Page 6 of 8 [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Mongoose1
Raven
Raven

Joined: 14 Feb 2016
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 105
Location: In an airbase in Shangri-La

14 Feb 2016, 11:08 pm

From a law student perspective, it's a great loss. Whether you agree with the guy or not, he based his opinions on solid law and not making up the law as he went along - which is not something that several other currently serving justices can say - no matter which side of the aisle they're on. When I was in the service, I took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Those of us who serve have the biggest burden of all because unlike the "suits" (politicians), we know that we may have to give our lives for it - and I very nearly came close to it myself a few times. That being the case, I believe that it is not unreasonable to expect even more of that from the suits who have more power than the military they control. Now, for the record - I'm neither Republican or Democrat. They all lie. Having served both as an enlisted man and as an officer, I've seen them lie. And, it amazes me how people of both sides take their lies as being the truth. But at least Scalia's quotes can be traced to the very case law that he cites. That's not always the case with the other justices. What scares me even more is who Oh-blah-blah (who is as big a liar and any of them) might replace Scalia with.


_________________
Currahee! We stand alone together!


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

14 Feb 2016, 11:15 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
AntDog wrote:
Justice Scalia is dead we are screwed and Obama gets to play dictator.


Yeah, he's a dictator, wanting to extend civil rights to gays, and fighting against voter suppression. :P


Some perspective would be nice.

Obama wants to infringe upon the rights of a far larger portion than the 2% that gays make up and whether they can marry or not.

You can bet the US would have our, Australian, firearm laws if Obama had the say. Yeah, he's not a dictator because he can't do that, but if he could, would he? Yes.

Him doing this would be far, far worst than denying gay people the ability to marry, and he would do it; the reason he can't is because the people say no. The law of the land says no too, but hey, that's up of "interpretation"; kinda like what Scalia and his ilk did and do.

The thing about being liberal is that you should be liberal for all, not just your pet groups.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

14 Feb 2016, 11:19 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
If being a far left social liberal means providing healthcare to those denied coverage due to poverty or disability, or extending civil rights to our LGBT brothers and sisters, then I'm all for it.


Yes, you'd be for stealing from others to give to the poor. How about giving to the poor yourself with others like you? There's enough like you out there so it wouldn't be a problem. That would be fair for everyone, right?

As a poor person, I think it'd be fair for all.

Gay marriage is good as long as whatever Church is ok with it, and a liberal ideology, rather than a socialist one.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,541
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Feb 2016, 11:21 pm

Dillogic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AntDog wrote:
Justice Scalia is dead we are screwed and Obama gets to play dictator.


Yeah, he's a dictator, wanting to extend civil rights to gays, and fighting against voter suppression. :P


Some perspective would be nice.

Obama wants to infringe upon the rights of a far larger portion than the 2% that gays make up and whether they can marry or not.

You can bet the US would have our, Australian, firearm laws if Obama had the say. Yeah, he's not a dictator because he can't do that, but if he could, would he? Yes.

Him doing this would be far, far worst than denying gay people the ability to marry, and he would do it; the reason he can't is because the people say no. The law of the land says no too, but hey, that's up of "interpretation"; kinda like what Scalia and his ilk did and do.

The thing about being liberal is that you should be liberal for all, not just your pet groups.


Number one - I have nothing against responsible gun owners.
Number two - No one is going to take anyone's guns. There is neither any real desire to among sane people, plus it would be impossible.
Number three - So gun owners outnumber gays (though I have to imagine there are gay gun owners); does that supposed to make their plight any less in need of rectifying?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,541
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Feb 2016, 11:28 pm

Dillogic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If being a far left social liberal means providing healthcare to those denied coverage due to poverty or disability, or extending civil rights to our LGBT brothers and sisters, then I'm all for it.


Yes, you'd be for stealing from others to give to the poor. How about giving to the poor yourself with others like you? There's enough like you out there so it wouldn't be a problem. That would be fair for everyone, right?

As a poor person, I think it'd be fair for all.

Gay marriage is good as long as whatever Church is ok with it, and a liberal ideology, rather than a socialist one.


Taxation is NOT THEFT! Is taxation for road repair theft? Is taxation for national defense theft? And I think you know voluntary donations can only go so far - not nearly to the extent of the government's reach.
And as far as gay marriage is concerned - homophobes have made denying marriage to the LGBT community the focus of their culture war, in both secular and religious life. Whether or not churches are okay with it or not has little bearing on everyone from hillbilly county clerks, to state governors, denying marriage licenses to them.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


luan78zao
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

14 Feb 2016, 11:30 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Not nearly enough. And for those who would, such as religious institutions, you have strings attached too often. Case in point, I recall a documentary about a homeless shelter run by the Southern Baptist Church, in which they would only give help to those homeless who would have a "born again experience." After literally hours of bullsh*t preaching and haranguing, the people looking for help finally agreed to be born again in return for food. As a Lutheran, I don't believe in that sort of bullsh*t born again experience, so I guess I'd starve. My point is, private charities too often make people jump through hoops disingenuously in order to get help, and that's clearly wrong. With the government, you get help, born again or not.


So this was the only such charity in town, public or private? Their choice was to comply, or starve? I call BS.

Assuming there's any truth to that story, the Baptists want to help other Baptists, or win converts (which, to them, is saving souls). What is your gripe exactly? They're not obliged to help anybody.

It's pretty normal to want to help people with whom one has something in common, rather than random strangers. A century ago there were thousands of Mutual Aid Societies, in which people of modest means with something in common (often a profession, or a country of origin) combined their resources in order to help each other. Today, in a less organized fashion, I occasionally see requests for fellow alumni, veterans, hobbyists, even Objectivists to donate to "one of ours" who is in need.

But you presume the right to take my money at gunpoint and distribute it according to your standards. By what authority? What makes you think you're entitled to boss people around?

Quote:
There's only so much you can teach though. The Right doesn't like to admit it, but not everybody is equal. The playing field is not level.


Absurd straw man. Nobody says this. However much I practice, I will never be able to play basketball like Michael Jordan, or create music which a billion people want to hear like Kanye West. What of it? Their wealth was not taken from me and I have no claim on it.

Quote:
Some people (myself included) are less capable than others, no matter how much we learn. If society doesn't step in to assist those such as myself, what would happen to us? Slow death on the street.


So you claim the right to support yourself by armed robbery. This is the morality of a common criminal. Thank you for making that clear.


_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand


androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

14 Feb 2016, 11:36 pm

luan78zao wrote:
So you claim the right to support yourself by armed robbery. This is the morality of a common criminal. Thank you for making that clear.

Where did I say anything about armed robbery?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,541
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Feb 2016, 11:41 pm

luan78zao wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Not nearly enough. And for those who would, such as religious institutions, you have strings attached too often. Case in point, I recall a documentary about a homeless shelter run by the Southern Baptist Church, in which they would only give help to those homeless who would have a "born again experience." After literally hours of bullsh*t preaching and haranguing, the people looking for help finally agreed to be born again in return for food. As a Lutheran, I don't believe in that sort of bullsh*t born again experience, so I guess I'd starve. My point is, private charities too often make people jump through hoops disingenuously in order to get help, and that's clearly wrong. With the government, you get help, born again or not.


So this was the only such charity in town, public or private? Their choice was to comply, or starve? I call BS.

Assuming there's any truth to that story, the Baptists want to help other Baptists, or win converts (which, to them, is saving souls). What is your gripe exactly? They're not obliged to help anybody.

It's pretty normal to want to help people with whom one has something in common, rather than random strangers. A century ago there were thousands of Mutual Aid Societies, in which people of modest means with something in common (often a profession, or a country of origin) combined their resources in order to help each other. Today, in a less organized fashion, I occasionally see requests for fellow alumni, veterans, hobbyists, even Objectivists to donate to "one of ours" who is in need.

But you presume the right to take my money at gunpoint and distribute it according to your standards. By what authority? What makes you think you're entitled to boss people around?

Quote:
There's only so much you can teach though. The Right doesn't like to admit it, but not everybody is equal. The playing field is not level.


Absurd straw man. Nobody says this. However much I practice, I will never be able to play basketball like Michael Jordan, or create music which a billion people want to hear like Kanye West. What of it? Their wealth was not taken from me and I have no claim on it.

Quote:
Some people (myself included) are less capable than others, no matter how much we learn. If society doesn't step in to assist those such as myself, what would happen to us? Slow death on the street.


So you claim the right to support yourself by armed robbery. This is the morality of a common criminal. Thank you for making that clear.


I never said the Southern Baptists were the only charity in Dallas, but they certainly were a major one.
And yes, Christians, if they really are Christians, do have to help the needy. And if they don't, then their faith isn't producing works, which is no real faith at all. Plus, there is something untoward about a church that has to make converts of people by coercion by otherwise withholding food and shelter. Then again, I never had a high opinion of the Southern Baptists, or most other evangelical churches. And yes, if your wondering, I am a Christian.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,541
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Feb 2016, 11:43 pm

androbot01 wrote:
luan78zao wrote:
So you claim the right to support yourself by armed robbery. This is the morality of a common criminal. Thank you for making that clear.

Where did I say anything about armed robbery?


That's what righties think needing public support is. That is, till they need it themselves.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

15 Feb 2016, 12:20 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Nothing wrong with voluntary eugenics.


If someone feels pressured, just the same, not to reproduce for reasons of race or disability, it certainly is. Are we Aspies supposed to voluntarily not have children? Because in that case, we might very well be denying the world of science the next Einstein, or the world of literature the next Lovecraft, or Kafka.

I underlined the word voluntary just for you. Here, I'll do it again but also in capps: VOLUNTARY
This is when a couple decides not to produce children that might inherit an undesirable hereditary handicap that one (or both) parents are afflicted with. They are hurting no one, but saving a then unconceived child from a future of hardships. If they still want kids there is always the option to adopt an unwanted existing one. There is no shortage of those in most places.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,541
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Feb 2016, 12:22 am

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Nothing wrong with voluntary eugenics.


If someone feels pressured, just the same, not to reproduce for reasons of race or disability, it certainly is. Are we Aspies supposed to voluntarily not have children? Because in that case, we might very well be denying the world of science the next Einstein, or the world of literature the next Lovecraft, or Kafka.

I underlined the word voluntary just for you. Here, I'll do it again but also in capps: VOLUNTARY
This is when a couple decides not to produce children that might inherit an undesirable hereditary handicap that one (or both) parents are afflicted with. They are hurting no one, but saving a then unconceived child from a future of hardships. If they still want kids there is always the option to adopt an unwanted existing one. There is no shortage of those in most places.


You seriously think disabled people don't live fulfilling lives?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

15 Feb 2016, 12:26 am

luan78zao wrote:
Quote:
And yes, if your wondering, I am a Christian.


So, if you believe it's a moral imperative, what are you doing to help the needy? You seem to have a lot of time to play online. Couldn't you be volunteering in a soup kitchen or something?


I can't wait to hear the answer for this.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,541
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Feb 2016, 12:27 am

luan78zao wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
And yes, Christians, if they really are Christians, do have to help the needy.


This is not a theocracy and I don't care what your imaginary friend says.

Quote:
And yes, if your wondering, I am a Christian.


So, if you believe it's a moral imperative, what are you doing to help the needy? You seem to have a lot of time to play online. Couldn't you be volunteering in a soup kitchen or something?


Theocracy is in the realm of conservative ideology.
And how do you know I haven't ever volunteered my time and money to a worthy cause?
By the way, talk to the religious wing of your party about their and my "imaginary friend," and you'll get an earful. Ask Raptor about his "imaginary friend."


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

15 Feb 2016, 12:38 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Nothing wrong with voluntary eugenics.


If someone feels pressured, just the same, not to reproduce for reasons of race or disability, it certainly is. Are we Aspies supposed to voluntarily not have children? Because in that case, we might very well be denying the world of science the next Einstein, or the world of literature the next Lovecraft, or Kafka.

I underlined the word voluntary just for you. Here, I'll do it again but also in capps: VOLUNTARY
This is when a couple decides not to produce children that might inherit an undesirable hereditary handicap that one (or both) parents are afflicted with. They are hurting no one, but saving a then unconceived child from a future of hardships. If they still want kids there is always the option to adopt an unwanted existing one. There is no shortage of those in most places.


You seriously think disabled people don't live fulfilling lives?


Did I say that?
People with non-hereditary diseases and injuries can and often do live fulfilling lives but that doesn't make them good things to live with.
In the case of hereditary handicaps there's nothing wrong with pinching it off at a generation. No one is talking about mandating it.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

15 Feb 2016, 12:40 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
And how do you know I haven't ever volunteered my time and money to a worthy cause?

No one asked you what you have done but what you ARE doing in the present.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 45
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

15 Feb 2016, 12:45 am

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
And how do you know I haven't ever volunteered my time and money to a worthy cause?

No one asked you what you have done but what you ARE doing in the present.


I agree with you. Its none of his business. BTW; I love Shirley the sheep image.