• 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 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Uh, no, they create good middle class jobs which then flows back into the economy while saving us from terrorists. All while their budgets have been cut to the bone, not as bad as Obama has decimated our military, but almost.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
benjipwns said:
Uh, no, they create good middle class jobs which then flows back into the economy while saving us from terrorists. All while their budgets have been cut to the bone, not as bad as Obama has decimated our military, but almost.
Click to expand...


So how's that 2 BILLION dollar computer they built working out for them? Oh yeah. It didn't fucking work.

If another area had wasted that much money on somethinthat was a failure it would have been blasted and gutted, but not the sacred cow, the military!

The military has A LOT if problem, but money isn't one of them.
 
K

kehs

Banned
benjipwns said:
Uh, no, they create good middle class jobs which then flows back into the economy while saving us from terrorists. All while their budgets have been cut to the bone, not as bad as Obama has decimated our military, but almost.
Click to expand...

Knowing how benji posts, I can't reconcile this.
 
D

Diablos

Member
I read IA's folksy pig castrating queen nearly puked on herself at the debate.
Thinking this could impact the race.
 
K

kehs

Banned
LLShC.gif
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
eBay Huckster said:
...so in other words, WW2 and the Cold War basically homogenized the American left?
Click to expand...
I think the universality of war promoted an interest in indulging the pleasures of life while you still could.

So the Social Gospel/Temperance/etc. hand that led the original Progressives drifted into a position of conservative defense of "tradition" especially when you reached the whole Vietnam era. The generations before were "willing" to serve rather than stay home and get high, learn about communist values like free speech and fuck* and that was a serious cultural wound.

The two party system also helped, as one team had the rise of Goldwater/Reagan and the anti-hippie Nixon going on, while the other was in chaos that allowed RFK and McGovern's followers to take away from the old broad hands like LBJ.

*They did that overseas, which is totally different.
 
S

Skiptastic

Member
Can we put all of the desired infrastructure improvements (electrical grid, bridges/roads, etc.) into the military budget and claim that they are needed for national defense purposes? That way Republicans can talk about the growth in military spending to protect people and the Democrats can talk about the jobs and infrastructure improvements. It's a win win!
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Skiptastic said:
Can we put all of the desired infrastructure improvements (electrical grid, bridges/roads, etc.) into the military budget and claim that they are needed for national defense purposes? That way Republicans can talk about the growth in military spending to protect people and the Democrats can talk about the jobs and infrastructure improvements. It's a win win!
Click to expand...
Eisenhower_Interstate_System_sign.jpg


ARPA, NASA, NDEA, etc. too
 
R

rocketknight

Member
I can sympathize. I'm in Boston for a couple of weeks and all of the political ads here are playing to Democrats, which is a refreshing change from the commercials at home that assume everyone watching is a racist tea partier. Do you know how fun it is seeing Mary Landrieu argue that she's more pro-border fence and anti-Obama than Bill Cassidy while knowing I still have to vote for her? Not very.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Aaron Strife said:
I knew it. It is entirely about that would-be gotcha moment where she wouldn't say if she voted for Obama. You know if she had answered McConnell would blast that answer on TV 24/7. This is just another case of the media pulling its slack for the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's always best to avoid those gotcha yes/no only questions because even if it does damage you, it'll at least be limited to where it can be used and thus might be forgotten about in short time. I still think Grimes is running one of the best races of the season.

I do like Nunn's general approach to the question a bit better though, saying Obama's on his way out, and she's going to congress to work for Georgia, not to obstruct the government.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
I knew it. It is entirely about that would-be gotcha moment where she wouldn't say if she voted for Obama. You know if she had answered McConnell would blast that answer on TV 24/7. This is just another case of the media pulling its slack for the Republicans.
Click to expand...

yawn

So she should dodge questions because if she answers she'll be attacked? I'm sure you hold a similarly nuanced view about whether republicans should answer a variety of questions...

We were discussing her shitty campaign months ago. She won't even forcefully run on Kynect and point out McConnell wants to abolish it. Her campaign should be focusing on Kynect all day every day. It's not super popular in Kentucky, but the point should be to compel those benefiting from it to actually fucking vote.

BTW I'd argue Terri Lynn Land is running the worst campaign this year.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
thepotatoman said:
I do like Nunn's general approach to the question a bit better though, saying Obama's on his way out, and she's going to congress to work for Georgia, not to obstruct the government.
Click to expand...

I really, reeeeally think Democrats should've been more upfront about emphasizing this little fact. He's done. A lame duck. Term limited. Time flies - he'll be boarding the helicopter and waving bye-bye before we know it. And in two years, there will be a new president, likely a Democrat, with a Democratically-controlled Senate. Who knows.. maybe it'll be a blue wave in two years that sweeps the House up with it?

And where does that put a brand new new junior GOP senator? Powerless. A back-bencher. A nobody.

The Dems have done a piss-poor job of pointing this out.

And a side note..
I enjoy that the GOP base is still so rabidly hateful of Obama, instead of the probable 2016 nominee. Wasting all of that frothing-at-the-mouth firepower on him instead of grating-away at her favorability numbers ahead of election season. In doing so, they demonstrate that they, too, don't realize that he's done.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
yawn

So she should dodge questions because if she answers she'll be attacked? I'm sure you hold a similarly nuanced view about whether republicans should answer a variety of questions...

We were discussing her shitty campaign months ago. She won't even forcefully run on Kynect and point out McConnell wants to abolish it. Her campaign should be focusing on Kynect all day every day. It's not super popular in Kentucky, but the point should be to compel those benefiting from it to actually fucking vote.

BTW I'd argue Terri Lynn Land is running the worst campaign this year.
Click to expand...
Not biting, sorry
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
I love it.
Greg Abbott, the attorney general of Texas and current GOP candidate for governor, argued against a recent ruling striking down same-sex marriage bans in Texas, claiming this: same-sex marriage must be banned in order to ensure the survival of humanity (via babymaking).

In an amicus brief filed to the Fifth Circuit of Appeals, Abbot argued that same-sex marriage, legalized by a district judge who overturned a ban against it in February, would be detrimental to “the State’s interest in encouraging couples to produce new offspring, which are needed to ensure economic growth and the survival of the human race.”

“Because opposite-sex relationships are the only union that is biologically capable of producing offspring, it is rational to believe that opposite-sex marriages will generate new offspring to a greater extent than same-sex marriages will,” he added, according to My San Antonio. “It is therefore rational for the State to subsidize opposite-sex marriages, which tend to produce benefits for society by generating new off-spring, while withholding these subsidies from same-sex relationships, which are far less likely to provide this particular societal benefit.”

He also argued that same-sex marriages will encourage children born out of wedlock. Wait, what? “By channeling procreative heterosexual intercourse into marriage, Texas’s marriage laws reduce unplanned out-of-wedlock births and the costs that those births impose on society. Recognizing same-sex marriage does not advance this interest because same-sex unions do not result in pregnancy.”
Click to expand...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/texas-ag-ban-same-sex-marriage-to-ensure-survival-of-human-race/

I won't even begin to pick apart this flimsy argument. We don't have a problem with the amount of children being born. In fact, there are probably too many children being born to families of low education voters who simply vote because someone says the word God. That's a much bigger problem to society than gays marrying.

I honestly hate people in power who make such shit arguments. It's tragic, really.

Edit:

Geraldo has gone shirtless again. ...Oh my.
 
V

Vahagn

Member
Wilsongt said:
I love it.


http://www.mediaite.com/online/texas-ag-ban-same-sex-marriage-to-ensure-survival-of-human-race/

I won't even begin to pick apart this flimsy argument. We don't have a problem with the amount of children being born. In fact, there are probably too many children being born to families of low education voters who simply vote because someone says the word God. That's a much bigger problem to society than gays marrying.

I honestly hate people in power who make such shit arguments. It's tragic, really.

Edit:

Geraldo has gone shirtless again. ...Oh my.
Click to expand...

This is the liberal problem. We take every ridiculous and stupid ass argument and try to debate it on its merits. It's absurd. Period. Anyone who supports this idiotic drivel hates gays for totally different reasons and is just trying to reach the desired end point from a different angle.

There were countless different arguments for maintaining segregation, slavery etc. There are countless other arguments for repealing Obamacare etc.

We need to stop entertaining this stupidity by responding to it as if it's a serious rational argument. Bigotry, discrimination, homophobia, withholding of liberty and freedom to people you don't agree with are reprehensible and the result of morally depraved minds.

Whether or not the Bible allows for slavery, or state right's do, or government not intervening in the private plantation economy are irrelevant arguments. We spend years pushing back on every absurd argument they come up with instead of dispelling the smoke and mirrors outright and pointing out the underlying belief system.

In this case, it being that gays, gay love, gay marriage range somewhere from inferior and undeserving of respect and legal protection to a full fledged satanic abomination. You think they give 2 shits about pro-creation?
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Wilsongt said:
I love it.


http://www.mediaite.com/online/texas-ag-ban-same-sex-marriage-to-ensure-survival-of-human-race/

I won't even begin to pick apart this flimsy argument. We don't have a problem with the amount of children being born. In fact, there are probably too many children being born to families of low education voters who simply vote because someone says the word God. That's a much bigger problem to society than gays marrying.

I honestly hate people in power who make such shit arguments. It's tragic, really.

Edit:

Geraldo has gone shirtless again. ...Oh my.
Click to expand...

Maybe they can re-use that argument for all their anti-abortion regulations.
 
A

AndyD

aka andydumi
Wilsongt said:
I love it.


http://www.mediaite.com/online/texas-ag-ban-same-sex-marriage-to-ensure-survival-of-human-race/

I won't even begin to pick apart this flimsy argument. We don't have a problem with the amount of children being born. In fact, there are probably too many children being born to families of low education voters who simply vote because someone says the word God. That's a much bigger problem to society than gays marrying.

I honestly hate people in power who make such shit arguments. It's tragic, really.
Click to expand...

I saw this argument carried out this past weekend with the following shutdown:

- same initial position as presented above
- so then you would agree we should ban divorce of people with children?
- waffling
- so you would also would agree that we should ban contraception for married couples?
- over

It skews issues for sure though.


Is anyone versed in Tennessee's current abortion laws and the proposed Amendment 1? I am just curious to learn more. My church centered neighbors and their "vote yes on 1" sign piqued my interest.

Edit: Found info on Amendment 1 here: http://ballotpedia.org/Tennessee_Legislative_Powers_Regarding_Abortion,_Amendment_1_(2014)
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Wilsongt said:
I love it.


http://www.mediaite.com/online/texas-ag-ban-same-sex-marriage-to-ensure-survival-of-human-race/

I won't even begin to pick apart this flimsy argument. We don't have a problem with the amount of children being born. In fact, there are probably too many children being born to families of low education voters who simply vote because someone says the word God. That's a much bigger problem to society than gays marrying.

I honestly hate people in power who make such shit arguments. It's tragic, really.

Edit:

Geraldo has gone shirtless again. ...Oh my.
Click to expand...

To clarify, the brief filed by Abbott was not an amicus brief, as the Mediaite story indicates. It was the Reply Brief of the State of Texas. It states the formal legal arguments being put forward by Texas in the Court of Appeals, not the personal opinion of the AG.

Also note that the argument regarding out-of-wedlock births is misstated by the article, since it is not that recognizing same-sex marriage will encourage out-of-wedlock births. Instead, the argument is that offering opposite-sex marriage reduces out-of-wedlock births, whereas same-sex marriage does not, and that this distinction provides a rational basis for the different legal benefits offered to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

(Bear in mind that rational-basis review, which Texas argues applies here, is essentially a rubber stamp for government action. The arguments don't really have to stand up to much scrutiny to succeed under that standard.)
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Metaphoreus said:
To clarify, the brief filed by Abbott was not an amicus brief, as the Mediaite story indicates. It was the Reply Brief of the State of Texas. It states the formal legal arguments being put forward by Texas in the Court of Appeals, not the personal opinion of the AG.

Also note that the argument regarding out-of-wedlock births is misstated by the article, since it is not that recognizing same-sex marriage will encourage out-of-wedlock births. Instead, the argument is that offering opposite-sex marriage reduces out-of-wedlock births, whereas same-sex marriage does not, and that this distinction provides a rational basis for the different legal benefits offered to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

(Bear in mind that rational-basis review, which Texas argues applies here, is essentially a rubber stamp for government action. The arguments don't really have to stand up to much scrutiny to succeed under that standard.)
Click to expand...

Right, the problem lies in their argument that the rational basis test applies and not strict scrutiny.

The rational basis aspect only really works for the government's right to allow civil marriage at all. It's pretty obviously an Equal Protection issue once you start excluding people (for example minors would pass strict scrutiny, but homosexuals not so much).
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Black Mamba said:
Right, the problem lies in their argument that the rational basis test applies and not strict scrutiny.

The rational basis aspect only really works for the government's right to allow civil marriage at all. It's pretty obviously an Equal Protection issue once you start excluding people (for example minors would pass strict scrutiny, but homosexuals not so much).
Click to expand...

This is where the Equal Protection Clause gets messy. Basically every law discriminates against some people and in favor of others. Most of the time, there's no real hurdle to such discrimination, because the rational basis test will be used*. Only when the law discriminates on the basis of a suspect or quasi-suspect classification will any kind of heightened scrutiny be employed. SCOTUS hasn't finally resolved whether sexual orientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, which is why Texas can still argue that rational-basis review applies.

*Just read some of these statements from court opinions cited by Texas in its brief to understand how lenient the rational basis test is: "Texas need not ‘articulate … the purpose or rationale supporting its classification[,]’ as long as there is a ‘reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.’" (5th Circuit)

"f a statute can be upheld under any plausible justification offered by the state, or even hypothesized by the court, it survives rational-basis scrutiny." (6th Circuit)

"[T]hose attacking the rationality of the legislative classification have the burden to negative every conceivable basis which might support it." (SCOTUS)
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Metaphoreus said:
This is where the Equal Protection Clause gets messy. Basically every law discriminates against some people and in favor of others. Most of the time, there's no real hurdle to such discrimination, because the rational basis test will be used*. Only when the law discriminates on the basis of a suspect or quasi-suspect classification will any kind of heightened scrutiny be employed. SCOTUS hasn't finally resolved whether sexual orientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, which is why Texas can still argue that rational-basis review applies.

*Just read some of these statements from court opinions cited by Texas in its brief to understand how lenient the rational basis test is: "Texas need not ‘articulate … the purpose or rationale supporting its classification[,]’ as long as there is a ‘reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.’" (5th Circuit)

"f a statute can be upheld under any plausible justification offered by the state, or even hypothesized by the court, it survives rational-basis scrutiny." (6th Circuit)

"[T]hose attacking the rationality of the legislative classification have the burden to negative every conceivable basis which might support it." (SCOTUS)
Click to expand...


My comment wasn't to Texas, specifically, but rather to anyone who would argue it should be a rational based test. SCOTUS doesn't want to take the case up because they're going to give them suspector at the least quasi-suspect class when/if they do. There's no (pardon the pun) rational way around it.

This will result is Scalia's head popping off.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
In the Senate race Greg Orman leads Pat Roberts 44-41, with Libertarian Randall Batson at 5%. In a head to head match up without Batson, Orman has a 46/43 advantage. A month ago he led Roberts 46/36- Orman has held onto his support since then, but the incumbent is on the rise. Roberts' gains have come pretty much exclusively with Republicans- he's gone from leading by 26 points with them at 57/31 in September to now a 37 point advantage at 62/25. Roberts remains unpopular- only 37% of voters approve of the job he's doing to 47% who disapprove. But Orman's negatives are rising as the campaign progresses too- his net favorability of +4 at 42/38 is down 16 points from last month when it was +20 at 39/19.

There's still one big data point in Kansas pointing to the possibility of Roberts ultimately coming back to win this race. By a 52/35 margin, voters in the state would rather Republicans had control of the Senate than Democrats. And among those who are undecided there's a 48/25 preference for a GOP controlled Senate. If voters make up their minds based on the national picture in the closing stretch it could mean voting for Roberts even if they don't really care for him personally.

The Governor's race is getting close as well. Sam Brownback and Paul Davis are each at 42% to 6% for Libertarian Keen Umbehr. Umbehr is the unusual Libertarian who's actually helping the Republican in the race by splitting the anti-Brownback vote. If you take him out of the picture, Davis leads 45/44. Brownback continues to be very unpopular, with only 38% of voters approving of him to 54% who disapprove. But he's succeeded in driving Davis' negatives up over the last month- in September Davis had a +12 net favorability rating at 38/26 but now he's break even at 39%. That's helping to drive some Republicans back into the Brownback camp- he leads 64/24 among voters in his own party, compared to 60/25 a month ago. That's enough to erase what had been a 4 point Davis lead.
Click to expand...

From PPP.

Do not like...
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Black Mamba said:
My comment wasn't to Texas, specifically, but rather to anyone who would argue it should be a rational based test. SCOTUS doesn't want to take the case up because they're going to give them suspector at the least quasi-suspect class when/if they do. There's no (pardon the pun) rational way around it.

This will result is Scalia's head popping off.
Click to expand...

I hope they get it on video.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Black Mamba said:
My comment wasn't to Texas, specifically, but rather to anyone who would argue it should be a rational based test. SCOTUS doesn't want to take the case up because they're going to give them suspector at the least quasi-suspect class when/if they do. There's no (pardon the pun) rational way around it.

This will result is Scalia's head popping off.
Click to expand...

My response wasn't directed to Texas specifically, either. But I'm not sure SCOTUS would reach the question of whether sexual orientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, because there are a number of ways to decide this case in favor of same-sex marriage without touching that issue. For instance, the Court could decide that, regardless of what standard applies, same-sex marriage bans fail to satisfy the rational basis test; or, they could decide that same-sex marriage is just a facet of the fundamental right to marry, and so apply strict scrutiny review on that basis; or, they could decide that same-sex marriage bans discriminate on the basis of sex, which is already treated as a quasi-suspect classification, and so dispense with it on that basis.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Metaphoreus said:
My response wasn't directed to Texas specifically, either. But I'm not sure SCOTUS would reach the question of whether sexual orientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, because there are a number of ways to decide this case in favor of same-sex marriage without touching that issue.
Click to expand...

I don't see a way around it. Especially since all these courts are using Equal Protection issues to knock down the bans; the SCOTUS would be forced to address it and classification.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Black Mamba said:
I don't see a way around it. Especially since all these courts are using Equal Protection issues to knock down the bans; the SCOTUS would be forced to address it and classification.
Click to expand...

Drat. I edited as you were responding. See my above (now-edited) post for some examples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom