zapatos

Did I deny there were other interpretations? It seems I was trying to say there ARE more ways to look at it than just your interpretation.

Your interpretation seems a bit of a stretch to me. If someone seems to singling out Republicans for being pedophiles who eat babies, and I counter with the rebuttal that Democrats are also pedophiles who eat babies, does that mean the only interpretation is that I support Republicans eating babies? Because perhaps I'm just pointing out that members of BOTH parties eat babies and one party should not be singled out.

In the old days you used to get 10 points for signing up. Perhaps this person fell under that category. If you downvote someone they may not like it but things move on. If you explain why they are being an ass for example, you get a lot of off-topic conversation as they defend themselves, you counter, etc. Now THAT will generate hard feelings. I don't think it is too much for us to bear to accept a bit of anonymous criticism along with the anonymous trophies.

What I had hoped for was a was a respectful discussion without the off-topic comments meant to suggest a gap in my knowledge. It's getting old around here. We're done.

So the substantial and significant difference is because a Democrat used race AND sex, whereas (per iNow's examples) Republicans have only stated race OR sex? Just want to make sure I'm clear on your position.

Perhaps he prioritized diversity over other qualifications, and chose a black over other minorities as a means to support a group and specific individuals that have traditionally supported him and his party. Not too dissimilar from a Republican who prioritizes Right to Life or gun rights, and announces he will only choose from candidates with an appropriate track record, as a way to support a group and specific individuals who have traditionally supported him and his party. This is also announcing to other candidates (or for that matter anyone) that regardless of their qualifications they were not wanted, and ineligible, for a job they may in fact be most qualified for, and have worked hard to become qualified for. Do you believe there is a fundamental difference between the Republicans and Democrats who announce ahead of time qualifications they will consider?

I'm trying to figure out what happened here. My wife went out of town to visit our son, his wife and their two children aged 1 and 3. The three year old came in close contact with someone who had COVID while at daycare so all four in my son's family were tested, and came back positive for COVID the day after my wife arrived. My wife, son, and his wife are all vaccinated and boosted. As the one year old was never masked and my wife couldn't maintain distance and masking in the presence of such an adorable grand daughter, all precautions were soon thrown to the wind by everyone and my wife spent two more days, indoors, no masks, no distancing, with four people who had COVID. None of the four had symptoms beyond what you would see from a typical winter illness. My wife tested negative the day she came home (antigen test) and again five days later. Never had a hint of any symptoms. How is it that my wife did not get COVID? Did the vaccine do that well? Might she have previously had it? I was shocked that she seems to have not contracted COVID.

That is really cool. I'd love to get a piece of that wood to make something! 😀

Interesting, as the wood from Sweet Track is soft and degraded, and cannot be easily handled unless first preserved.

Which brings up another good point, and one that seems to weigh on the mind of John Roberts; the power of the Supreme Court comes from its acceptance by the people. The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. If people don't believe the Supreme Court is a valid institution worthy of respect then they begin to lose the ability to be the final arbiter of constitutional issues. https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html

I think judicial philosophy is also critical. For example strict constructionist vs originalism vs judicial activism. In addition, I think 'depth in a particular area' goes beyond legal depth, and should include human experiences. Poverty, racism, mental health, child abuse, sexism, disabilities, etc.; they all bring a perspective that helps bring a well-rounded and thoughtful insight to justice. For example, if you've only seen America from a white perspective it is difficult to recognize the racism that is built into our laws.

Very interesting article @studiot, thanks! As I couldn't imagine how a wooden walkway could remain intact for that long I did a little more research and found that the picture depicts a replica (in case anyone else was confused like me). Most of the walkway is still contained in damp peat on site although some has been removed and preserved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Track

The UK has invaded all but 22 countries in the entire world. Does that ring a bell? Not that this has anything to do with what you said, but then neither did your statement have anything to do with what I said. Perhaps it would be best to try to stay on topic.

LOL! And you call me ignorant of history. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Ukraine? Any of those ring a bell?

Guess it is time to rewatch Wag the Dog. https://www.imdb.com/video/vi920715545?ref_=tt_pv_vi_aiv_1

I'll go along with "psychological", although it seems more likely it might be portrayed as a ticking time bomb only for political purposes. As far as I know NATO doesn't have a big history of invading Russia, whereas Russia/Soviet Union has a long history of invading its neighbors. If anything Putin may not like it because another NATO country simply means one less country he can reasonably get away with attacking.

Not that it is difficult to see many of the US failures, but curious which moral high ground you are referring to here. In what way? Are any of the other NATO countries ticking time bombs?

Yeah, that was real specific. We're done here.

You used the term. Why is it that you won't define it? Is it a secret? Please be specific who you are talking about on this forum? I get tired of the guys on this forum who seem to have come to the conclusion that vague terms and dodging questions is a valid form of debate. It's not acceptable in the science threads, why is it acceptable here? You can really be condescending some times.

If you cannot define 'best' then using that as your selection criteria doesn't really accomplish much.

Why? Because they are not otherwise qualified? The only person whose definition of "best" really matters at this point is Biden's. If "best" in his opinion includes "woman of color", then as swansont pointed out, ONLY women of color qualify.

Please define "best" as you used it in this sentence.

"Best qualified person" is a myth trotted out every time a white man doesn't make the cut. How would one define 'best qualified' in the first place? Is a conservative approach to jurisprudence better/worse and a liberal approach? Can you be the 'best' if you lack perspective? Does everyone take a qualification test prior to being nominated? Were any of the previous justices considered 'best' by everyone? If two judges disagree is one 'right' and one 'wrong'? You pick a person who you hope will do well while following an ideology that you agree with, and then you live with the results when they do as they please.

Jeez. That's embarrassing! 🤪 I knew I shouldn't have lit that second bong... I heard that cosmetic surgeons are using foreskin for eyelid replacements. Unfortunately the recipients turn out a bit cockeyed.

What does that mean?