Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama to nominate three, including two Republicans, to labor board. Will Republicans filibuster? (259 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm observing simple behavior. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric K

    If you attack a person, they will retreat into a shell and defend themselves.  That's what has happened in this thread.  They were attacked and they responded in kind.

    The belief that law requires the 3-2 appointment system is widespread - and it's almost always wrong (the FEC is a well-known exception, as it has a six-member board and no more than three members can come from the same party, causing a 3-3 split).

    The appropriate response - or at least the mature response - would have been to simply link to one of the many pages explaining this well-known error and its origination.  Instead, much gloating and ugliness resulted.

    Not to sound like anyone's mother, but there are a whole lot of people in this diary who should be ashamed.

    "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

    by auron renouille on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 09:39:49 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  A link to proof that TomP et al were wrong? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      apimomfan2, rivercard, WisePiper, Zinman

      I assume you known where burden of proof lies, and I certainly cannot prove a negative, namely that TomP and the dozens who recd his rather insulting AND misleading posts was wrong.

      That's why I took the time to ask him, and all the others who so insistenty made the assertion.

      So they can either inform us, or apologize for misleading so many.  

      *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

      by Rick Aucoin on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 10:13:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have to agree with Rick (4+ / 0-)

        burden on those stating with arrogant certainty that it was law.I know I was looking for proof while also requesting it from posters. Obviously would have been easier to confirm if it was actually a law.

        My issue is this isn't a gray area. You don't mistakenly "know" something is a law. It either is or you are pulling out of thin air in an attempt to dismiss others arguments.

        Very disingenuous.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site