Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11353
Yes, a long time ago.
tomfoolery wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:06 am This is ridiculous. Everyone knows you can only sexually assault someone if you have a penis.
She is covering for the fact she asked Kavanaugh the same questions - Now she can claim that she is just being consistentLibertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:16 pm "Mazie Hirono Asks Amy Coney Barrett if She Is a Sexual Assailant"
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... assailant/
I don't think that's all that they (the Senate Democrats) have in mind.GT wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:15 pmShe is covering for the fact she asked Kavanaugh the same questions - Now she can claim that she is just being consistentLibertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:16 pm "Mazie Hirono Asks Amy Coney Barrett if She Is a Sexual Assailant"
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... assailant/
"Hirono asked Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh the same two questions during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hirono called for a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) into Kavanaugh at the time, saying the agency needed to determine whether Kavanaugh was a “very belligerent, aggressive drunk.”"
Well to really be consistent, Hirono would need to ask the FBI to investigate Amy's drinking for possible "very belligerent, aggressive drunk" side effects.
I read the book in the 70s. It's definition is being promoted until you reach your level of incompetency (which was what I stated about myself while I was getting my masters degree. No way would I ever consider a PhD).dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:59 amtomfoolery wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:06 am This is ridiculous. Everyone knows you can only sexually assault someone if you have a penis.
But for casual readers, that is not what the Peter Principle means.
(Sigh). Vinny. Are you going to make me destroy the joke by deconstructing it? i found it funny, the convergence of the term “Peter Principle” and “if you have a penis.” upside down:yankees60 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:12 pmI read the book in the 70s. It's definition is being promoted until you reach your level of incompetency (which was what I stated about myself while I was getting my masters degree. No way would I ever consider a PhD).dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:59 amtomfoolery wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:06 am This is ridiculous. Everyone knows you can only sexually assault someone if you have a penis.
But for casual readers, that is not what the Peter Principle means.
What does it mean to the "casual reader"?
Vinny
The are gone FOREVER!!!pp4me wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:08 am If these confirmation hearings are always going to be nothing more than an opportunity to throw as much dirt on the candidate before confirmation as possible and make political speeches then they should probably do away with them. All of the democrats are going to vote against confirmation any way so what is the point?
RBG, nominated by Clinton was confirmed 96-3. Breyer the following year 87-9. Anthony Kennedy, nominated by Reagan was 97-0.
I guess those days are gone forever.
They are gone until and unless the Democrat party is reduced to rubble and rebuilt as an actual American political party.pp4me wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:08 am If these confirmation hearings are always going to be nothing more than an opportunity to throw as much dirt on the candidate before confirmation as possible and make political speeches then they should probably do away with them. All of the democrats are going to vote against confirmation any way so what is the point?
RBG, nominated by Clinton was confirmed 96-3. Breyer the following year 87-9. Anthony Kennedy, nominated by Reagan was 97-0.
I guess those days are gone forever.
The Democrat party wants policies that they can't enact legislatively because they are too unpopular with the populace.Xan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:31 am Appointment of judges should be non-controversial. Every judge should be a textualist and originalist. Anything else should be an immediate disqualification.
It's amazing to me how one political party has gone whole hog for the sick, twisted RBG-style view of the law: that the law is something to be used and manipulated in order to achieve some desired outcome. Wrong.
I heard an interesting interview the other day ( https://issuesetc.org/2020/10/09/2832-r ... k-10-9-20/ ) where it was posited that it's Roe v Wade that basically is causing this. If Roe v Wade ends up being overturned, and the spectre of its overturn no longer haunts Supreme Court confirmations, then they may well get less rancorous.
The representatives on both sides are, for the most part, not covering themselves in glory. Two examples. Harris thought she could outsmart her and trap her but at every turn she was one step ahead of Harris. And, Sasse went on and on and on with his speechifying, thereby eliciting zero information during that time from her. It caused me to reach the end of patience which resulting in me shouting out loud, "Shut Up!" even though I was all by myself!WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:58 pm IDisgusting political theater aside.... Amy Coney Barrett has been completely composed no matter what's been thrown at her, and her answers are well considered and professional. In fact, she's showing up the questioners as being remarkably unprofessional - wonder if that's coming across to everyone or is it just me? Many of them are lawyers and should know better than to ask questions like "how would you rule for Cause X?" Not a single question about her qualifications as a judge.
I think it's actually a very good idea for an unelected lifetime appointment of this magnitude to be reviewed by elected representatives. Too bad the elected representatives are acting like a bunch of spoiled children.
With you on your assessment.WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:58 pm IDisgusting political theater aside.... Amy Coney Barrett has been completely composed no matter what's been thrown at her, and her answers are well considered and professional. In fact, she's showing up the questioners as being remarkably unprofessional - wonder if that's coming across to everyone or is it just me? Many of them are lawyers and should know better than to ask questions like "how would you rule for Cause X?" Not a single question about her qualifications as a judge.
I think it's actually a very good idea for an unelected lifetime appointment of this magnitude to be reviewed by elected representatives. Too bad the elected representatives are acting like a bunch of spoiled children.
Harris isn't smart enough to realize how dumb she is. "See Dunning-Kruger" effect for details.yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:27 pmThe representatives on both sides are, for the most part, not covering themselves in glory. Two examples. Harris thought she could outsmart her and trap her but at every turn she was one step ahead of Harris. And, Sasse went on and on and on with his speechifying, thereby eliciting zero information during that time from her. It caused me to reach the end of patience which resulting in me shouting out loud, "Shut Up!" even though I was all by myself!WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:58 pm IDisgusting political theater aside.... Amy Coney Barrett has been completely composed no matter what's been thrown at her, and her answers are well considered and professional. In fact, she's showing up the questioners as being remarkably unprofessional - wonder if that's coming across to everyone or is it just me? Many of them are lawyers and should know better than to ask questions like "how would you rule for Cause X?" Not a single question about her qualifications as a judge.
I think it's actually a very good idea for an unelected lifetime appointment of this magnitude to be reviewed by elected representatives. Too bad the elected representatives are acting like a bunch of spoiled children.
Vinny
I am well aware of that effect. However, I don't at all think Harris is dumb. My guess is that somehow she lapsed into thinking that she was back into her prosecutor role dealing with a clearly inferior (to her) witness. Here she was dealing with someone who I think IQ is in the 150 to 160 range. I'd not want to tangle with her. She does not let anyone intimidate her. Her 7 kids probably don't get away with anything!Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:37 pmHarris isn't smart enough to realize how dumb she is. "See Dunning-Kruger" effect for details.yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:27 pmThe representatives on both sides are, for the most part, not covering themselves in glory. Two examples. Harris thought she could outsmart her and trap her but at every turn she was one step ahead of Harris. And, Sasse went on and on and on with his speechifying, thereby eliciting zero information during that time from her. It caused me to reach the end of patience which resulting in me shouting out loud, "Shut Up!" even though I was all by myself!WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:58 pm IDisgusting political theater aside.... Amy Coney Barrett has been completely composed no matter what's been thrown at her, and her answers are well considered and professional. In fact, she's showing up the questioners as being remarkably unprofessional - wonder if that's coming across to everyone or is it just me? Many of them are lawyers and should know better than to ask questions like "how would you rule for Cause X?" Not a single question about her qualifications as a judge.
I think it's actually a very good idea for an unelected lifetime appointment of this magnitude to be reviewed by elected representatives. Too bad the elected representatives are acting like a bunch of spoiled children.
Vinny
Ok, let me rephrase: Harris isn't nearly as smart as she thinks she is.yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:51 pmI am well aware of that effect. However, I don't at all think Harris is dumb. My guess is that somehow she lapsed into thinking that she was back into her prosecutor role dealing with a clearly inferior (to her) witness. Here she was dealing with someone who I think IQ is in the 150 to 160 range. I'd not want to tangle with her. She does not let anyone intimidate her. Her 7 kids probably don't get away with anything!Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:37 pmHarris isn't smart enough to realize how dumb she is. "See Dunning-Kruger" effect for details.yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:27 pmThe representatives on both sides are, for the most part, not covering themselves in glory. Two examples. Harris thought she could outsmart her and trap her but at every turn she was one step ahead of Harris. And, Sasse went on and on and on with his speechifying, thereby eliciting zero information during that time from her. It caused me to reach the end of patience which resulting in me shouting out loud, "Shut Up!" even though I was all by myself!WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:58 pm IDisgusting political theater aside.... Amy Coney Barrett has been completely composed no matter what's been thrown at her, and her answers are well considered and professional. In fact, she's showing up the questioners as being remarkably unprofessional - wonder if that's coming across to everyone or is it just me? Many of them are lawyers and should know better than to ask questions like "how would you rule for Cause X?" Not a single question about her qualifications as a judge.
I think it's actually a very good idea for an unelected lifetime appointment of this magnitude to be reviewed by elected representatives. Too bad the elected representatives are acting like a bunch of spoiled children.
Vinny
Vinny
Whoa there Kemosabe, way to shoot me down. I’m a ‘couple’ digits less than that.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:34 pmOk, let me rephrase: Harris isn't nearly as smart as she thinks she is.yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:51 pmI am well aware of that effect. However, I don't at all think Harris is dumb. My guess is that somehow she lapsed into thinking that she was back into her prosecutor role dealing with a clearly inferior (to her) witness. Here she was dealing with someone who I think IQ is in the 150 to 160 range. I'd not want to tangle with her. She does not let anyone intimidate her. Her 7 kids probably don't get away with anything!Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:37 pmHarris isn't smart enough to realize how dumb she is. "See Dunning-Kruger" effect for details.yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:27 pmThe representatives on both sides are, for the most part, not covering themselves in glory. Two examples. Harris thought she could outsmart her and trap her but at every turn she was one step ahead of Harris. And, Sasse went on and on and on with his speechifying, thereby eliciting zero information during that time from her. It caused me to reach the end of patience which resulting in me shouting out loud, "Shut Up!" even though I was all by myself!WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:58 pm IDisgusting political theater aside.... Amy Coney Barrett has been completely composed no matter what's been thrown at her, and her answers are well considered and professional. In fact, she's showing up the questioners as being remarkably unprofessional - wonder if that's coming across to everyone or is it just me? Many of them are lawyers and should know better than to ask questions like "how would you rule for Cause X?" Not a single question about her qualifications as a judge.
I think it's actually a very good idea for an unelected lifetime appointment of this magnitude to be reviewed by elected representatives. Too bad the elected representatives are acting like a bunch of spoiled children.
Vinny
Vinny
I agree with you on Barrett's IQ, because she appears to be about as smart as I am.
My wife told me I shouldn't brag, so I apologize.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:07 pmWhoa there Kemosabe, way to shoot me down. I’m a ‘couple’ digits less than that.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:34 pmOk, let me rephrase: Harris isn't nearly as smart as she thinks she is.yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:51 pmI am well aware of that effect. However, I don't at all think Harris is dumb. My guess is that somehow she lapsed into thinking that she was back into her prosecutor role dealing with a clearly inferior (to her) witness. Here she was dealing with someone who I think IQ is in the 150 to 160 range. I'd not want to tangle with her. She does not let anyone intimidate her. Her 7 kids probably don't get away with anything!Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:37 pmHarris isn't smart enough to realize how dumb she is. "See Dunning-Kruger" effect for details.yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:27 pmThe representatives on both sides are, for the most part, not covering themselves in glory. Two examples. Harris thought she could outsmart her and trap her but at every turn she was one step ahead of Harris. And, Sasse went on and on and on with his speechifying, thereby eliciting zero information during that time from her. It caused me to reach the end of patience which resulting in me shouting out loud, "Shut Up!" even though I was all by myself!WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:58 pm IDisgusting political theater aside.... Amy Coney Barrett has been completely composed no matter what's been thrown at her, and her answers are well considered and professional. In fact, she's showing up the questioners as being remarkably unprofessional - wonder if that's coming across to everyone or is it just me? Many of them are lawyers and should know better than to ask questions like "how would you rule for Cause X?" Not a single question about her qualifications as a judge.
I think it's actually a very good idea for an unelected lifetime appointment of this magnitude to be reviewed by elected representatives. Too bad the elected representatives are acting like a bunch of spoiled children.
Vinny
Vinny
I agree with you on Barrett's IQ, because she appears to be about as smart as I am.
Apology accepted, but there was no need to do so. I was trying to be humble with my shoot me down comment. My first thought was "only 150 -160?, I feel bad for such inadequate peons", but I too did not want to brag.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:59 pmMy wife told me I shouldn't brag, so I apologize.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:07 pmWhoa there Kemosabe, way to shoot me down. I’m a ‘couple’ digits less than that.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:34 pmOk, let me rephrase: Harris isn't nearly as smart as she thinks she is.yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:51 pmI am well aware of that effect. However, I don't at all think Harris is dumb. My guess is that somehow she lapsed into thinking that she was back into her prosecutor role dealing with a clearly inferior (to her) witness. Here she was dealing with someone who I think IQ is in the 150 to 160 range. I'd not want to tangle with her. She does not let anyone intimidate her. Her 7 kids probably don't get away with anything!Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:37 pmHarris isn't smart enough to realize how dumb she is. "See Dunning-Kruger" effect for details.yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:27 pmThe representatives on both sides are, for the most part, not covering themselves in glory. Two examples. Harris thought she could outsmart her and trap her but at every turn she was one step ahead of Harris. And, Sasse went on and on and on with his speechifying, thereby eliciting zero information during that time from her. It caused me to reach the end of patience which resulting in me shouting out loud, "Shut Up!" even though I was all by myself!WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:58 pm IDisgusting political theater aside.... Amy Coney Barrett has been completely composed no matter what's been thrown at her, and her answers are well considered and professional. In fact, she's showing up the questioners as being remarkably unprofessional - wonder if that's coming across to everyone or is it just me? Many of them are lawyers and should know better than to ask questions like "how would you rule for Cause X?" Not a single question about her qualifications as a judge.
I think it's actually a very good idea for an unelected lifetime appointment of this magnitude to be reviewed by elected representatives. Too bad the elected representatives are acting like a bunch of spoiled children.
Vinny
Vinny
I agree with you on Barrett's IQ, because she appears to be about as smart as I am.
