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.

The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
Where by "surprised" read "horrified." From the experience of Europe the Founders hated two things: kings and thumpers. America was created to ditch both.
Click to expand...

Well, not quite. The Kings hated thumpers too and shipped them over here. Hello, 400 years of sexual repression.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

bronconick said:
Well, not quite. The Kings hated thumpers too and shipped them over here. Hello, 400 years of sexual repression.
Click to expand...
One of the great myths is that the Puritans were sexually repressed. Most weren't -- in fact a majority of the first generation of white children born in America were the result of sex outside of marriage. We've always been a continent of sluts, and thank god for that. The only thing the Pures did differently was they were hypocrites about it.

That's what happens when you stick 15 year old girls and 17 year old boys together, and it has in every age in every place on Earth. Thumpers are just as likely to thump as everyone else -- in fact judging from the demographics evangelical Christians probably have the loosest sexual morals in the country (which explains the virulent backlash and attempt to blame everyone else). Think about it -- everybody's parents had sex, and nobody has ever met anybody as asexual as their parents. :)
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
The focus should be on getting the votes and getting the amendments. Just pass a flipping amendment that leaves no doubt that our age accepts that having an EPA or an FDA or a Department of Education are explicitly within the powers of the federal government.
Click to expand...

On this we completely agree. The Constitution was supposed to be the chains weighing down gov't so that it couldn't trample all over the individual. Unfortunately, those chains have been broken and its going to take a massive upheaval to put them back on.

To paraphrase Jefferson: It is the natural incination of things for gov't to grow and libery to yeild
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
We should stop trying to reinvent the Founders as some sort of Libertarian think tank. They were products of a different age with different perspectives. The only view you would get uniformally from them if you ran these "original intent" arguments past them would be, "Good God, you guys are still treating our words like Scripture 230 years later? That's very flattering, but we were hopeful you might be able to design your own appropriate system every generation or so."
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that to a certain extent. I also don't doubt that they'd be appalled that the federal government has grown to the size it has, wields as much power as it does and has amassed as much debt as it has.

Though, when the Founders refer to certain inalienable rights being endowed upon us by a Creator......I doubt they'd be alright with government overstepping its bounds on the issues of life, liberty and property/pursuit of happiness.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Plante26 said:
I don't doubt that to a certain extent. I also don't doubt that they'd be appalled that the federal government has grown to the size it has, wields as much power as it does and has amassed as much debt as it has.Though, when the Founders refer to certain inalienable rights being endowed upon us by a Creator......I doubt they'd be alright with government overstepping its bounds on the issues of life, liberty and property/pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...
THis might be a weird thought but at that time there were fairly strict social mores that people ascribed to and communities were very dependent on each other. As time has gone on and people feel or act less attached/responsible for others in their communities it seems there is an attempt to legislate people into particiating in a way that used to be assumed/expected.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
...Think about it -- everybody's parents had sex, and nobody has ever met anybody as asexual as their parents. :)
Click to expand...
Well in this age of same sex marriage and test tube babies, there is some doubt about that adage.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

FreshFish said:
While I am an ardent liberal, I find that these days, I generally have more sympathy with conservatives than with progressives because so many of the latter have the fiery passion of zealots, they are so sure they are right that they brook no dissent. One of the fundamental tenets of philosophical conservatism (not transient political "conservatism") is that people are fallible. It is a bit amusing yet true, yesterday's radical is today's conservative. At the time of the passage of the 14th amendment, conservatives opposed it, yet now conservatives call upon it as a fundamental right. Once enough time passes, conservatives generally do get on board if an idea makes sense to enough people.
Click to expand...

Both sides have the passion of zealots and neither side today considers itself fallible. Its the type A personalities that are attracted to the stage.

I would say 'conservatives ultimately do get on board'. The modern society we take for granted is full of changes conservatives fought against in the 19th century. It does make you wonder about today...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
Because the contemporary American use of that word is the only way it can be used.
Click to expand...

Which of these definitions do you think he was going for:

liberal [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]  
Origin
lib·er·al   [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion.
15. ( often initial capital letter ) a member of a liberal party in politics, especially of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
Click to expand...
 
Priceless said:
Do you seriously think FF is an "ardent liberal"?
Click to expand...

By the definition I'd wager most Americans think of, e.g. Nancy Pelosi, no, of course not.

But my point is, there are other definitions of the term still in use today. Look at many of the liberal parties of Europe, for example. See also, classical liberalism. By that standard, you bet I think he/she is an ardent liberal.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
By the definition I'd wager most Americans think of, e.g. Nancy Pelosi, no, of course not.

But my point is, there are other definitions of the term still in use today. Look at many of the liberal parties of Europe, for example. See also, classical liberalism. By that standard, you bet I think he/she is an ardent liberal.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that's what FreshFish was intending to convey with his statement? I sure as hell don't.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
Reading some of he other posts by FF, I do. What exactly do you think he was trying to convey?
Click to expand...

I think he was being a smartass, for one.

I'm not sold on him being a real person, either. Some of his posts reek of being an alt/troll/etc. He's kinda the bizzaro-Kepler.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
By the definition I'd wager most Americans think of, e.g. Nancy Pelosi, no, of course not.

But my point is, there are other definitions of the term still in use today. Look at many of the liberal parties of Europe, for example. See also, classical liberalism. By that standard, you bet I think he/she is an ardent liberal.
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that it could be what he does mean. But if so, he may be in pretty sparse company in assigning any real value to those definition. I would guess a 90+% of self identified ardent liberals would consider themselves most unlike FF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top