What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Unlike others here, I do think there's something to the fact that there are no protestants on the courts. IMO its a general goal to have a court that represents the country.

Any cornerstone belief system (such as religious POV) that is held by the vast majority of the country, but is not represented at all on the court should be a significant issue. There's a breakdown in representation...which is kinda what our govt is all about. Other than political balance, what else really matters?
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

The religious affiliation per se -- which god your parents picked for you -- isn't the "point of view," though. I can see where you could argue that basic Judeo-Christian beliefs have a place in public discourse, even explicitly and not just because we inherited them on the way to western civilization, but Jews and Catholics are quite as representative of those as Baptists and Methodists.

It's the difference between liking baseball and liking a given team. A nation of baseball fans should have baseball fans on the Court, but there shouldn't be a Yankee fan slot.

I'm all for having an Agnostic seat, however. Though I suspect there has probably never been a time in the Court's history when there wasn't as least one circumspect Doubter on the bench.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Don't know if I fully agree. There is a substantial difference between the new and old testaments. Can you imagine the uproar if there was even one Muslim on the courts? Jewish posters may chime in on this one. Also, we're not talking about the legislative branch or even the executive branch...SCOTUS makes the call on subtle moral issues every day. I guess in the end, depending on the individuals in question, a Catholic may represent a moderate Christian perspective well enough.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

5mn_Major said:
Don't know if I fully agree. There is a substantial difference between the new and old testaments. Jewish posters may chime in on this one. Also, we're not talking about the legislative branch or even the executive branch...SCOTUS makes the call on subtle moral issues every day. I guess in the end, depending on the individuals in question, a Catholic may represent a moderate Christian perspective well enough.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. There's just something about particularized identities having reserved slots that makes me queasy, while generalized identities are less an issue. To pick on liberal causes, I don't like the idea of a specifically black or Latino seat, but I understand the need to have racial minorities on the Court. All IMHO of course.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Plante26 said:
Gays are equal under the law. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else. There's nothing abstract about it. Unless you're arguing that homosexuals deserve to be a protected class, which is complete bunk to begin with.
Click to expand...
Seriously? People are still using this argument in 2010 with a straight (no pun intended) face? In the 1950s, you had the right to marry someone from your own race, just like anyone else.

Absolutely ridiculous argument.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

ScottM said:
Perhaps Obama then should have gone to a Wal-Mart on a Saturday.
Click to expand...

"You elected Bush because he was a guy you'd like to have a beer with. Next time you're in a bar at closing time, look around. See any presidents?"
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

LynahFan said:
Seriously? People are still using this argument in 2010 with a straight (no pun intended) face? In the 1950s, you had the right to marry someone from your own race, just like anyone else.

Absolutely ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...

Not when you consider that race isn't included in the definition of the word "marriage". Once you start changing the definition of words, you're heading down a very dangerous slippery slope.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Plante26 said:
Not when you consider that race isn't included in the definition of the word "marriage". Once you start changing the definition of words, you're heading down a very dangerous slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Again. Intellectually dishonest. Do you have a clue how many different definitions of marriage there are in the world? Whose definition are you using?
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Kepler said:
"You elected Bush because he was a guy you'd like to have a beer with. Next time you're in a bar at closing time, look around. See any presidents?"
Click to expand...

No, but you'll probably see a lot of Congressmen......you know, arguing loudly and incessently over trivial issues......and of course, there's the occasional uncontrolled outburst.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

ScoobyDoo said:
Again. Intellectually dishonest. Do you have a clue how many different definitions of marriage there are in the world? Whose definition are you using?
Click to expand...

We can start with the definition held by 99% of the world since the beginning of recorded history.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Patman said:
edit #2: how does the "fair tax" eliminate the "underground economy"... somebody's going to come in and magically tax the black market? Or is it that the government will have such a vested interest on making sure you paid taxes when you paid your baby sitter? What gets taxed? What doesn't?
Click to expand...
Patman

As I see it, because any consumption tax that is collected at the point of sale is easily auditable, plus is it should be more "fair" than the current income tax.

If people perceive that a tax is "fair", then they are more willing to pay the tax knowing that few, if any, people are evading the tax. When a tax is perceived to be "unfair" people do their darndest to avoid paying the tax. Witness how we pay armies of accountants to make sure that we pay the lowest possible income tax.

As to auditable, however a state or locality assures it is collecting the proper sales tax, is the same method that Uncle Sam could use to verify the proper payment of fair tax. In the end, I don't care how you got your income, you have to spend it someplace.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Plante26 said:
We can start with the definition held by 99% of the world since the beginning of recorded history.
Click to expand...

You mean this definition?

"According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry. At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.[7] To take on more than one wife often requires considerable resources: this may put polygamy beyond the means of the vast majority of people within those societies. Such appears the case in many traditional Islamic societies, and in Imperial China. Within polygynous societies, multiple wives often become a status symbol denoting wealth and power. Similarly, within societies that formally prohibit polygamy, social opinion may look favorably on people maintaining mistresses or engaging in serial monogamy."

Try again.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

joecct said:
Patman

As I see it, because any consumption tax that is collected at the point of sale is easily auditable, plus is it should be more "fair" than the current income tax.
Click to expand...

Right now, the government doesn't see one red cent from under the table transactions and other "underground" transactions (to include illegal stuff, like the drug trade), because babysitters and drug dealers aren't exactly filling out W-4 forms.

Since the FairTax is a tax on consumption rather than productivity, those people are taxed for the first time. Say a drug dealer makes 100k a year selling weed. He doesn't pay a dime to the government, because what he does is illegal. Under the FairTax, however, when he goes to spend that money on anything legal (which everyone has to do at some point), from a burrito at 7-11 to a brand new sports car, he's paying the consumption tax.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Plante26 said:
We can start with the definition held by 99% of the world since the beginning of recorded history.
Click to expand...

Always like the "because its always been this way" argument. Plante, are we to take it that you're okay with slavery too, since you know, its been a common practice for 99% of recorded history.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Kepler said:
Fair enough. There's just something about particularized identities having reserved slots that makes me queasy, while generalized identities are less an issue. To pick on liberal causes, I don't like the idea of a specifically black or Latino seat, but I understand the need to have racial minorities on the Court. All IMHO of course.
Click to expand...

agree. f. I agree with Kepler. my life is going down the tubes! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top