Battra92 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Also, I was in Fredericksberg TX yesterday. I am so jealous of that green grass. We don't have snow but the lawns are all mud now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 It was sunny and 70. Beautiful day yesterday and today is going to be the same. I need to go back and get some of that german beer they brew down there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TheMightyEthan Posted February 23, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) First thing, thanks for the actual response Battra. Now there are two things I would like to respond to: And one issue voter? Look, most of the things I talk about may be gay rights, but I care about much more than that. I care about everyone having the right to an abortion. I didn't know you had a uterus. I can understand men being pro-life but not pro-abortion. It just doesn't compute with me. So it's impossible to care about the rights of others if it doesn't directly address your own rights? Why, as a man, can I not support women's rights? Since we seem to like throwing around quotes: "First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me." Just because they're not my rights in question doesn't mean I shouldn't care about them. Citizens United should be dissolved, 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. *Edit* - Somehow my response to this didn't get saved, so here is a paraphrasing: Yes, the people have that right, but I don't think that should extend to non-human corporations, which is what Citizens United did. If an individual wants to spend their own money then that is absolutely fine, they should absolutely be able to do that. I'm even okay with people being able to set up a Super PAC so they can work together to effectively use that money rather than everyone trying to do it on their own. What I am not okay with is corporations being able to donate to that Super PAC. I also take issue with the idea enshrined in Citizens United that money=speech. That means people with more money get more speech and get to have more influence and that is severely damaging to the very core of our democracy. I understand that to a certain extent it has always been and will always be that way, but that doesn't mean we have to embrace it, we can still try to limit the disproportionality of the wealthy's influence. Finally, I think you might have highlighted the wrong part, as I think there is a much better argument supporting Citizen's United in the "of the press" part, because for a long long time the press has been primarily composed of companies rather than individuals, and the fact that they're not individuals would certainly not make it any less violative of the constitution to limit what they can say. Edited February 23, 2012 by TheMightyEthan 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Can not believe I'm actually responding to this post... So closing a state budget deficit without raising taxes, put a 2% property tax cap in place, took significant first steps (raising the retirement age and requiring more to be paid in by state workers) toward rectifying the insane pension system that NJ State workers had is doing worse. Sorry that he said that Gay marriage required a state constitutional amendment and suggested it be put up for referendum. If you'll notice, he didn't say every single thing Chris Christie has done is worse. It is entirely possible that Chris has done some good things while still doing some fairly horrible things. I would not know, because I don't really know who this guy is, but if that's the case then the good things do not make the bad things go away. You wished death on him. Duke did not, in fact, wish death on Chris Christie. Why should I hate on gay people? I merely joke about you being gay because that's the one thing you can't fix with your seedy practices. See where this goes? I don't even know where to begin. What "Seedy practices"? And why are you acting like being gay is something Duke has to fix? Oh, wait, I think I know why. I didn't know you had a uterus. I can understand men being pro-life but not pro-abortion. It just doesn't compute with me. There is so much wrong with this. Men can't care about women's rights? Also, you think the girl in a relationship is the only person who might be impacted by accidental pregnancies? You care about bankrupting the country and having health care rates going up even higher. This is one of the most baseless accusations I've seen in ages. Almost as ridiculous as claiming Obama hates America or something. Just because someone has a different idea of how to fix the problem than you, that does not mean that they are trying to make the problem worse. Your answer seems to be moving to a much more controlled economy than we have now. How's that worked out for Greece? Sweden says hi. We're doing rather well and we're a far more socialistic country than the US. Yes, Greece is in deep shit, but quite frankly so is the US and I don't see how your "completely free and unregulated open market" dream has helped you. See now this is just ignorance, plain and simple. I assume you also want every charity and non-profit to have to pay considerable amount of taxes, right? How is this possibly ignorance? Whatever dude. Quite frankly, I find it amazing that your response to having an accusation you made criticized is to say "whatever" and post far more outlandish accusations than the first one. I'd be surprised if you could take part in any political discussion without devolving it into personal insults and accusations. You first. How much did you pay last year? The entire point of having the rich pay more taxes is that they have far more money and thus won't be as economically hurt by it as poor people. Everyone pays taxes according to ability. That the person who makes the argument does not pay a lot of taxes (as, of course, a student like Duke would be unable to do) does not disqualify the argument. What have you done for the poor? See previous response. 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. This is something that bugs me a lot about american politics. It'd be nice if people could support their views with an actual argument for why it is better, instead of pointing to the (oh so infallible) founding fathers. I get that you have a short, very recent, history, but should we not look towards the present for solutions, instead of asking ourselves what some people who lived hundreds of years ago would have to say on the subject? Well it's nice you can read off Democrat talking points. I'm sure someone appreciates that. Battra: "You only care about one thing!" Duke: "No, I care about all these other things as well." Battra: "They do not count because they are things a democrat would care about!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 And one issue voter? Look, most of the things I talk about may be gay rights, but I care about much more than that. I care about everyone having the right to an abortion. I didn't know you had a uterus. I can understand men being pro-life but not pro-abortion. It just doesn't compute with me. Other's have already cover the many points, so I'll just go at this one no one else has. May I ask the purpose behind your recent phase of using different words and phrases. For examples yesterdays "Ronaldo Magnus". And now your particular choosing of the phrase "pro-abortion" when you know full well that the stance is "pro-choice". ending discrimination toward Muslims Really? This is some major issue? No, muslims are successfully integrated and made to feel comfortable in US culture. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) If I had to hazard a guess as to where Battra and Yant would be, I'd guess somewhere in the purple quadrant. you was wrong! OH yeah, and just to but in on the conversation: @Duke, hating haters is still hate. Edited February 23, 2012 by Yantelope V2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 @Yant: I believe Duke said he does not hate this person. Though even if he did, I am completely fine with hating people who hate unprovoked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Duke has made several comments like the one about Chris Christie that read like hate to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Duke has made several comments like the one about Chris Christie that read like hate to me. Yeah, I've been overboard with some of my statements before. I'll try not to do it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Duke has made several comments like the one about Chris Christie that read like hate to me. But he's on the left so we should all like his hate posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 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. This is something that bugs me a lot about american politics. It'd be nice if people could support their views with an actual argument for why it is better, instead of pointing to the (oh so infallible) founding fathers. I get that you have a short, very recent, history, but should we not look towards the present for solutions, instead of asking ourselves what some people who lived hundreds of years ago would have to say on the subject? That's not just some random quote from one of the founding fathers, that's a quote from the Constitution, the legal document establishing what powers the government has and what rights of the people it cannot infringe upon. It's legally binding and thus very relevant to whether a Supreme Court decision is correct or should be overturned. That said, I agree that people far too often focus on "what the founding fathers would have wanted." It doesn't make any sense to me why America, which is so (understandably) afraid of giving too much power to the government or to any small group of people, wants to shackle itself to the views of a couple dozen people from more than 200 years ago. To use another quote, Thomas Paine said "The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Duke has made several comments like the one about Chris Christie that read like hate to me. But he's on the left so we should all like his hate posts. I'll have you know that I frequently find Duke's attitude in his posts grating and off-putting (no offense Duke), even though I tend to agree with his points. But that's okay, keep on making those generalizations and belittling the opposition, it's not like that's grating or off-putting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 That's not just some random quote from one of the founding fathers, that's a quote from the Constitution, the legal document establishing what powers the government has and what rights of the people it cannot infringe upon. It's legally binding and thus very relevant to whether a Supreme Court decision is correct or should be overturned. I was aware that it was the constitution, and I know the constitution is incredibly unbelievably hard to do anything about, but... While the constitution has a lot of power legally, I don't think that means it's automatically right about what should be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Americans are extremely proud of what we've been able to accomplish in a relatively short time as a nation and we attribute a lot of that to the wisdom of the founding fathers in how they crafted the nation. I think a lot of the reason why we are willing to respect the founding fathers opinions is because of the evidence of just how successful their ideals were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Frankly, I don't even think it's possible to fully understand what the founding fathers "wanted". We're talking about men who drafted up a document hundreds of years ago in a completely different society who certainly didn't foresee the kind of America we're living in today. All we can really do with the constitution is run with our best interpretation of it from a modern point of view. Don't even get me started on that second amendment. Ideas for what that one means are all over the place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Why can't we know what their ideals were? We have lots of their writings and opinions and we have tons of historical context in which to place it so we have good ideas of what they were for and against at the time and what their basic ideals were. I don't think that those ideals of freedom and opportunity change with time. The best way to implement them might change but isn't arguing over that what we call politics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) We can't know what they would want because their ideals back then were just that: ideals for their time. If, through some witchcraft or whatever, they were still alive in the present, who's to say they wouldn't feel differently about how things should work now? Saying that the constitution should be adhered to is fine. I agree with that sentiment. But saying that some modern ideal is "what the founding fathers would want" makes no sense to me. Edited February 23, 2012 by Mister Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 There's no difference in the freedom of religion back then as there is today. There is no difference from providing the right to the pursuit of happiness today. There is no difference in the freedom from religious persecution today. There is no difference in your rights to freedom of political speech today. The ideals never change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 See we have no constitution and I don't think it'd be immodest to say we've gotten very far without one. I think it provides much flexibility, thus as times change, things like the industrial revolution, the information revolution, etc crop up, then the laws that govern the land can adapt, instead of being restrictive and hold back to a "how things were back in the good old days" kind of manner. However it's my understanding the US constitution wasn't meant to last this long. That it was meant to be completely re-done every century or so, yet instead has remained largely the same with a few dabs of tippex and post-it notes on it. Which I would argue means, yes it's gotten America where it is today. But it's not going to let it go any further. But because, from my viewpoint, the US Constitution is held tightly like some holy scripture, not to be touched, almost sacred and worshipped, the idea of making a new one would be...well blasphemy. It's the 21st century. A new age. New ways that society and the world interact. It needs a new constitution. A lot has happened in US and global history since. @Yante: What are their views on the freedom of information on a global scale? The separation of work and private life. The rights and restrictions of the gov't and commercial entities to track a private citizen. etc. Technology has opened up so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Who gives a crap what their ideals were? They were great guys for their time. Their time was a LONG time ago. Society has evolved, our values have evolved, they do not represent us anymore. You'll note that we changed our minds on the whole slavery thing, for one. What the founding fathers would think should not be germane to modern politics, because life is progress, and you can't progress if you're falling back on ideas more than two hundred years old. Don't do what the founding fathers would have wanted. They lived their lives, and then they died. They don't get to decide policy anymore. They are six feet under. Act on what works TODAY, act on the best ideas of TODAY, quietly respect the founding fathers, and leave it at that. I don't know how an entire nation finds this concept so difficult. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Well, you are talking about holding America back but the majority of Americans still consider it the greatest nation on the earth and as such are not eager to abandon the principles which have led to greatness. Well sure, you have to discuss what the best ways are to protect privacy and information in the new age of technology but you're trying to preserve the ideal that individuals have some right to privacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Slavery was an issue of the implementation of ideals. The ideal was "all men are created equal" but clearly people weren't considering slaves men as they were 3/5ths of a man or whatever. It was shocking to me that the ideal that all men are created equal was not interpreted as such in the beginning but you're still arguing over what that ideal means not actually trying to change the ideal. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Well, you are talking about holding America back but the majority of Americans still consider it the greatest nation on the earth and as such are not eager to abandon the principles which have led to greatness. Well sure, you have to discuss what the best ways are to protect privacy and information in the new age of technology but you're trying to preserve the ideal that individuals have some right to privacy. Our nation is massively in debt. Our Congress is pathetically ineffectual at getting the job done. Our government run programs are horribly inefficient. Our data infrastructure is years behind the rest of the developed world. Our health, as a nation, is abysmal. Our class divide keeps growing (I'm sure you'll contest that one despite the facts), and much of the business that was once ours has disappeared overseas. I don't know what the greatest nation on Earth is, but it sure as shit isn't America. And if it was, that would only be because every other nation is so fucked up that we win by default. We have a LOT of work to do, and we're not doing it. Principles and values need to change with the times. While once upon a time, cultures ran on "an eye for an eye", we now have far more forgiving justice systems, because our society's values have changed. The world never stops turning. Technology and science advance, and that doesn't just make life easier, it changes things. It changes how we act, how we think. The word "stale" comes to kind, because that's what we live in- a stale, stagnated nation. Let's get rolling again. Whether by changing things in ways that I approve of (to the left, mostly) or in ways you do (to the right), all I know is we can't sit still. We can't keep things going the way we are. Trillions of dollars of debt, and what do we have to show for it? We can't keep doing this. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I'd like to note that a very large percentage of every nation considers their nation the greatest. Personally, I think that's hubris on a national scale. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Well, I'm sure there are some small nation states that might be able to brag about how much they love their country but take a trip to China, Russia, Mexico, India or any of the other large major world powers and see how they compare on the metrics you just presented (healthcare, green energy, financial health, personal freedom). There's a balance to be made for sure. This may even go over to the world politics thing but the EU has probably pissed away their future in the last 10 years with their spending. I guess we'll see. America does need to get out of debt. It's liberal entitlements that are burying us. I don't really think you can call our health care abysmal. Most people who want the best care (and can afford it) still come here for their care. Also this. http://upload.wikime...IA_factbook.svg Class division arguments are BS. Even our poor people have cable TV. Poverty in America is a joke. We have the richest poor people in the world (with the exception of the EU probably). Oh yeah, and as far as "green" energy (which is a money pit anyway). There's this: http://online.wsj.co...1838421366.html and this as a rebuttal to critics: http://online.wsj.co...4084429540.html I particularly love this "Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that "the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible." Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models. " Edited February 23, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.