do not, and perhaps I am supposed to assume your answer to my question to you on that basis. Iraq does not trust Iran. Iraqis are generally Arabs, Iranians are generally Persians. The eight years they spent at war with one another cemented that mistrust. Iraqis now have a general experience with the United States as the fair player in the game, trying to balance the interests of each of Iraq's major factions. The Kurds love us. We allowed the Shiites to assume majority power. We endeavored to institute political protections for the minority Sunnis a
  • Create New...