posted
"Complaints have been filed against McCain with the FEC."
And the FederalElectionCommission doesn't have a sufficient number of seats filled to make up a quorum to rule on the matter due to a dispute between Congress and the President on the suitability of certain nominees to be on the FEC executive board.
It will take 120days of FEC non-action before the matter can be placed before a federal judge. Since the FEC hasn't disbursed*funds, McCain could then argue that no contract exists between himself and the FEC, and/or use the timeliness aspect of the doctrine of laches to argue that the FEC has breached the contract.
If the DemocraticNationalCommittee had wanted to play nasty, it should have filed its complaint on May1st. That way the suit would have hit the Court just before the RepublicanNationalConvention started.
Instead the DNC is testing whether it is feasible for its Nominee to agree to a publicly-funded GeneralElection campaign. Because McCain has already demonstrated that he will break such an agreement if it were to become inconvenient, neither Clinton nor Obama has the basis upon which to make a decision until after the FEC and/or the Court rules on whether McCain will remain bound to his pledge.
* At least it hadn't the last time I noticed a relevent article in the blogs, ie when Edwards dropped out.
I strongly disagree (to put it mildly) with Bush's policies, but that still makes me feel bad for him.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Reminds me of another baseball game where Al Capone was cheered as he took his seat and Herbert Hoover was booed.
So much for respect the office if not the man.
As an aside having that experience would probably be right up there with dreams about giving a speech in the nude in front of everyone I know and respect, and swimming 300 yards to shore with sharks chasing me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So much for respect the office if not the man.
I'm not sure I understand how this was showing disrespect to the office of the president. He wasn't performing any of his duties. He was enjoying a perk of the job. At that point, it seems all about the man to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Let me be clear on one thing- if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her. The possibility of another Republican appointing Supreme Court Justices to replace Stevens and Ginsburg is far too worrisome for me to bear a long-term grudge against Hillary for her mean-spirited tactics in the primary campaign.
Yes, because what a horrible thing it will be if the Constitution is not interpreted by the whims of a couple of left-wing activists. Oh the horror that will be when the conservatives (i.e; anti-progressive originalists) start deciding that the constitution works when its original meaning is respected, and not something to be view as an obstacle keeping us from a human utopia where babies are aborted at every whim, child pornography and flag burning is the highest form of patriotic speech, border defense is illegal, criminal acts are to be treated rather than punished, religion is outlawed (except Islam, of course), all laws are subject to international approval... well, I could go on, but I'm about to punch my monitor.
I've linked this before. I don't agree with every word, and it's slightly out of date now, but I think it would be worth your while to read it. Provided you can refrain from punching your monitor, of course.
Quick snip from the introduction:
quote:...the battle over the judiciary is part of a much larger political campaign not only to determine the constitutionality of abortion and the role of religion in public life but also the very character of our Constitution, and thus our national government. Many people assume (no doubt because they are told) that the meaning of the Constitution is set in stone, and that the disputes raging in the Senate and on the Sunday talk shows are between liberal judicial activists and conservative "strict constructionists" who adhere to the letter of the text. In fact, the contest is much more complicated and interesting -- and, in most important respects, this conventional view of the subject is badly wrong.
From my other reading, the author appears to be a proponent of the notion that the Supreme Court should render verdicts as narrow in scope as possible, on the assumption that this will ultimately lead and/or force legislators to craft legislation to address the sorts of thorny issues that often wind their way up to the Supreme Court.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, avenues for change were written into the constitution. Amendments may be made. But if you think that the constitution may merely be interpreted to agree with ones preferences, and the resulting laws that have been handed down to us ---not by our elected legislatures but by unelected judges--- are constitutional, you're the one drinking the kool-aid. There is a reasonable expectation to privacy afforded us by the constitution, not a right to abort babies up to the moment of birth. Yet this is the logic that is used, by judges of the sort Obama, Hillary, and probably McCain would appoint. Freedom of speech is protected, and for that I might actually tolerate flag-burning. Freedom of Speech does not equal freedom to produce pornography, yet your progressive judges insist on this to be the case.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes, avenues for change were written into the constitution. Amendments may be made. But if you think that the constitution may merely be interpreted to agree with ones preferences, and the resulting laws that have been handed down to us ---not by our elected legislatures but by unelected judges--- are constitutional, you're the one drinking the kool-aid. There is a reasonable expectation to privacy afforded us by the constitution, not a right to abort babies up to the moment of birth. Yet this is the logic that is used, by judges of the sort Obama, Hillary, and probably McCain would appoint. Freedom of speech is protected, and for that I might actually tolerate flag-burning. Freedom of Speech does not equal freedom to produce pornography, yet your progressive judges insist on this to be the case.
So, the argument is that the Constitution shouldn't be interpreted to agree with one's preferences, and that liberal judges seek to place their own interpretation from that progressive perspective. But isn't that what you are doing from a conservative perspective? Isn't this entire paragraph like saying, we shouldn't interpret the constitution unless we do so in agreement with me? And isn't that exactly what you condemn all those "liberal" judges for?
quote:Yes, avenues for change were written into the constitution. Amendments may be made. But if you think that the constitution may merely be interpreted to agree with ones preferences, and the resulting laws that have been handed down to us ---not by our elected legislatures but by unelected judges--- are constitutional, you're the one drinking the kool-aid. There is a reasonable expectation to privacy afforded us by the constitution, not a right to abort babies up to the moment of birth. Yet this is the logic that is used, by judges of the sort Obama, Hillary, and probably McCain would appoint. Freedom of speech is protected, and for that I might actually tolerate flag-burning. Freedom of Speech does not equal freedom to produce pornography, yet your progressive judges insist on this to be the case.
Bullcrap.
It is specifically stated in the Constitution-in one of those amendments you wrote about-that unless it's specifically restricted, anything goes constitution-wise. Local laws can be enacted, but that's a different matter.
Freedom of speech definitely includes the right to produce pornography. Can you explain why not, aside from stating it like it's factual, when it clearly isn't? Oh, and do you really fantasize that it's only 'progressive' judges (I'm surprised you didn't use one of the other conservative bywords for judges who don't do what they want them to do) who support the freedom to produce pornography?
It's good that you feel there is a constitutional 'expectation' (you stop short of saying 'right', which is just weird) to privacy, but I ask you: how do you restrict abortion without infringing on this reasonable expectation of privacy?
Without an amendment, that is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: But if you think that the constitution may merely be interpreted to agree with ones preferences...
It indisputably is interpreted differently as society changes. Even within the 20th century, Supreme Courts comprised of different members made rulings predicated on vastly different interpretations of the same document.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: ...and the resulting laws that have been handed down to us ---not by our elected legislatures but by unelected judges--- are constitutional, you're the one drinking the kool-aid.
This is why the author is a proponent of verdicts that are narrow in scope: he apparently shares your belief that at least some issues that appear before the Supreme Court should actually be addressed legislatively.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: There is a reasonable expectation to privacy afforded us by the constitution, not a right to abort babies up to the moment of birth. Yet this is the logic that is used, by judges of the sort Obama, Hillary, and probably McCain would appoint.
If you read a right to "reasonable privacy" into the Constitution, your main disagreement with the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade appears to be with their take on what the original meaning of the Constitution was with respect to the word "person."
That is, it seems to me that the majority justices in Roe v. WAde were actually trying to do what you want -- apply the document as intended, insofar as they were able to determine intent -- and they found no indication that the drafters of the document intended to include the unborn under the "person" umbrella.
You clearly disagree with their take on what the original meaning of the document was. Clearly, then, there isn't even agreement on what the original meaning of the document was, so no, I still dispute your original point that "the constitution works when its original meaning is respected." You'd have to know what the original meaning was, first, and clearly even lawyers and judges can and do disagree about what that meaning was.
There is no escaping interpreting the document; your opinion relies on Constitutional interpretation just like the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade (and indeed in the contraception precedent case cited in it) did.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Freedom of speech is protected, and for that I might actually tolerate flag-burning. Freedom of Speech does not equal freedom to produce pornography...
Why not? Isn't this a matter of interpretation?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually never understood porn. Erotica with one person in a provacative pose, ok. But depictions of actual sex acts? How isn't that covered under prostitution laws?
Both people are getting paid so that's different from one person getting paid? (Assuming of course that one of the actors isn't also the producer and paying the bills.) Being paid for sex while someone takes pictures is somehow inherently different from just being paid to have sex?
I just don't see how porn makes any legal sense.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So much for respect the office if not the man.
I'm not sure I understand how this was showing disrespect to the office of the president. He wasn't performing any of his duties. He was enjoying a perk of the job. At that point, it seems all about the man to me.
Are you saying that you believe there are times where Bush is not acting as president of the United States? IMO he is president 24/7 as long as he is entrusted with the office.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I actually never understood porn. Erotica with one person in a provacative pose, ok. But depictions of actual sex acts? How isn't that covered under prostitution laws?
Both people are getting paid so that's different from one person getting paid? (Assuming of course that one of the actors isn't also the producer and paying the bills.) Being paid for sex while someone takes pictures is somehow inherently different from just being paid to have sex?
posted
"So much for respect the office if not the man."
Why should the office be respected if its filled by a person unworthy of respect?
On a related note, why are we criticizing people for booing the president for not respecting the office, when in the last election more then half the voters voted for someone that had already demonstrated his unsuitability for the office? Doesn't that show those voters do not respect the office?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So much for respect the office if not the man.
I'm not sure I understand how this was showing disrespect to the office of the president. He wasn't performing any of his duties. He was enjoying a perk of the job. At that point, it seems all about the man to me.
Are you saying that you believe there are times where Bush is not acting as president of the United States? IMO he is president 24/7 as long as he is entrusted with the office.
Even on the 360+ vacation days he's had since taking office?
(How many vacation days have you had in the last seven and a half years?)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Assuming this is an accurate report, Clinton may be forced to suspend her campaign. If word gets out that she can't pay her bills, then she won't be able to keep advertising, traveling and planning events.
If this is true, her campaign is dead in the water.
I wonder if this is real. It could misinformation from any number of sources. Clinton's campaign could be using scare tactics to get backers to open their wallets like they did in Feb. when word got out about the loan she had to make to keep the campaign a float). Likewise it could be from someone hoping to end her campaign (The Obama camp or Democrats wanting to avoid an ugly convention battle). It could even be one more right wing smear campaign against the Clintons.
Of course, it could also be true. We shall see.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"So much for respect the office if not the man."
Why should the office be respected if its filled by a person unworthy of respect?
On a related note, why are we criticizing people for booing the president for not respecting the office, when in the last election more then half the voters voted for someone that had already demonstrated his unsuitability for the office? Doesn't that show those voters do not respect the office?
posted
Paul: Are you talking about the election in 2000 or the election in 2004?
As for respecting the office when it is filled by a man who is undeserving of respect, he is still the president elect. Until the US government or the people collectively state that he is unfit for the office, he is still our president. Just as all heads of state work for the good of the people who require the services of their leaders, we therefore respect them for filling that role.
At an ethical level, we may disagree with many if not almost all the decisions a leader may make, but it's very difficult to do so with integrity when we ourselves know not the conditions under which he/she made those decisions.
As president Bush is inseparable from the office of the presidency. To disrespect him is to disrespect the office, and to disrespect the office of the presidency is to disrespect the government, the people it governs, and thus ourselves.
I am not saying we cannot disagree with him, and even demonstrate the disagreement strongly, in the forms of protests, statements, etc. But publicly attempting to humiliate him is not a constructive way to voice dissent.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But publicly attempting to humiliate him is not a constructive way to voice dissent.
The constructive avenues of voicing dissent don't seem to be doing the people a whole heck of a lot of good do they?
Given the level of frustration in this coutnry for a President that has openly stated (and a Vice President who has more bluntly stated) that he doesn't much care what the American people think on any given issue, I think an openly display of that frustration and their disapproval is perfectly valid.
Besides, I have a hard time not showing disdain for a man who himself has treated the office with such disrespect, and who has treated the Constitution, the government, and the American people with such disrespect.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:At an ethical level, we may disagree with many if not almost all the decisions a leader may make, but it's very difficult to do so with integrity when we ourselves know not the conditions under which he/she made those decisions.
Not when those decision lead him to do something I think could not be justified by any set of circumstance (such endorse as torture). Bush has tarnished the office in ways that pale in comparison. When Bush took office, the US was a respected moral authority in much of the world. He squandered that. Now we are only feared. The harm he has done to the country and the office are immeasurable and enormous. We will be lucky to every recover.
Furthermore, we live in a democracy. That means that the ultimate power and responsibility for the government rests with us the people and not with the chief executive. We lack integrity when we do not criticize our leaders for actions we see as reprehensible. If a President has reasons that might justify those actions, it is his responsibility to persuade us of that. If we do not demand that of our elected officials, we are negligent of our duties as citizens of a democratic nation.
I have no idea what it means "to respect the office". I do know that few of the people who are crying for that under Bush, were crying for that when Rush Limbaugh was showing pictures of President Clinton's daughter photoshopped onto a dog. Perhaps you are one of them and if so please ignore this criticism. I also know that Bush's abuse of "Presidential Privilege" have made me believe that we would be better off if people had less respect for the office.
I think "public humiliation" is a gross overstatement of what happened to Bush. He's the most powerful man in the world. If he was humiliated by fans booing at him he's got serious mental health issues. The Bush administration is by far the most insulated in recent history. People have very few opportunities to voice their disapproval of this man to his face.
Booing him was juvenile behavior but did nothing to tarnish the office of the President that isn't far far over shadowed by the acts of the man they booed.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I just don't see how porn makes any legal sense."
When porn actors were tried for prostitution in California some time back, I believe the defense's argument (which won) was that the director was not paying them for personal gratification the way a prostitute's customer would. He was instead hiring two performers to perform.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I wonder if this is real. It could misinformation from any number of sources. Clinton's campaign could be using scare tactics to get backers to open their wallets like they did in Feb.
That is a very interesting suggestion. The article seemed not terribly urgent, while surprisingly brazen. And event planners are one class of vendor whose fortunes do not depend on who gets into power. The show must go on.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "I just don't see how porn makes any legal sense."
When porn actors were tried for prostitution in California some time back, I believe the defense's argument (which won) was that the director was not paying them for personal gratification the way a prostitute's customer would. He was instead hiring two performers to perform.
That makes zero sense to me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, it occurs to me--whatever damage the whole Rev. Wright thing may have done to Obama (and it looks like it hasn't been quite as damaging as I'd been afraid it would be), it's got to have pretty much put to rest the idea that he's Muslim, right? I mean, the people who were pounding that drum started pounding an entirely different one that has his Christianity as a pretty central feature.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
no, now it's just both. The ignorance of some people amazing. I know people who think he's *secretly* a Muslim.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The last poll I saw said he was higher than Clinton than he's ever been before, despite the Wright controversy. That's possibly a good sign of how he'll weather controversy in the months to come.
Also, 2/3rds of Democrats want them to stop bickering, and share a ticket, though the poll didn't ask who should be on top, which is where I think the poll falls apart.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humean, I don't agree with Conservative activism either, though I don't think that's what you were getting at. No, it should only be interpreted according to the specific case as the Constitution is applied. [Edit] That's not really saying anything, I realize, but I'm too tired to try again.
As far as that goes in relation to what Rakeesh was saying, if it isn't in the Constitution, it should be decided by the states. But that is not what happens in these large scale issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. No, the Constitution does not say anything about an unborn baby's "personhood," or homosexuals' right to marry, but that's only because no sane person would even consider those things to be in question. It just goes to show how twisted our values have become since those days.
Which brings me to this, Rakeesh. You say "[f]reedom of speech definitely includes the right to produce pornography." You go on to prove your point by asking me to show how it doesn't. You got mad debate skilz, I'll give you that.
Twinky, yes, society changes. But the Constitution was written in such a way so that the whims of society would not erode the strength of the people to govern themselves. Changes to the constitution were not meant to be easily done. It goes to show the extent of the activism involved that something as controversial and divisive among our people will not be decided by a majority rules, democratic process. Get the legislature to write a Constitutional amendment giving you the right to get married to someone your gender and I will support you 100%. I'm not so right-wing brainwashed to think I necessarily know better than what a majority of the country thinks is best for itself (I'm not speaking of morality; that doesn't matter here.)
My objection lies not with the morality of the issue, but with the attempts of an activist minority to do the same thing as they did with abortion: force it upon the rest of us without letting us have a say in the matter.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Get the legislature to write a Constitutional amendment giving you the right to get married to someone your gender and I will support you 100%. I'm not so right-wing brainwashed to think I necessarily know better than what a majority of the country thinks is best for itself (I'm not speaking of morality; that doesn't matter here.)
You've got that backwards. Just because Congress doesn't pass a law saying you can do something doesn't mean you don't have the right. In fact, the Founders, leery of your specific argument, created the 9th Amendment:
quote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, despite the fact that they specifically outlined the most important things to them at the time, it doesn't mean you don't have a lot of other rights specifically mentioned.
The second thing is the 14th Amendment:
quote:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Regardless of gender, people all have the same rights, including the right to marry whomever they please, regardless of their gender.
And finally, the 1st Amendment:
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Marriage, defined only as a man and a woman, is a religious issue. It doesn't matter which religion, it doesn't matter if it's every religion, it's still a religion, and violates the rights of the non-religious. If the government is going to deny rights to citizens based on religious doctrine, that's a violation of the first amendment (and the 14th I'd say). The government does NOT have a right to tell churches and the like that they must marry gays, but the rights that most gay couples want, like social security benefits, joint income tax filings, etc, are all given by the State, and as such are subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and can't be limited to only some citizens because of the 1st Amendment.
You say that activist judges are trying to make this into a law from the bench. The problem I have with that argument is that it sort of supplants the entire purpose of high level judges. Those judges are there to protect State and Federal Constitutions, and when leguslatures make laws that violate those Constitutions, it is their job to strike down those laws as unconstitutional. If the government passed a law tomorrow making Christianity the national religion and the Supreme Court struck it down, would that be legislating from the bench? As far as I can tell, arguing that activist judges are legislating from the bench is basically arguing against the entire framework of checks and balances and separation of powers.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You've got that backwards. Just because Congress doesn't pass a law saying you can do something doesn't mean you don't have the right."
Sure, but how do we decide what is a right? Do we let the judges fill in the blanks, or do we let the majority decide? Neither way is perfect, but surely the latter is preferable?
As for gay marriage, that's not really such an issue for me. It's just part of the larger issue I see where activists who know they can't get their way by convincing enough people of the rightness of their side take the tactic of using the judicial branch to impose their will for them- something it was not intended to do and is throwing the balance of power out of whack.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When porn actors were tried for prostitution in California some time back, I believe the defense's argument (which won) was that the director was not paying them for personal gratification the way a prostitute's customer would. He was instead hiring two performers to perform.
Thanks, Chris. I still think it's a silly arguement since the actors are being paid to provide others indirectly with gratification, but it's nice to know what the rationale is at least.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as that goes in relation to what Rakeesh was saying, if it isn't in the Constitution, it should be decided by the states. But that is not what happens in these large scale issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. No, the Constitution does not say anything about an unborn baby's "personhood," or homosexuals' right to marry, but that's only because no sane person would even consider those things to be in question. It just goes to show how twisted our values have become since those days.
With abortion, I am tenuously in favor of the issue reverting back to state legislatures, actually. With same-sex marriage, not so much. If an individual state wanted to go back to segregated drinking fountains, I wouldn't have a problem with 'judicial activism' smacking them down.
As for what 'no sane person' would consider to be in question, I'm going to ask you to make what is apparently a huge sacrifice: don't assume you know everything, and that yours is the only way to look at a situation. Imagine (even if you're only pretending) for a moment that maybe you're not right about everything.
quote:Which brings me to this, Rakeesh. You say "[f]reedom of speech definitely includes the right to produce pornography." You go on to prove your point by asking me to show how it doesn't. You got mad debate skilz, I'll give you that.
Well, that's certainly a clever rejoinder that doesn't actually do what I asked. Which, by the way, since you're the one wanting to seriously alter freedom of speech in the USA, is what you need to do. You don't just get to say, "Boy, we've got too much freedom of speech," and then not explain why, if you want anyone to take you seriously.
If you're just ranting in a socially conservative style, though, lemme know and I'll stop wasting my time.
quote:My objection lies not with the morality of the issue, but with the attempts of an activist minority to do the same thing as they did with abortion: force it upon the rest of us without letting us have a say in the matter.
Eh, I'm sure it's a lot easier for a Christian white dude without much civil historical perspective to say things like that. At least you support-for now-the idea that the majority should make decisions on an issue like same-sex marriage. I wonder what you'll be saying in a generation or so when the majority accepts and permits it?
quote: Sure, but how do we decide what is a right? Do we let the judges fill in the blanks, or do we let the majority decide? Neither way is perfect, but surely the latter is preferable?
If the law as it is written permits judges to say, "Such and such law is unconstitutional," and someone doesn't like such and such law...why shouldn't they avail themselves of the judicial process?
quote: As for gay marriage, that's not really such an issue for me. It's just part of the larger issue I see where activists who know they can't get their way by convincing enough people of the rightness of their side take the tactic of using the judicial branch to impose their will for them- something it was not intended to do and is throwing the balance of power out of whack.
Oh, I'll just bet it's not an issue for you. After all, 'no sane person' would consider that homosexuals should have any right to marriage, right? So I guess it wouldn't be much an issue for you. Anyway, the balance of power is hardly out of whack. The executive and legislative branches still have enormously greater power than the judicial branch.
Bet you'll be a fan of 'judicial activism' when it aids your favorite right wingnut cause, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize that it's kind of beating a dead horse at this point, but Christopher Hitchens (who I'm not terribly fond of, honestly) has a pretty interesting piece on the Bosnia lies in Slate today.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
Your first "point:" You're tenuously in favor... well I'm tenuously in favor of a lot of things, and I'm strongly in favor or opposed to a lot of other things. What does that have to do with anything? Why can't we vote on these issues?
Your second "point:" Why don't you try the same?
Your third "point:" I don't want to radically change freedom of speech; that radical change occurred a few decades ago when the radicals were able to make inroads into the coarsening of society in manners that include, but are not limited to, the freedom to produce pornography. No one thought it was okay until you anti-Christians, anti-white, anti-civilization types started trying to subject us to your vision of the "way things should be" back in the sixties. Good music, though...
Your fourth point: I'm a Christian White Dude, so I can't express my opinion without automatically having that thrown in my face. I should hang my head in shame for all the oppression I have forced on people throughout history. Yeah, we'll see how my opinion changes about letting the majority make decisions I don't agree with as soon as something goes my way, because things have just been going swimmingly so far...
Your next point: If it's an amendment, written by an elected legislature, then it is by definition *Constitutional* and a judge will not be able to say otherwise. Maybe you didn't catch that?
Finally, we come full circle. Why don't you read something other than what Oprah tells you and learn why some of us "wingnuts" think the way we do. It might not be because we're just crazy/brainwashed/evil. I don't think that about you (well, maybe brainwashed).
Oh yeah, and you're not an idiot, I just thought I'd come out swinging.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm gratified that you're calling me an idiot, in fact. I'd be more concerned if you were agreeing with me or expressing respect, actually.
quote: Your second "point:" Why don't you try the same?
Oh, I already have. Unlike you, I don't think that no sane person could disagree with me on issues of same-sex marriage or abortion. So it's pretty ridiculous of you to suggest that I should do what I've already done-if you don't believe me, well, check my posts on other similar threads, or something. That's your problem.
quote: Your third "point:" I don't want to radically change freedom of speech; that radical change occurred a few decades ago when the radicals were able to make inroads into the coarsening of society in manners that include, but are not limited to, the freedom to produce pornography. No one thought it was okay until you anti-Christian started trying to subject us to your vision of the "way things should be" back in the sixties. Good music, though...
Did I miss something, or was the way things were back in the 1960s really the benchmark by which we should measure our cultural and legal values? I don't normally make that kind of argument, but you brought it up.
You need to do a lot better than 'coarsening society' to radically alter (not 'un-alter', because you're altering things from the way they are now) a substantial component of freedom of speech. Or depending on how you look at it, a fundamental portion of freedom of speech: the one which says you need a better reason than, "It's obscene!" to tell people, "You can't say it."
It's fascinating that you label me an anti-Christian. I very much doubt you know precisely which kind of Christian I am, but if you did know...well, let's just say I actually wouldn't be surprised if after knowing that you still decided to label me an anti-Christian.
quote:Your fourth point: I'm a Christian White Dude, so I can't express my opinion without automatically having that thrown in my face. I should hang my head in shame for all the oppression I have forced on people throughout history. Yeah, we'll see how my opinion changes about letting the majority make decisions I don't agree with as soon as something goes my way, because things have just been going swimmingly so far...
My point is that it's easy to say, "Support the majority!" when your view is in line with the majority. The US Constitution does not, however, simply say, "The majority rules." You can, you know, read it if you'd like to try to prove me wrong. We're not just a democracy.
Oh, right, you're so oppressed. Man, the white Christian men in the USA are really getting screwed over! I say this as a white Christian man, mind you.
quote:If it's an amendment, written by an elected legislature, then it is by definition *Constitutional* and a judge will not be able to say otherwise. Maybe you didn't catch that?
It's a good thing we don't have such an amendment, then, isn't it?
quote:Finally, we come full circle. Why don't you read something other than what Oprah tells you and learn why some of us "wingnuts" think the way we do. It might not be because we're just crazy/brainwashed/evil. I don't think that about you (well, maybe brainwashed).
In my entire life, I've watched perhaps one full hour of the Oprah Winfrey show. I'm talking cumulative there, in fact. How long has her show been on the air? I've also never read a book that was on her list, or at least not because it was on my list.
Nice try though, jackass! Is that the best you've got? A shot that weak really just pads my ego, because like I said above, it pleases me that you disagree with me.
I actually have a very good idea why people who are against abortion and same-sex marriage are against those things. I just think it's stupid and intolerant to say, "No sane person isn't against those things."
quote:Oh yeah, and you're not an idiot, I just thought I'd come out swinging.
Good grief, you're about as verbally scary as a talking parrot.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're just a retainer for AFPU. I'm one of the founding members!
The fact remains that even glorious talking feathered animals, while impressive and possibly even worthy of worship, are not very intimidating verbally speaking.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was trying to teach my friends' scarlet macaw to say "More treats, monkey slave!" when she wanted a treat, but I'm not over there often enough to provide the amount of repetition it would take.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true. The pay isn't very good either*. I only took the position because they said they could get me an in with the Union of Pirates and Assorted Salty Scalawags.
*Although I suppose crackers are better than peanuts.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In my entire life, I've watched perhaps one full hour of the Oprah Winfrey show."
About 59 minutes more than I've seen (the one minute I've seen was clips on The Soup of Tom Cruise jumping on a couch, so you lose.)
So you're Christian of some sort (I had gathered that from your posts in other threads.) So why are you a traitor to your own religion? In Muslim countries you could get publicly executed. Here, you just get yelled at by some random internet weirdo.
Oh, you're a White Christian Dude, too huh? We should hang out, talk about our Christmas bonuses. Seriously though, why are you a traitor to your White Christian Dude-ness? I mean that, like, super-seriously.
Okay, so the only real point that I'd like to address is the "1960's benchmark" thing. Did I say that? Or did I just say that one symptom of our moral decay began in the 60's, namely, the abuse of the right to free speech. While some were trying to make things better in a way that was actually wise and good, others (let's call them hippie douches) were trying to make things better in a way that was... stupid, and smelly. Don't be stupid and smelly.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It might not be because we're just crazy/brainwashed/evil. I don't think that about you (well, maybe brainwashed).
Really?
quote: but that's only because no sane person would even consider those things to be in question.
Contradict yourself much?
--Enigmatic
Uh, yeah... Have you not figured out what's going one yet?
Oh wait, I get it! You're saying that... because I said no sane person would believe certain things... and because I said I don't think Rakeesh might be brainwashed, no wait, because I said he isn't evil or crazy... ... no wait... so I'm contradicting myself because...
Nevermind, I don't get what you're saying after all.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:About 59 minutes more than I've seen (the one minute I've seen was clips on The Soup of Tom Cruise jumping on a couch, so you lose.)
Good for you! You've got more social-conservative cred than I do, then. Not that I was ever in that foot race to begin with.
quote:So you're Christian of some sort (I had gathered that from your posts in other threads.) So why are you a traitor to your own religion? In Muslim countries you could get publicly executed. Here, you just get yelled at by some random internet weirdo.
Oh, you're a White Christian Dude, too huh? We should hang out, talk about our Christmas bonuses. Seriously though, why are you a traitor to your White Christian Dude-ness? I mean that, like, super-seriously.
OK, see, I recognize what you're doing what with all the jokes and all. But the thing is, I remember your not-so-old posting style. My personal belief is that you still believe the things you used to when you started around here, it's just that you've dressed it up a bit. So I don't think you're entirely joking when you label me a 'traitor to my own religion'.
Did I renounce Jesus Christ as my savior sometime in the past few minutes? I didn't have a recorder running, but perhaps I typed it somewhere. Let me check.
Nope, I just asked my AIM buddies, and they don't remember hearing me say anything like that, so I don't think I DID betray my own religion, which is founded on an awful more than, "You guys! Don't be having sex on camera and then selling it to people!"
Still, it was a decent attempt at dodging by joking every point I and a few other people made to your original stupid, intolerant ranting.
quote:Okay, so the only real point that I'd like to address is the "1960's benchmark" thing. Did I say that? Or did I just say that one symptom of our moral decay began in the 60's, namely, the abuse of the right to free speech. While some were trying to make things better in a way that was actually wise and good, others (let's call them hippie douches) were trying to make things better in a way that was... stupid, and smelly. Don't be stupid and smelly.
You have yet to explain why, even a little bit, how producing pornography is an abuse of the right to free speech. Remember! Saying, "It's morally repugnant!" isn't actually an answer. Important reminder for you there.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Uh, yeah... Have you not figured out what's going one yet?
It's fun watching you attempt to repudiate your more bluntly trollish posting style with humor now. I wonder how many people you're actually tricking?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
