Rand FB (regarding SCOTUS): I Plan to Lead

[Intoxiklown]

So you're fine with holding up what 95% of the country wants just because you want something else?

The ultimate minority is the individual. You are stumping for mob rule within a constitutional republic, which clearly defies the very nature of our national construct, and in the same breath citing constitutional responsibility of the house to do something.

Don't get me wrong. It should be extremely telling that the advocated strategy to block an Obama appointee is to delay hearing it as a party strategy, when the Republicans control both houses in the first place,and their strategy should be to just vote no. That said, their duty is to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, not 95%. And if the only way they can insure that 100% is to prevent a vote even touching the floor, then paychecks earned.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Is economics subjective?

For instance, is it a matter of mere opinion that maximum price controls will cause shortages?

Economics is equal parts science and art. All the economic planning in the world can't stand up to a human that wants to thwart those plans. That's why some colleges offer a degree in economics as an art, and some offer it as a science.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Economics is equal parts science and art. All the economic planning in the world can't stand up to a human that wants to thwart those plans. That's why some colleges offer a degree in economics as an art, and some offer it as a science.

...in other words, you have no knowldge of economics at all.

Alright, then let us gain knowledge.

Q1. Would you agree that people will tend to buy more of a good the lower the price, and less of a good the higher the price?

 

[ShaneEnochs]

...in other words, you have no knowldge of economics at all.

Alright, then let us gain knowledge.

Q1. Would you agree that people will tend to buy more of a good the lower the price, and less of a good the higher the price?

No, because that doesn't account for quality of a product. If I'm going to buy shoes, I'm not going to buy a $10 pair because I know that the quality is shit.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Getting back to the topic at hand, here's a 1970 law review article in which McConnell argues for presidential dominion in the Supreme Court nomination process

 

[hells_unicorn]

...in other words, you have no knowldge of economics at all.

Alright, then let us gain knowledge.

Q1. Would you agree that people will tend to buy more of a good the lower the price, and less of a good the higher the price?

H.L. Mencken would have had a field day with Enochs' posts, he is literally embodying everything that he mocked throughout his journalistic career, complete with being so thin-skinned that he couldn't handle me ripping on one of his pet issues and put me on ignore after a mere 3 posts.

The epitome of the average American voter is to know nothing about a subject yet demand his opinion be equally as valid as the actual facts on said subject, and that is who Enochs wants making all of the important decisions. Muh Democracy!!!

 

[Ender]

doing nothing is the best thing government has ever done!

Absolutely.

 

[Intoxiklown]

No, because that doesn't account for quality of a product. If I'm going to buy shoes, I'm not going to buy a $10 pair because I know that the quality is shit.

This is untrue. I worked for a German company for awhile, and there were many products they did not swell in the US due to people not willing to pay for them, even though the quality was of a MUCH higher standard. The company was Alko-Kober, and the only thing they had in the states was brake drums. Mainly recreational vehicles and trailers, but we also have a military contract through Silver Eagle. Meaning, they were a LARGE company who knew their markets.

 

[jllundqu]

This is a delicate issue...

I was initially torn on the matter, but I have come to the conclusion that it is the President's job (shall) to nominate and it is the Congress' job to approve (advise and CONSENT).

President Obama has done everything in his power to take power away from Congress, including appointing two prior justices who have voted to ignore the Legislative branch's wishes on matters of constitutional law (Kagan, Sotomayor). SCOTUS has ruled several of Obamas dealings as unconstitutional. A new liberal justice would all but ensure the court would destroy the 2nd amendment, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc.

Therefore I conclude it is in the Senate's interest of self-preservation (as a co-equal branch) that they deny consent until a new president is elected.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

This is a delicate issue...

I was initially torn on the matter, but I have come to the conclusion that it is the President's job (shall) to nominate and it is the Congress' job to approve (advise and CONSENT).

President Obama has done everything in his power to take power away from Congress, including appointing two prior justices who have voted to ignore the Legislative branch's wishes on matters of constitutional law (Kagan, Sotomayor). SCOTUS has ruled several of Obamas dealings as unconstitutional. A new liberal justice would all but ensure the court would destroy the 2nd amendment, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc.

Therefore I conclude it is in the Senate's interest of self-preservation (as a co-equal branch) that they deny consent until a new president is elected.

And if that new President is Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

 

[hells_unicorn]

And if that new President is Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

Continue denying, the Senate is not required to approve any justice. If the Democrats want another baby-killer in the SCOTUS, they can get a 60 vote majority in the senate.

 

[misterx]

Believe it or not, over half the country holds an entirely different opinion than you do on this topic.

So what? If 90% of the country supports slavery, we should have slavery? No! The constitution is there to protect the minority from the majority.

 

[misterx]

And if that new President is Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

That would be better than Obama appointing someone. They would be liberals, but they probably wouldn't be morons like Loretta Lynch and Sotomayor.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Our physics does proceed on majority vote. We decide science by consensus.

Lol. Um, no. Science is not a popularity contest.

Equating politics, which is subjective by it's very nature, to science is pretty silly. I think you know that.

Yes, it is pretty silly. Because science is decided by the scientific method and evidence. Not consensus.

 

[HVACTech]

So you're fine with holding up what 95% of the country wants just because you want something else?

when the subject is Liberty. yes.

Liberty dies when it is not defended.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Lol. Um, no. Science is not a popularity contest.



Yes, it is pretty silly. Because science is decided by the scientific method and evidence. Not consensus.

Scientists use evidence to form a consensus. That's how a hypothesis is elevated to a theory, and then a theory is elevated to a (upper case) Theory, such as the Theory of Gravity.

It is the consensus of the physics community that gravity is the result of mass bending spacetime, given the evidence. We can see evidence of this when we observe light bending around large stars, and also when we put gyroscopes in orbit and watching the spin axis move.

 

[nikcers]

Scientists use evidence to form a consensus. That's how a hypothesis is elevated to a theory, and then a theory is elevated to a (upper case) Theory, such as the Theory of Gravity.

It is the consensus of the physics community that gravity is the result of mass bending spacetime, given the evidence. We can see evidence of this when we observe light bending around large stars, and also when we put gyroscopes in orbit and watching the spin axis move.

No longer blind: Why that gravitational wave discovery is so heavy

People around the world cheered Thursday morning (Feb. 11) when scientists announced the first direct detection of gravitational waves — ripples in the fabric of space-time whose existence was first proposed by Albert Einstein, in 1916.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Scientists use evidence to form a consensus. That's how a hypothesis is elevated to a theory, and then a theory is elevated to a (upper case) Theory, such as the Theory of Gravity.

It is the consensus of the physics community that gravity is the result of mass bending spacetime, given the evidence. We can see evidence of this when we observe light bending around large stars, and also when we put gyroscopes in orbit and watching the spin axis move.

Thats the consensus now, but the root of science is based in evidence, not agreeing "well x is true because most of us say so." For example, the consensus at the time of Galileo and Copernicus on the heliocentric solar sytem defied science.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Thats the consensus now, but the root of science is based in evidence, not agreeing "well x is true because most of us say so." For example, the consensus at the time of Galileo and Copernicus on the heliocentric solar sytem defied science.

It didn't defy science. It was the best theory they had based on the observations at the time. Science is simply the study of things. Sometimes we completely figure things out, like Newtonian Laws, but 99% of science can be summed up in two words: best guess.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

No longer blind: Why that gravitational wave discovery is so heavy

Which were caused by two incredibly massive objects (black holes) colliding. It just further confirmed the Theory of Relativity, of which the Theory of Gravity is a part of.