Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

[luthervol]

Are you going to give us the correlation between education and intelligence?

An educated person could easily find the answer. An intelligent person would already know.

 

[37L1]

An educated person could easily find the answer. An intelligent person would already know.

And a deflecting person gives a non answer.

 

[BowlBrother85]

He can just say his list is with Trump's tax returns.

... yeah. Something like that would be a nice reply.

 

[0nelilreb]

I knew I was having an impact.
Thanks for the validation.

Lesson Two - It's all about degrees.

Don’t get giddy yet , I’m just using you as an semi unwilling accomplice against a long winded attorney. It’s pretty much a zero sum game for all three of us .. but it’s fun . Lol

 

[Orangeslice13]

I would vote for Biden if he came out for a constitutional amendment to end lifetime judicial appointments. Limit them to 12 years so no 1 POTUS can appoint a majority.

Wait, so now you’re in favor of term limits?

 

[Orange_Crush]

An educated person could easily find the answer. An intelligent person would already know.

That's not an answer.

And it's operating on a wrong definition of intelligence. As posted, intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. As such, intelligence wouldn't be the measurement of what a person already knows, but a measurement of their ability to find it out and correctly interpret/use it.

The closer to correct would be the opposite: An educated person may already know, but an intelligent person would more than likely be better at finding out and properly utilizing the information.

That diversion is kind of embarrassing for you, in context of the argument you're trying to make.

The fact of the matter is that education could only be used as an indicator of intelligence for those who had been educated, but would be unable to speak to the abilities of those who had not been educated. And that's giving you the operational definition of "education" that I'm sure you were trying to use.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I knew I was having an impact.
Thanks for the validation.

Lesson Two - It's all about degrees.

 

[luthervol]

And a deflecting person gives a non answer.

That was actually a pretty good answer.
Does anyone actually need to see data?
An intelligent person with little education would discount the results.
An educated person with little intelligence would misinterpret the results.
A person with neither would just post a stupid and nonsensical response about the results. (OC?)
and a person with both already knows and understands the results.

 

[luthervol]

Don’t get giddy yet , I’m just using you as an semi unwilling accomplice against a long winded attorney. It’s pretty much a zero sum game for all three of us .. but it’s fun . Lol

As long as continuums win in the end, I'm counting it as a small victory.

 

[lawgator1]

View attachment 307749

There is plenty of proof. Its overwhelming. Just last week the head of the FBI, appointed by Trump, said they are doing it again to help Trump win.

You just don't like the facts. Typically Republican blind allegiance these days.

 

[Wireless1]

So can someone supporting Biden’s decision to not release a list explain what it benefits him not to release the list? As a handicap you are not permitted to use Trump as any part of the reason.

 

[Orange_Crush]

An educated person could easily find the answer. An intelligent person would already know.

That was actually a pretty good answer.
Does anyone actually need to see data?
An intelligent person with little education would discount the results.
An educated person with little intelligence would misinterpret the results.
A person with neither would just post a stupid and nonsensical response about the results.
and a person with both already knows and understands the results.

Education: the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university

Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

It's literally by definition the opposite, Professor.

 

[luthervol]

That's not an answer.

And it's operating on a wrong definition of intelligence. As posted, intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. As such, intelligence wouldn't be the measurement of what a person already knows, but a measurement of their ability to find it out and correctly interpret/use it.

The closer to correct would be the opposite: An educated person may already know, but an intelligent person would more than likely be better at finding out and properly utilizing the information.

That diversion is kind of embarrassing for you, in context of the argument you're trying to make.

The fact of the matter is that education could only be used as an indicator of intelligence for those who had been educated, but would be unable to speak to the abilities of those who had not been educated. And that's giving you the operational definition of "education" that I'm sure you were trying to use.

Well that was a total waste of time.

 

[Mick]

An educated person could easily find the answer. An intelligent person would already know.

To What Degree is Being Educated Mistaken with Being Intelligent in Our Society

So what is the final answer? It may still be up to debate but the dominant theme among discussion participants is that being educated and being intelligent are two completely different concepts. They may relate to the same idea of improving oneself and society, but they operate differently.
Education may be a mark on the ruler that indicates a certain level of achievement from a social standpoint, but learning is the variable that dictates application. Professors, facts and figures, in Vecchi’s model, are the tools within academia that students use for leverage in their lives and in their professions. Intelligence is being able to utilize those given tools to make a difference and implement ideas that pushes society forward.

 

[RockyTop85]

There is plenty of inconsistency and hypocrisy coming from the Democrats on this matter as well as for Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself. Partisianship has long been the MO of the Democrats.

Remember when there used to be a time when a President's SCOTUS choice would go through the formality of a Senate hearing but always be approved with 60 or more votes? The Republicans played nice with Ginsberg, (a refugee from the ACLU, what did you think you were going to get), as well as with Sotomayor and Kagan.

The road that leads to where we are now was being paved a long time ago, since the 80's and Reagan.

The Democrats started the change in that process with Bork, accelerated it with the hearings of Clarence Thomas and haven't backed off as the hearings for Kavanaugh and Gorsuch demonstrated. The last set of hearings involving Kavanaugh were particularly shameful, during which it was made crystal clear that the Democrats cared only about power and would attempt to destroy anyone that they saw as a potential threat in their quest for it.

Then we have that special move by Harry Reid that did away with the 2/3rds requirement for federal appointments leading to the "nuclear option" that is being employed now for SCOTUS.

After all of the above, is there anyone surprised that the Republicans are saying, "No more Mr. Nice Guy" if that's the way you are going to play and have responded in kind, if not upped the ante? Our most recent history on this is a record of tit for tat with no one reasonable enough to recognize when wrong things are happening, step up and say, "Hey, wait a minute. What are we doing?"

I am concerned that the selection process as envisioned by the founders has been totally corrupted by this erosion and that there is no conclusion other than all appointments shall be political and will remain this way as long as we draw from this poisoned well.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. In theory, it was to be independent judges voting on the merits of the case before them with no consideration given to political positions or personal beliefs. A true third branch of our government instead of a rubber stamp backing a political party's position. By now doing so, it is no longer an independent body but just an extension of another governmental branch.

Both parties are to blame but to cast that this reflection in the mirror is on only the Republicans and Trump, is, well, disingenuous for want of a less PC term for it.

Nobody with even a passing concern about the independence of the judiciary sees this as starting with the Gorsuch nomination.

 

[BowlBrother85]

So can someone supporting Biden’s decision to not release a list explain what it benefits him not to release the list? As a handicap you are not permitted to use Trump as any part of the reason.

What would be the point? It's a list that will not be used to fill this particular seat. If it wasn't so obvious that the seat will be filled before he takes office, then absolutely he should release a list. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What would be the point? It's a list that will not be used to fill this particular seat. If it wasn't so obvious that the seat will be filled before he takes office, then absolutely he should release a list. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time.

It would be an opportunity to show potential voters what they can expect from him.

 

[Orangeburst]

As long as communism win in the end, I'm counting it as a small victory.

fyp

 

[RockyTop85]

I guess you’ve got your answer @Orange_Crush

To whether Trump is president?

 

[37L1]

Nobody with even a passing concern about the independence of the judiciary sees this as starting with the Gorsuch nomination.

Where did I say it did?

 

[hog88]

Wait, so now you’re in favor of term limits?

For the unelected oh hell yeah. Federal Judges have zero accountability to anyone.

 

[VolStrom]

What would be the point? It's a list that will not be used to fill this particular seat. If it wasn't so obvious that the seat will be filled before he takes office, then absolutely he should release a list. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time.

We know that Bidens list is as narrow minded as his vice president selection. Black female. Nothing racist about that is there?

 

[BowlBrother85]

It would be an opportunity to show potential voters what they can expect from him.

There is no reason for Biden to tip his hand like that. Now, Republicans could force his hand, if they would agree to put off the Senate confirmation vote until after the election... but Senate Republicans have already made it clear that they aren't willing to do that.

 

[Orange_Crush]

There is no reason for Biden to tip his hand like that. Now, Republicans could force his hand, if they would agree to put off the Senate confirmation vote until after the election... but Senate Republicans have already made it clear that they aren't willing to do that.

Tip his hand? He needs to hide it? "I don't want the voters to know what to expect before they vote for me"? Kind of like Pelosi and Obamacare? We have to vote him in to find out what's in him?

 

[RockyTop85]

Where did I say it did?

Oh, sorry, I just chose to pretend that you didn’t ignore the multiple confirmations that broke your chain of events, rather than come up with a better word than disingenuous.