dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
And he's a member of the highest court in the land? Jeebus.
And he's a member of the highest court in the land? Jeebus.
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 IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
I did not get the impression that he was happy about that situation - just realistic.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
It seemed pretty clear from the context that he was strongly against the practice and was merely saying that people get carried away sometimes despite our best intentions and it's naive to believe otherwise.
It seemed pretty clear from the context that he was strongly against the practice and was merely saying that people get carried away sometimes despite our best intentions and it's naive to believe otherwise.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Also known as "pulling a FlagDUDE".
Yeah, at work I just read the headline and react accordingly or save it for later and read the whole thing. I chose #1 this time.
Also known as "pulling a FlagDUDE".
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
False. That would have been:
Also known as "pulling a FlagDUDE".
False. That would have been:
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
When it comes to the 4th amendment, you switch Breyer and Scalia from their usual cohorts.
Alito is the judge who would sell his mother out to the cops in the name of national security.
When it comes to the 4th amendment, you switch Breyer and Scalia from their usual cohorts.
Alito is the judge who would sell his mother out to the cops in the name of national security.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Kind of interesting timing, as I think there was a fair amount of discussion here about the tests applied to government action affecting various classes under the equal protection clause of the 14th. Korematsu came to stand for what it takes to pass the strict scrutiny given laws affecting suspect classes. It's also proof of what people will tolerate from their government, or even ask for, out of fear.
Kind of interesting timing, as I think there was a fair amount of discussion here about the tests applied to government action affecting various classes under the equal protection clause of the 14th. Korematsu came to stand for what it takes to pass the strict scrutiny given laws affecting suspect classes. It's also proof of what people will tolerate from their government, or even ask for, out of fear.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Once we had a society in which certain things were more important than politics. It's a good topic for a thread about the law because for several hundred years, all "sides" agreed that there were several "rules" that were so important, both sides needed to follow them, so that there was sufficient trust to go around to allow people to negotiate through periods of intense disagreement. Even if one "side" had control of the White House and both branches of Congress, there were still "rules" that mattered so much, they'd be observed, because in the long run it was more important for all of us to have a framework within which we could get along than it was for one side totally to dominate the other.
I don't think I'm alone in being concerned about whether that is still the case or not in the past five years. I was very surprised to find some validation from a totally unexpected source.
Someone did a psychological study that compared how conservatives and progressives viewed each other and the world. In an interesting twist, each side was asked to explain the other side's point of view.
To oversimplify:
-- conservatives could explain the progressive point of view. They merely disagreed with it. To them, progressives meant well and were merely misguided or unable to think things through clearly. They were not inherently bad, just naive.
-- progressives were not able to explain the conservative point of view. Lacking the ability to understand it, their fallback explanation was that conservatives "must have" something inherently wrong with their moral character. There was not merely a disagreement about good or bad ideas, there was a fundamental difference between good and evil itself.
Once we had a society in which certain things were more important than politics. It's a good topic for a thread about the law because for several hundred years, all "sides" agreed that there were several "rules" that were so important, both sides needed to follow them, so that there was sufficient trust to go around to allow people to negotiate through periods of intense disagreement. Even if one "side" had control of the White House and both branches of Congress, there were still "rules" that mattered so much, they'd be observed, because in the long run it was more important for all of us to have a framework within which we could get along than it was for one side totally to dominate the other.
I don't think I'm alone in being concerned about whether that is still the case or not in the past five years. I was very surprised to find some validation from a totally unexpected source.
Someone did a psychological study that compared how conservatives and progressives viewed each other and the world. In an interesting twist, each side was asked to explain the other side's point of view.
To oversimplify:
-- conservatives could explain the progressive point of view. They merely disagreed with it. To them, progressives meant well and were merely misguided or unable to think things through clearly. They were not inherently bad, just naive.
-- progressives were not able to explain the conservative point of view. Lacking the ability to understand it, their fallback explanation was that conservatives "must have" something inherently wrong with their moral character. There was not merely a disagreement about good or bad ideas, there was a fundamental difference between good and evil itself.
unofan
Well-known member
We did? When was this golden period of history? The founding fathers were extremely political. The issues may have changed, but the bickering had always been there.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Forget it, he's rolling.
Forget it, he's rolling.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Exactly. I had a friend like Fishy where he was a total BS artist, but if you just let it go and didn't challenge it you always ended up hearing an even better BS story!
Exactly. I had a friend like Fishy where he was a total BS artist, but if you just let it go and didn't challenge it you always ended up hearing an even better BS story!
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!?!
Exactly. I had a friend like Fishy where he was a total BS artist, but if you just let it go and didn't challenge it you always ended up hearing an even better BS story!
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!?!
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Well said. But, recognize people will ignore the obvious if it doesn't fit their desired narrative.
unofan
Well-known member
[Pot_kettle_youre_black.jpg]
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
There have been rules and it is concerning. But two things...I don't recall 'playing outside of the rules' until the GOP began in earnest. Under Reagan to a lesser extent (from a treatment of respect if not policy) to W, the GOP arrived at this first. Second, some of the last 5 years is understandable...during the financial crisis, extraordinary steps were necessary, were taken and turned out to work quite effectively. The US is not full stop healthy, but that has to do with jobs moving to regions of higher global workforce productivity rather than bad policy.
Although those words seem a bit slanted, I think there is some truth there. But you have to remember the conservative spokespeople. Say what you want about an Al Gore...but ultimately his intentions are good. On the flip side, you have Donald Rumsfeld, Michelle Bachman, and Focus on Family...who while following the most compassionate person in history preaches intolerance. For many of us, its a pretty glaring comparison.
There have been rules and it is concerning. But two things...I don't recall 'playing outside of the rules' until the GOP began in earnest. Under Reagan to a lesser extent (from a treatment of respect if not policy) to W, the GOP arrived at this first. Second, some of the last 5 years is understandable...during the financial crisis, extraordinary steps were necessary, were taken and turned out to work quite effectively. The US is not full stop healthy, but that has to do with jobs moving to regions of higher global workforce productivity rather than bad policy.
Although those words seem a bit slanted, I think there is some truth there. But you have to remember the conservative spokespeople. Say what you want about an Al Gore...but ultimately his intentions are good. On the flip side, you have Donald Rumsfeld, Michelle Bachman, and Focus on Family...who while following the most compassionate person in history preaches intolerance. For many of us, its a pretty glaring comparison.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Plus, Gore isn't a good example, as there's a lot of liberals I disagree with that I'd give a lot more credit for meaning good in what they do than Gore.
You demonstrate what FF just posted. You assume Gore's intentions are good, but folks like Focus on the Family's intentions aren't. Tunnel vision all the way.
Plus, Gore isn't a good example, as there's a lot of liberals I disagree with that I'd give a lot more credit for meaning good in what they do than Gore.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Right. We all know that Gore is out to conquer the globe with his.... solar powered .... windmills ... how exactly is Al Gore going to conquer the world? Put us all to sleep with power point presentations?
Right. We all know that Gore is out to conquer the globe with his.... solar powered .... windmills ... how exactly is Al Gore going to conquer the world? Put us all to sleep with power point presentations?
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Are you aware of how much money Gore has made from the green movement? What's that meme, "TEXA$" is the answer.
Are you aware of how much money Gore has made from the green movement? What's that meme, "TEXA$" is the answer.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Umm...I did say there is truth in what FF said.
I have yet to see many say solar is horrible. So if someone promotes something that's good for society while making money at it...is that really bad? I'm fine with a win/win...as I kind of thought that was what United States capitalism was founded on. Does everyone with opposing political views have to be Mother Theresa? Halliburton is not.
Umm...I did say there is truth in what FF said.
I have yet to see many say solar is horrible. So if someone promotes something that's good for society while making money at it...is that really bad? I'm fine with a win/win...as I kind of thought that was what United States capitalism was founded on. Does everyone with opposing political views have to be Mother Theresa? Halliburton is not.
- Status