Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 04, 2015, 05:09:33 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 193
26  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Prior to the ruling, only a handful of Congressional Republicans were in favor on: June 28, 2015, 02:41:42 am


Do you really think that one new judge would be able to reverse a decision that happened just a few years before his/her appointment (assuming that it'll take a couple of years for a judicial retirement)? Do you really think that the lower courts would bump the issue up to the Supreme Court again, considering they now have a ruling? Do you really think that the Supreme Court will risk the national outcry that would happen due to some upstart justice overturning such an emotional issue?

I'm being as polite as a can, since I'm baffled by your reasoning. I don't understand it.

And such a constitutional amendment would fail miserably, considering how many states you need and how many are becoming positive towards same-sex marriage nowadays.

Oh, I didn't think you were being impolite. I don't know what the courts would do, I don't know how much the case would be entitled to respect under the stari decisis concept, but I will say that it is possible.   

I don't know if I, morally, would feel particularly happy about people losing rights that were once achieved, but I don't think the court has the power to GIVE rights.  If the 14th amendment, which was designed to free blacks from slavery, allowed for same-sex marriages, they would've been performed since it's adoption. 

The moral of the story is I want strict constructionists on the bench and just see what happens then.  I don't believe Rubio, Jeb et al are actually sincerely opposed to SSM with the positions that they've taken.

But same-sex marriage wasn't an issue when the 14th amendment was adopted. It could be said to be a right, but one that absolutely no one acknowledged for decades.
27  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NYT: Sanders raised at least 8 Mio. $ in the 2nd quarter on: June 28, 2015, 02:34:48 am
He's raising money like he's a progressive Ron Paul. Which is about what I expect his campaign to be.
28  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Prior to the ruling, only a handful of Congressional Republicans were in favor on: June 28, 2015, 02:20:55 am

So Republicans who bow to the inevitable should be primaried, even if they feel they can express their own thoughts on the matter more honestly now?

Okay. Good talk.

There is no inevitability. It takes one new conservative justice replacing one of the 5 who voted in favor to ask for reconsideration of the case.  If that path to reversal is not on the agenda of the GOP candidate, I'm not interested in supporting them.
The preferred path to reversal is proposal of an amendment and a firm commitment to appoint strict constructionists.

Do you really think that one new judge would be able to reverse a decision that happened just a few years before his/her appointment (assuming that it'll take a couple of years for a judicial retirement)? Do you really think that the lower courts would bump the issue up to the Supreme Court again, considering they now have a ruling? Do you really think that the Supreme Court will risk the national outcry that would happen due to some upstart justice overturning such an emotional issue?

I'm being as polite as I can, since I'm baffled by your reasoning. I don't understand it.

And such a constitutional amendment would fail miserably, considering how many states you need and how many are becoming positive towards same-sex marriage nowadays.
29  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Prior to the ruling, only a handful of Congressional Republicans were in favor on: June 28, 2015, 02:05:53 am
And any who do now should be prepared to be primaried.

So Republicans who bow to the inevitable should be primaried, even if they feel they can express their own thoughts on the matter more honestly now?

Okay. Good talk.
30  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Jim Webb on: June 28, 2015, 01:51:47 am
Racist white Dixiecrat is racist and white. News at 11. Massively Horrible Person.

Citation needed.

^Game needed. Get lost.

Reminder, his Republican opponent called someone a "macaca".
31  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Describe the Ideology of Chief Justice John Roberts on: June 28, 2015, 01:51:00 am
Opportunist.
32  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1952 Election (The Hearse at Monticello) on: June 28, 2015, 01:49:56 am
Well, a split government is okay in this case. Better than Republican/American Party control of everything.
33  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Rate the Presidents, Installment #20: James A. Garfield on: June 27, 2015, 04:41:07 pm
Too bad he didn't have a better shot. /ba-dum-tish. Anyway, not bad but not really notable, so 3 stars.
34  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1952 Election (The Hearse at Monticello) on: June 27, 2015, 04:39:44 pm
Are we really going to elect some random no-name from Ohio and Richard Nixon just for the sake of change in this timeline?

Why do you call him a "no-name"?

He's not very notable, and doesn't seem to have done anything interesting in real-life. And we're just repeating the Nixon as VP thing if we elect this ticket.
35  Questions and Answers / The Atlas / Re: Petition to ban CountryClassSF on: June 27, 2015, 04:36:24 pm
I oppose banning CountryClassSF, he's a decent guy who brings a diversity to the forum.

We already have staunch conservatives, we don't need people who are bigoted against themselves (again, if what he claims is true), who happen to be staunch conservatives. I was for the banning of opebo, I am for the banning of CCSF. Just because they have a unique way of posting doesn't mean that they are a forums treasure that can't be banned ever.
36  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Al Gore: "Too Early" to pick Hillary on: June 27, 2015, 04:32:41 pm
No Gore, they aren't going to pick you instead.
37  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Now that gay marriage has passed should we ban straight marriage ASAP? on: June 27, 2015, 02:32:37 am
I think we can fit it in the schedule after banning private property and before giving America over to the Mexican-Muslim atheist abortionists.

...Am I doing the fake outrage right?
38  Questions and Answers / The Atlas / Re: Petition to ban CountryClassSF on: June 27, 2015, 12:26:15 am
The argument is not to ban him because he is lying about being gay. The argument is to ban him because he is quite clearly a troll who derails any thread he enters.

The problem with this statement is it's not true.  The only reason a thread gets "derailed" is when someone presents an alternative viewpoint and is outnumbered 9-1. That said alternative viewpoint then prompts debate and back and forth.

I ask that you stop impugning my integrity.

You have no integrity. People have already noted that you revile LGBT people on a different forum in such a way that no gay person would actually do (and I don't care if it's Free Republic, you can at least use less bigoted language). Badger already called you out on your nonsense.

You should be banned because you're a lying troll that just wants to stir everybody up.
39  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Most vulnerable Senator up for reelection in 2018? on: June 27, 2015, 12:11:18 am
Heitkamp is probably the most vulnerable, but it helps that she's a fantastic campaigner. Tester is an excellent campaigner as well, but I feel like his opponents have been less competent, so he's less vulnerable than Heitkamp. Not sure on McCaskill.
40  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1952 Election (The Hearse at Monticello) on: June 27, 2015, 12:05:27 am
Are we really going to elect some random no-name from Ohio and Richard Nixon just for the sake of change in this timeline?
41  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1952 Election (The Hearse at Monticello) on: June 26, 2015, 01:00:34 pm
I'm cool with universal healthcare, so Roosevelt.
42  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DEMOCRATS: If Webb wins nomination, would you vote for him in general? on: June 26, 2015, 12:13:02 am
No because I live in Utah and my vote doesn't matter. I can express my disliking or liking of candidate with no fear of playing spoiler. I'd probably vote Green or Justice or whatever.

Unless Jim Webb is somehow so good that he can make Utah a swing state.
43  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: John Oliver condemns online harassment, the Internet responds predictably on: June 26, 2015, 12:08:14 am
And this thread is amply demonstrating the reason why this segment is so valuable.

SJWs are the bane of man. John Oliver deserves everything he gets.

Using the term SJW as a negative is one of those things, like a Confederate flag signature, that indicates that the person has nothing to say worth listening to.

Comparing a literal symbol of secession and figurative emblem of racism to a internet slang about overzealous bloggers is a massive hyperbole even by Atlas standards.

Bashing "social justice" sounds a whole lot like an endorsement of social injustice. I'm puzzled and a bit saddened that we've gotten to the point where a large segment of society is so twisted that it regards social justice and advocacy for it as a negative.

SJWs have nothing to do with actual social justice. They are a group of misanthropic fiends that attack anyone who doesn't tow the PC line, and invent ridiculous terms like "cis scum" and "ableist".

The ones who are actually "fiendish" are few and far between, most of them don't actually use the term "cis scum" except in irony. Ableist is used more often, but depending on the context, might actually be accurate.
44  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Rate the Presidents, Installment #18: Ulysses S. Grant on: June 26, 2015, 12:02:39 am
Too trusting, but that was hardly his fault. Four stars.
45  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: Possible Ginsburg replacements if she retires? on: June 25, 2015, 10:24:35 am
A young-ish liberal would be best, I want to have that liberal seat for as long as possible.
46  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: John Oliver condemns online harassment, the Internet responds predictably on: June 24, 2015, 11:25:49 pm
SJWs are the bane of man. John Oliver deserves everything he gets.

Aaaand you're awful.
47  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Rate the Presidents, Installment #16: Abraham Lincoln on: June 24, 2015, 08:50:48 pm
War criminal

Cool story bro. And the Confederates were what, exactly?
48  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Rate the Presidents, Installment #17: Andrew Johnson on: June 24, 2015, 12:58:49 pm
Almost as bad as Buchanan. Also, who on earth is voting 5 stars for this guy?
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which of the 2016 candidates are Satan-worshipping, reptillian shapeshifters? on: June 24, 2015, 12:51:31 am
I think Jeb and Cruz's nicknames are the best.

And all of them, obviously.
50  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1952 Conventions (The Hearse at Monticello) on: June 23, 2015, 09:03:27 pm
Re-elect President Roosevelt, of course.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 193


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines