• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RDreamer

Member
Apparently that silly argument against gay marriage was used in Morrison v. Sadler in Indiana and Hernandez v Robles in New York and won.
 
A

airmangataosenai

Member
Laughing at Liberals Facebook page is such a gold mine:

484647_477174922329724_633092981_n.jpg
 
S

SouthernDragon

Member
Hey, people are entitled to the best legal representation money can buy.

That said, if you have a stupid, stupid foundation for a case, there's nothing the best legal representation can do except lose and take your money, but hey!
 
E

el retorno

Member
Giant Panda said:
So you don't think the Second Amendment was intended as an individual right?
Click to expand...
No. Read Stevens dissent. Takes the majority to task for they read what they wanted not what was there.

It was a protection of state militias from a central governments monopoly on force and power.
Oblivion said:
Doesn't Thomas just follow whatever Scalia does? I thought he was essentially his mentor.
Click to expand...
No Thomas is a textualist and is consistent. Scalia is a partisan hack
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
empty vessel said:
That's what Heller says.
Click to expand...
Which makes heller all the more twisted seeing as handguns don't protect from tyranny, artillery does (which Scalia said we can't have)

The entire thing is a mess. Also this individual right out of the 2nd is a recent interpretation.

Also, I knew I was right that that stupid anti-gay marriage argument was used successfully in court. Thanks for the cases RD.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
So carville definitely got fired and its not a mutual split up zucker didn't like the fact that he lives in NOLA and not DC because wanted less remotes. It was funny to hear him rag on CNN for having everything down the middle, might bring up dead heat in office hours see what he thinks of wolf being the mascot.
Clevinger said:
Graham is none too happy that the country likes Hillary and that she's going to run in 16.
Click to expand...

I swear if they put a hold on hagel....
 
R

RDreamer

Member
I really liked this assessment of the Obama and Clinton interview

I also put up my thoughts on the Supreme Court arguments against same-sex marriage. There's probably a ton more arguments against that silly reasoning, but that's what I came up with. I also found the statement by a judge in the Indiana case to be a really good case against that sort of reasoning:

Pursuant to this rationale, the State presumably could also prohibit sterile individuals or women past their child-bearing years from marrying. In fact, I would assume the State may place any restrictions on the right to marry that do not negatively impact the State’s interest in encouraging fertile, opposite-sex couples to marry. Yet, I.C. § 31-11-1-1’s narrow focus is to prohibit marriage among only one subset of consenting adults that is incapable of conceiving in the traditional manner – same-sex couples. Such laser-like aim suggests to me that the real motivation behind I.C. § 31-11-1-1 might be discriminatory.
Click to expand...
 
J

Jooney

Member
RDreamer said:
I really liked this assessment of the Obama and Clinton interview

I also put up my thoughts on the Supreme Court arguments against same-sex marriage. There's probably a ton more arguments against that silly reasoning, but that's what I came up with. I also found the statement by a judge in the Indiana case to be a really good case against that sort of reasoning:
Click to expand...

Yep, the argument that marriage exists as an entity purely for the sake of child rearing is a false one.

We don't prohibit infertile couples from marrying.
We don't prohibit couples who have no desire to have children from marrying.
We don't prohibit elderly couples who are past child-rearing age from marrying.

It's a bad argument. The case for marriage equality is airtight for me, and there is not one argument from the other side that gives me pause.
 
D

Drakeon

Member
Gotchaye said:
I have met two people recently who were quite willing to endorse a right to bear nuclear arms. You've got to be able to match the gummint.
Click to expand...

I got into an argument with someone recently over how broad the term "arms" is in the second amendment, and because it is so broad, people should be allowed the right to own anything that could be interpreted as such. I eventually gave up trying to make a point.
 
E

el retorno

Member
speculawyer said:
Dissent doesn't matter. It is as irrelevant as an Op-Ed.
Click to expand...
Not really. They have been used to overturn cases before. Justices in the future sometimes look to them for reasoning in future cases. It has no force now but to say it never will is short sighted. It's not like that question will never come to the court again.


And it not having the force of law doesn't make it any less right or the majority opinion more right.

The us federal court systems website even has examples

http://www.uscourts.gov/Educational...lInterpretationDiscussionTopics/Dissents.aspx
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Morning Joe wrote a column against Krugman,

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/paul-krugman-vs-the-world-86822.html?hp=l9

lol

Krugman refuted the part about Joe saying he's out of the mainstream

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/incestuous-amplification-economics-edition/

Sadly, Joe won't get called out for this on his own show, I'd imagine. Krugman's arguments are pretty much mainstream economics so to claim he's outside of it is pretty hilarious.


edit: Colin Powell comes on O'Reilly and gets called intolerant for voting for Obama

lol
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Black Mamba said:
edit: Colin Powell comes on O'Reilly and gets called intolerant for voting for Obama

lol
Click to expand...

O'Reilly...

The white entitlement and obviousness is amazing. You can tell he will never understand why republicans keep losing elections, and what must be done to fix it. Powell, and all Americans, deserve more credit than being written off as voting for Obama just because he's black.

Powell's argument is pretty simple. You cannot denigrate groups of people, or insult the president, without turning off a large group of minorities. Calling Obama "lazy" and saying he has never worked a day in his life is not just insulting to people, its especially galling to black people; it's a blatant lie and also a familiar stereotype. Likewise calling Hispanics "illegals" and constantly associating them with crime/disorder is insulting to them. You can't reach out to a group by insulting them.

Remember the soul searching that allegedly occurred after the election? Well clearly it didn't work because the far right is even more hostile, Fox is just as toxic, and republicans continue to march in the opposite direction of the country. They genuinely believe minorities just want "stuff" and don't want to work. It's rather obvious to anyone paying attention.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
O'Reilly...

The white entitlement and obviousness is amazing. You can tell he will never understand why republicans keep losing elections, and what must be done to fix it. Powell, and all Americans, deserve more credit than being written off as voting for Obama just because he's black.

Powell's argument is pretty simple. You cannot denigrate groups of people, or insult the president, without turning off a large group of minorities. Calling Obama "lazy" and saying he has never worked a day in his life is not just insulting to people, its especially galling to black people; it's a blatant lie and also a familiar stereotype. Likewise calling Hispanics "illegals" and constantly associating them with crime/disorder is insulting to them. You can't reach out to a group by insulting them.

Remember the soul searching that allegedly occurred after the election? Well clearly it didn't work because the far right is even more hostile, Fox is just as toxic, and republicans continue to march in the opposite direction of the country. They genuinely believe minorities just want "stuff" and don't want to work. It's rather obvious to anyone paying attention.
Click to expand...

If the GOP doesn't do genuine soul searching if they get massacred in 2014 and 2016...then the party will collapse by 2020 or 2022 and be replaced by another.
 
S

Synth_floyd

Banned
The most insulting part of that O'Reilly interview is when he does "I know this is a rude question but it's on the minds of many people so here we go..." and then he asks him some bullshit right wing conspiracy crap.

And just like how Murdoch put out that tweet about how "Why doesn't the Jewish media support Israel?" O'Reilly asked him, "why don't you care about black people?" in the first question. Because just like how O'Reilly, Murdoch and other old, white people are only looking out for their own kind, O'Reilly assumes that it's the same with Powell and that he should be looking out for black people above everything.
 
T

Tim the Wiz

Banned
Synth_floyd said:
The most insulting part of that O'Reilly interview is when he does "I know this is a rude question but it's on the minds of many people so here we go..." and then he asks him some bullshit right wing conspiracy crap.

And just like how Murdoch put out that tweet about how "Why doesn't the Jewish media support Israel?" O'Reilly asked him, "why don't you care about black people?" in the first question. Because just like how O'Reilly, Murdoch and other old, white people are only looking out for their own kind, O'Reilly assumes that it's the same with Powell and that he should be looking out for black people above everything.
Click to expand...

Didn't O'Reilly get taken into a Harlem restaurant and feel the need to remark that the people inside it didn't conform to negative stereotypes of the African-American community? Perhaps he was trying to break down these stereotypes for people in his audience, but if this is the image he expects those in his audience to have, then he's playing down to a low, low audience.

It's kind of funny. Anything that isn't a reassurance of the social status quo becomes a crusade against white privilege according to Fox doctrine. But the reality is no crusade is necessary. Minorities aren't gaining free stuff; they're simply people demanding respect and engaging their worth as invested citizenry. Demographics, or just the ability to see people as people first (lol), should ensure that messaging of the contemporary Fox doctrine is perceived as an outdated strategy. But it seems like they - and a disturbing amount of the GOP - are taking a trip into condescending obliviousness instead.

Black Mamba said:
Morning Joe wrote a column against Krugman,

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/paul-krugman-vs-the-world-86822.html?hp=l9

lol
Click to expand...

Stupidity in the face of expertise is a common affliction of the obstinate ignorant. I'm not surprised this is the same pundit who couldn't fathom how the methodology of statisticians like Nate Silver and Sam Wong could lend more accuracy than the ramblings of paid-to-opinionate talking heads. To be fair, he hasn't been alone in either case of erroneous supposition. Not by a long way, sadly.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
The business cycle will get republicans back in the WH sooner than later. But in the mean time they seem content to destroy their standing in the eyes of most people. Being anti science, homophobic, anti women's rights, obnoxious bullies may earn lots of money but it won't win national elections. They need a candidate who can tell the FRC, anti-immigrant groups, and tea party groups to chill out. Basically they need a Bill Clinton type to slowly edge them into the new century.

Instead they will just introduce the same tired ideas with a brown face in 2016, assuming Rubio can even survive a primary dogged by extremist fringe candidates accusing him of treason for immigration reform.
 
S

Synth_floyd

Banned
For all the racist, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-poor, anti-everything else that the GOP said in the last election they still got 47% of the vote. That's almost half. All they need to do is find a candidate with some charisma (which McCain and Romney did not have) and stay away from controversial statements and they could easily win an election. Lots of people are spinning the election as a giant loss but they did get pretty close to winning. That kind of thinking and those ideas are not in any danger of going away. They just need to put some lipstick on that pig.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Synth_floyd said:
For all the racist, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-poor, anti-everything else that the GOP said in the last election they still got 47% of the vote. That's almost half. All they need to do is find a candidate with some charisma (which McCain and Romney did not have) and stay away from controversial statements and they could easily win an election. Lots of people are spinning the election as a giant loss but they did get pretty close to winning. That kind of thinking and those ideas are not in any danger of going away. They just need to put some lipstick on that pig.
Click to expand...
Yup. Which is why they should nominate Christie. He'd run circles around Cuomo, O'Malley, rtc
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Yup. Which is why they should nominate Christie. He'd run circles around Cuomo, O'Malley, rtc
Click to expand...

Christie is the Bill Clinton the of GOP. He would be for them what Clinton was in 1992 (assuming Hillary didn't run for whatever reason). But I highly doubt the GOP base is smart enough to realize that or get over his treason for being friendly with Obama.
 
A

Aaron

Member
Cheebo said:
Christie is the Bill Clinton the of GOP. He would be for them what Clinton was in 1992 (assuming Hillary didn't run for whatever reason). But I highly doubt the GOP base is smart enough to realize that or get over his treason for being friendly with Obama.
Click to expand...
You're comparing the blowhard of NJ to Slick Willie? Bill Clinton has charm. Christie just has volume. He will be destroyed in the general election.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Cheebo said:
Christie is the Bill Clinton the of GOP. He would be for them what Clinton was in 1992 (assuming Hillary didn't run for whatever reason). But I highly doubt the GOP base is smart enough to realize that or get over his treason for being friendly with Obama.
Click to expand...

He's just New Jersey's Giuliani.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Oblivion said:
I'm just shocked at how much of an unabashed partisan hack Scalia is. He supported the idea of an individual mandate quite literally all the way up to a few months before the SC was about to rule on it. A good while before the verdict was out, Scalia tried to explain why he changed his mind on that, and his excuse was "with age comes wisdom".

Easily the worst SC justice in history.
Click to expand...
Oh I think he has some competition with justices like Roger Taney.
 
E

Ecotic

Member
That O'Reilly interview with Colin Powell just showed me in the clearest possible way just how far behind the Republicans are now. Powell actually tried to win the argument on the merits, that is unheard of amongst the Republican base and their members in Congress. Ever since Fox News's post-9/11 ascendancy the Republican strategy has essentially been to overpower and shout down your opponent.

The Republican party's brief success in the mid-2000's now feels like the lie that got halfway around the world while the truth was still pulling up its pants. But then it caught up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
5K
Agent_Nobody replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
956
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 7 8 9 10 11
523
11K
Artoris replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
851
MaestroMike replied
Bad games with redeeming qualities
2 3
116
5K
Koenigssee replied
Top Bottom