Justice Ginsburg: Cancer Surgery This Morning...

[carpedm9587]

Right... she couldn't even sit through a speech that none of her colleagues had trouble sitting through. That's pretty darn "not 100% sober", wouldn't you say?

I would say that I have had many holidays when I had a good dinner, with a glass of wine or two, and then sat to watch a football game and fell asleep in my chair. I wasn't drunk or impaired. I was sated and had a depressant in my system, and the combination of that plus a sitting posture for a prolonged period of time was enough. Add to that her age and a boring speech...

Let's put it this way: your kid comes to you and says, "Dad, I was the one who broke the window." You say, "But you told me your brother did it." Your son shrugs dismissively and says, "I wasn't 100% honest." Tell me, what is your son really saying: 1) He was being somewhat honest; or 2) He wasn't being honest at all?

Honesty (in your example) is a binary condition: you either are telling the truth about the window or you are not. The window is either broken or not.

Ginsburg's statement is also binary: "not 100% sober" is a binary condition. If you have not had ANY alcohol, you are 100% sober. If you have had so much as a drop of alcohol, you are "not 100% sober." Your problem is that "not 100% sober" can be one drop of wine, or a gallon of wine, or anything in between (and even beyond). You are making assumptions about where on that continuum Ginsburg was, and your assumption makes the worst (and unwarranted) assumptions. I can only assume that it's because you need to paint her in the worst possible light to affirm your pre-existing bias.

I have no such need. She ate some food and drank some wine, and she took a nap during a boring speech. It deserves about as much attention as the weather report - unless you can demonstrate she was actually drunk. And even if you COULD do that (which I doubt) who on earth cares? She wasn't on the bench. She wasn't driving a car. So <yawn>.

Which makes me realize that I've already spent far more time on this than it warrants. You'll continue to insist you have it right in the absence of adequate evidence, and continue to see Ginsburg in the worst light you can paint her. So...have at it. I really shouldn't even have bothered to begin with.

Last word is yours.

[carpedm9587]

Then why call out McConnell?

Because he was the subject at hand - and we ALL should be calling out dishonesty and duplicity in our leaders wherever and whenever we find it.

Nice rant, but you said:"As we've seen in the age of Trump - moral principles can be ejected if it means winning and "getting what I want."

That has been happening since I have been following politics. And as far as truth telling from the left - that is just delusional.

It's a matter of degree, Seer. And I can assure you the delusion is not mine, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Since Gingrich? Gingrich and Clinton compromised on a number of big and important issues and got legislation passed. Look at Bush 2, except for stuff around 911 the Dems stonewalled him at every turn.

Again - Gingrich was not the "start" specifically of anything. Gingrich was a major turning point in degree. You should read "The Man Who Broke American Politics." It's an enlightening read.

And the Democrat party is increasingly becoming the party of Socialists, of Bernie and AOC. My father must be rolling over, he wouldn't recognize his party today.

Yeah, you seem to break out in a rash when you hear the "S" word. It's become the right wing equivalent of a "bogeyman." Oooo...don't say/think that because you'll turn into a socialist! As with many things, socialism has its place and is a viable economic model for solving particular problems. There are already several things in America that operate on the "socialist" model. A few others could benefit from that approach, IMO.

[Mountain Man]

Honesty (in your example) is a binary condition: you either are telling the truth about the window or you are not.

Right. Sobriety is also a binary condition. You're either sober, or you're not, and "not 100% sober" is the same as saying "not sober", just like saying "not 100% honest" is the same as saying "not honest".

Suppose a man is on trial for driving under the influence of alcohol, and his defense is, "Your honor, I was sober, I just wasn't 100% sober!" how do you think the judge will rule?

Look, not matter how you want to spin it, Ginsberg, by her own admission, was too inebriated to sit through a speech that none of her colleagues had trouble sitting through.

[demi-conservative]

What is she waiting for, a fifth cancer?

[seer]

Because he was the subject at hand - and we ALL should be calling out dishonesty and duplicity in our leaders wherever and whenever we find it.

Yes I remember you calling out the left when they accused the Border Patrol of running concentration camps. Not....

It's a matter of degree, Seer. And I can assure you the delusion is not mine, but you are entitled to your opinion.

No Carp, your claim of truth telling on the left is completely delusional.

Again - Gingrich was not the "start" specifically of anything. Gingrich was a major turning point in degree. You should read "The Man Who Broke American Politics." It's an enlightening read.

You were talking about Gingrich and compromise, and the fact is he and Clinton did compromise and got a lot done.

Yeah, you seem to break out in a rash when you hear the "S" word. It's become the right wing equivalent of a "bogeyman." Oooo...don't say/think that because you'll turn into a socialist! As with many things, socialism has its place and is a viable economic model for solving particular problems. There are already several things in America that operate on the "socialist" model. A few others could benefit from that approach, IMO.

Like I always said you are a dyed in the wool leftist.

[seer]

David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to Obama and later his Senior Strategist for Obama's re-election campaign had this up in less than hour after it was announced that Ginsburg was again being treated for pancreatic cancer:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39295[/ATTACH]

Getting ready to gin up violence if they don't get their way again.

[carpedm9587]

Yes I remember you calling out the left when they accused the Border Patrol of running concentration camps. Not....

I have not engaged in any discussion concerning this on this forum. I don't follow every story, Seer. My silence can not be construed as consent, or an intentional failure to call out the issue. However, we ARE talking about McConnell, and I have yet to see you call out his disingenuity in the issue of seating a justice. I'm going to predict you will find a reason to defend his position - citing how 2020 is "different" from 2016 and justifies his inconsistent position. Others here have already done so. This is the "new normal" for Republicans and conservatives in the "Age of Trump."

No Carp, your claim of truth telling on the left is completely delusional.

Your view is noted.

You were talking about Gingrich and compromise, and the fact is he and Clinton did compromise and got a lot done.

You are creating a false dichotomy. I said Gingrich was a major turning point in American politics with respect to compromise and politics as war (though I did not explicitly use that latter phrase). I didn't say "Gingrich never compromised."

Like I always said you are a dyed in the wool leftist.

Again, your view is duly noted...

[demi-conservative]

Start barricading your doors and windows. The liberals would start foaming at the mouth if that happened.

That's two cancers two years running, bringing it to a grand total of four. More likely that not she'll bump off before Trump leaves office.

[seer]

I have not engaged in any discussion concerning this on this forum. I don't follow every story, Seer. My silence can not be construed as consent, or an intentional failure to call out the issue. However, we ARE talking about McConnell, and I have yet to see you call out his disingenuity in the issue of seating a justice. I'm going to predict you will find a reason to defend his position - citing how 2020 is "different" from 2016 and justifies his inconsistent position. Others here have already done so. This is the "new normal" for Republicans and conservatives in the "Age of Trump."

No you are selectively calling out McConnell, and I don't remember you calling out any Dems here, ever. The fact is Carp you are as biased and partisan as any of us right wingers, they only difference is that you pretend to be otherwise.

You are creating a false dichotomy. I said Gingrich was a major turning point in American politics with respect to compromise and politics as war (though I did not explicitly use that latter phrase). I didn't say "Gingrich never compromised."

You said Gingrich made compromise a dirty word, when he actually did compromise on a number of important issues. What is missing is any mention of the sins of the Democrats in all this.

[Mountain Man]

What is she waiting for, a fifth cancer?

She would rather die on the bench than see Trump choose her successor.

[rogue06]

She would rather die on the bench than see Trump choose her successor.

Ya think?

[Terraceth]

She would rather die on the bench than see Trump choose her successor.

As I've said before, I believe that Ginsburg would still be on the bench right now if Hilary had won. She likes the job and wants to keep doing it. Granted, I'm sure she'd prefer to have a Democrat chose her replacement than a Republican. But I'm pretty sure that her remaining on the bench right now is primarily because she wants to keep doing the job regardless of who is president.

[rogue06]

As I've said before, I believe that Ginsburg would still be on the bench right now if Hilary had won. She likes the job and wants to keep doing it. Granted, I'm sure she'd prefer to have a Democrat chose her replacement than a Republican. But I'm pretty sure that her remaining on the bench right now is primarily because she wants to keep doing the job regardless of who is president.

I tend to agree although Hillary claims in her book that if she had won then Ginsburg would be enjoying her retirement now.

[Mountain Man]

As I've said before, I believe that Ginsburg would still be on the bench right now if Hilary had won. She likes the job and wants to keep doing it. Granted, I'm sure she'd prefer to have a Democrat chose her replacement than a Republican. But I'm pretty sure that her remaining on the bench right now is primarily because she wants to keep doing the job regardless of who is president.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ginsberg would have retired if Hillary won in order to give Hillary the honor of choosing her replacement.

[Leonhard]

At least Conservatives have stopped with the conspiracy theories that she's actually dead.