Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 22, 2014, 07:23:02 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 2587
101  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Your top 5 Family Guy episodes? on: September 08, 2014, 06:01:59 pm
Ugh, BRTD likes the worst episodes too.

So your favorites?

Hands down the worst episode is "Not All Dogs Go To Heaven".
102  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of /r/theFappening on: September 08, 2014, 05:42:18 pm
whaaat you're telling me that the creepiest corner of Reddit is giving the entire website terrible publicity yet again? completely inconceivable

was nowhere near "creepiest corner of reddit"


anyway, you create a society where people have the will and the means to talk about that stuff, this is what you get. 99.8% of the 'critiques' were nauseating, self-righteous nonsense

All the other creepy subreddits are dead.

r/MensRights is still up.
103  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Scottish Independence referendum, 2014 on: September 08, 2014, 11:52:09 am
More comparable to Bermuda or the Falklands than the Commonwealth.
104  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Atlas Forum House District Map on: September 08, 2014, 06:12:55 am
MN-5
105  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Scottish Independence referendum, 2014 on: September 07, 2014, 09:56:52 pm
That and because my default position is always anti-nationalism. And I hate the SNP.

British nationalism is okay of course?

Of course not. I never said the Better Together people weren't generally irritating as well. I just don't see the point in giving a bunch of people I find insufferable what they want. Similar to my view of Quebec separatists, though granted Scottish nationalists aren't quite as bad due to that they aren't mostly Gaelic speakers who want to pass anti-English laws and discriminate against Anglophnes, but still a bunch I don't approve of. Also the SNP sucks and I don't want them to control a country for a generation while the Tories are greatly strengthened.

And as far as the North Sea oil goes, it really doesn't matter if it's almost depleted come to think of it, since the economic and technological progress in energy sources is obvious and oil isn't going to be the main source in 20 year. The Saudis and all the other Middle Eastern oligarchs might manage to make due since they can put their large fortunes into investments that'll keep funding them for a couple generations, but an independent Scotland isn't going to be quite on that level. What's it going to do once the oil doesn't matter anymore?
106  General Politics / Individual Politics / Opinion of Latvia on: September 07, 2014, 07:04:21 pm
?
107  General Politics / Individual Politics / Opinion of Estonia on: September 07, 2014, 07:03:10 pm
?
108  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Swedish general election, 2014 on: September 07, 2014, 06:50:31 pm
Hmmm... Where does an anti-EU, but non-xenophobic conservative such as myself go in Sweden?

Christian Democrats or Moderates I guess for me. Voted Christian Democrats in the poll.

You cant get the pure eurosceptic/non-xenophobic conservative combo in Sweden, but CD is definitely the most traditionally conservative party. Moderates would be too, well, moderate for you.

The Moderates' name from what I've gathered is just a historical anachronism. They're about as right wing as the Tories or the CDU with the only big difference being they don't have a hardline socon faction.
109  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Eisenhower or McGovern? on: September 07, 2014, 06:44:50 pm
McGovern. Best presidential candidate of the 20th century.

Yes, he was such a good Presidential candidate that he didn't even bother looking closely enough into the background of his running mate, Senator Thomas Eagleton, who he had to drop from the ticket even before the campaign was really under way.

That Eagleton had received an esoteric treatment for depression is not a valid reason to disqualify him from a ticket. McGovern shouldn't have dropped him (which hurt a lot more than it helped), however that does not diminish from the greatness of what McGovern stood for.
110  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Oxford School of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts IV on: September 07, 2014, 06:41:00 pm
It's true that the US didn't have much involvement with Osama bin Laden, and that bin Laden wasn't a major player in Afghanistan and had little to do with the Soviet defeat. But that doesn't mean accusing a Reagan-admiring Republican of "liberal anti-Reagan historial revisionism." is not absurd.
111  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Oxford School of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts IV on: September 07, 2014, 03:11:19 pm
That has nothing to do with what made that post worthy of inclusion, which is that you are accusing a Republican poster who clearly likes Reagan from the context of that thread of "liberal anti-Reagan historial revisionism."
112  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Eisenhower or McGovern? on: September 07, 2014, 03:00:50 pm
McGovern. Best presidential candidate of the 20th century.
113  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Swedish general election, 2014 on: September 07, 2014, 02:56:02 pm
Yeah didn't remember if it was them, but I do remember FI wants men to pay a higher tax rate simply for being male, the sort of thing that MRAs would actually love since it would actually lend credence to their crap for once. But they aren't relevant anyway and holding a handful of seats won't make them either.
114  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Scottish Independence referendum, 2014 on: September 07, 2014, 02:49:36 pm
That and because my default position is always anti-nationalism. And I hate the SNP.
115  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Scottish Independence referendum, 2014 on: September 07, 2014, 02:42:53 pm
That bit about the oil is rather amusing considering how depleted it is. Silly to secede over something that'll be gone in 20 years.

And I certainly don't have a high opinion of Thatcher either which is why I don't support something that would benefit her party.
116  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Swedish general election, 2014 on: September 07, 2014, 02:40:42 pm
Social Democrats.

Didn't the FI leader call for banning urinals at Swedish universities because allowing men to piss standing up was an assertion of alleged gender superiority or something? Kind of hard to believe they might even make the threshold...
117  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Scottish Independence referendum, 2014 on: September 07, 2014, 09:54:00 am
I've yet to hear an argument in favor of "Yes" besides "RAR RAR NATIONALISM!"
118  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Good Post Gallery II on: September 07, 2014, 09:13:44 am
The crazy thing about this is that Reaganfan laments a time that never existed, one that only exists in the nostaglia of the bitter. There were more murders under Reagan, more homelessness, a crack cocaine epidemic, more teen pregnancies.  The morning in America motif was all a rhetorical device. 

Simply put, the Reaganfans of the world would rather condemn "bad" people than get people the help that they need. Theyve built a poweful American myth that everyone can simply pull themselves up out of the more by their bootstraps and get ahead. This is simply not true. Real Christianity and a moral policy calls for providing a boost when our society fails. 

It is the hypocrisy of it all that gets to me. The Reaganfan archtype lament the social ills of our society out of one corner of the mouth, while cutting programs that actually help in the other- in the name of fiscal responsibility of course.  If you are ok with that fine, but don't pretend that you actually care. 
119  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Good Post Gallery II on: September 05, 2014, 04:10:47 pm

Wait people were arguing that Kennedy would vote against gay marriage? Loving gays is like one of Kennedy's most notable characteristics. He's continuously written nonsensical illogical opinions with only the vaguest legal rationale behind them to advance the causes of gay rights.

Check my most recent entry in the Oxford School.
120  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: State Representative to Utah Legislature: hospitals can be dangerous.... on: September 05, 2014, 04:09:34 pm
So here we have a stupid comment from a Republican. Thread has 7 (now Cool replies and no one has made any statement linking this to the Republican Party at large.

So no, the same thing does not happen when Republicans make stupid comments.
121  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Democratic Congressional Candidate: Republicans Are Worse Than ISIS on: September 05, 2014, 04:08:35 pm
What a f(inks)ing stupid last line in the OP. It says "Keep it classy Democrats!" hence plural but quotes only one Democrat. It's duch extreme illogic the entire post is utter garbage.vwhy should I take anything you say seriously cinyc after that?

"duch" and "vwhy" are not words, so your post is utter garbage. What is with this bizarre pedantism of yours? First it was over "literally", which was fine enough, but it seems to be intensifying.

Phone typos. Different. cinyc however implied there was proof this opinion was held by more than one Democrat, and by Democrats who actually matter.
122  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Good Post Gallery II on: September 04, 2014, 11:34:54 pm
I'm gonna be blunt here for a second- the people arguing that Kennedy would vote to maintain a state's SSM ban have no idea what they're talking about.

This sudden avalanche of gay marriage bans being overturned didn't come out of nowhere; it literally happened because that's exactly how Justice Kennedy engineered it in his majority opinion for Windsor.

As Ernest mentioned previously, Kennedy didn't use one of the more obvious or expected avenues of legal logic to reach that decision, but instead he went out of his way and circuitously based it on 5th Amendment Due Process grounds. I believe this was quite clearly intentional because it telegraphed to the Federal judiciary exactly how to overturn state bans on same sex marriage.

The 5th Amendment Due Process Clause is a restriction on the Federal government and it goes like this:

Quote
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

The cool thing here is that there's another Due Process Clause, in the 14th Amendment, that applies to the states:

Quote
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

The interpretations of these two clauses is identical and the only distinction of their jurisprudence is that the former applies to the Federal government while the latter applies to the states.

With Kennedy's precedent, it became extremely simple for a Federal judge to overturn a state-level ban. All that you have to do so is to replace "5th" with "14th" and "Federal" with "state", and you have an opinion that makes state bans unconstitutional, since the Constitution's two Due Process clauses are interpreted identically. Justice Scalia even called the majority out for setting it up this way in his dissent. It's why bans are now being overturned left and right even by conservative Republican appointees.

The majority in Windsor decided, with that opinion, that gay marriage was going to be legal nationwide. They probably felt such a ruling would be too broad or too unrelated to the immediate facts and circumstance of Windsor to do it in that case. They might have also hoped that the Circuit Courts would all take the hint and unanimously concur so that the Supreme Court wouldn't be forced into a controversial lighting-rod case where they directly legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in what would probably be a controversial 5-4 split mirroring Windsor. But regardless, a majority of the court established an obvious and intentional blueprint for nationwide marriage equality via the Windsor decision that we now see coming to fruition.

Kennedy and the four liberals who joined his opinion probably sought to keep the Supreme Court away from direct controversy- if de facto nationwide legalization occurs via Circuit unanimity then they may yet avoid the limelight entirely. Nevertheless, Kennedy's opinion set the groundwork and although the lower courts are now building on that foundation, if they aren't able to finish the job then Supreme Court will certainly step back in to explicitly mandate marriage equality. The Kennedy-led majority in Windsor knew what they were doing, and there's no chance any of them would back down rather than finish what they started.



tl;dr: No Kennedy won't vote to uphold state bans because literally the only reason they're all getting overturned now is due to an intentionally-crafted opinion he wrote that is literally making it all happen. Nationwide marriage equality has five guaranteed votes on the court
123  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Oxford School of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts IV on: September 04, 2014, 11:32:49 pm
While it is bad decision, I'm sort of glad one federal judge finally ruled in favor of a ban. The 5th circuit will likely back this up (or the TX ban) and then finally SCOTUS will take it up.

And the whole notion that the "democratic process" trumps constitutional rights is ludicrous and will go nowhere with SCOTUS. That argument would lead to a whole host of potential quagmires and the court has made it clear that the Constitution trumps local legislation.

Call me a pessimist, but SCOTUS isn't going to rule in our favor here. This is an extremely partisan, activist  court that will rule yet again based on the GOP platform: that there's no constitutional right to marriage and gay marriage becomes illegal again in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and all the other states who had their bans struck down.

Obviously someone who both 1-doesn't understand the case (as Bacon King laid out well) and 2-doesn't understand the decisions in the listed state. Mind numbingly ignorant post.
124  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: How close do you live to an interstate highway? on: September 04, 2014, 11:25:20 pm
I have not one but two less than a mile away.
125  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Religious cleric calls for non-believers to convert or be killed on: September 04, 2014, 05:57:42 pm
Topic name is false. TV star != religious cleric.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 2587


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines