Suck it, haters.

1235712

Comments

  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    An activist court is a court that uses valid legal arguments to decide something in a way that you disagree with.



    I'm pretty sure you were just hating on someone pretty badly in another thread for telling you what you think. Hypocritical much?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Non-sequitur. I'm talking about your insistence that the courts should not be making legal decisions based on law. She was talking about expanding the scope of the law in a way that should be completely acceptable. You're talking about not letting the courts decide the constitutionality of laws at all. That's their fucking job.



    SDW and most conservatives understand that no law can be hyperational. It is impossible to put into print all hypotheticals that a law might end up covering. The courts are doing their jobs when they are asked to interpret a law absent the actual language of the law covering a hypothetical. This is very different than when you invent entirely new definitions for words or new scenarios that the language of the law clearly excluded. No court for example decided that just because men could vote, that men also means women. We required an amendment for that as an example because prior judges would never had said that man simply means and thus includes woman as well.



    Quote:

    Just because you don't agree with those decisions doesn't make them invalid. In the legal community, you know people who have been to law school and know what the fuck they're talking about, those decisions are respected by all but the most biased conservatives.



    Nonsense, much of what conservatives disagree about today took place with decisions from the new deal when FDR was threatening the Supreme Court by threatening to both expand and stack it. You clearly are just talking out your ass again and making stuff up. All manners of influencing and threatening the courts have come from liberals whether it was FDR stacking it or the Democrats in the Senate "Borking" the previously uncontroversial nomination process for the court.



    Well as I said, while I support gay marriage, I do not support telling states they cannot amend their Constitutions and while I'm quite sure this matter would have gone by the wayside with some passage of time, forcing it down people's throats is creating a backlash and more harm than good.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Non-sequitur. I'm talking about your insistence that the courts should not be making legal decisions based on law. She was talking about expanding the scope of the law in a way that should be completely acceptable. You're talking about not letting the courts decide the constitutionality of laws at all. That's their fucking job.



    No, that is not my position at all. They should be deciding the constitutionality of laws...that is their job. However, what has happened is that the courts have invented constitutional rights to suit their own beliefs.



    Quote:

    She was talking about expanding the scope of the law in a way that should be completely acceptable.



    No, it should not be. The job of the USSC is to interpret the U.S. Constitution and conduct judicial review accordingly. Period.



    Quote:



    Just because you don't agree with those decisions doesn't make them invalid. In the legal community, you know people who have been to law school and know what the fuck they're talking about, those decisions are respected by all but the most biased conservatives.



    Ha. I don't respect them because they are decided on extra-Constutional and extra-legal grounds. The Bush v. Gore decision (in Florida) was a clear example of a court deciding a case on their belief that "every vote should count." The law was crystal clear. They set aside the deadline because they thought it was right. Ditto on Roe. The Constitution didn't limit the power of states to restrict abortion, so they invented an implied right of privacy to cover it.



    By the way, my brother is an attorney, as is a close friend of mine. That means I fully understand that such decisions are more complicated than our discussion, and that there is going to be disagreement at the outcome. That, in fact, is what the legal field is all about.
  • brbr Posts: 8,252member
    HA! A federal judge, appointed by George W. Bush, has ruled DOMA (Defense of Bigotry Act) unconstitutional!



    Suck. It. You hating sons of bitches.



    Quote:

    White's ruling noted that tradition was used to defend bans on interracial marriage, and said congressional spending power could not be used to single out a vulnerable minority. White also said excluding same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage "does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriage."



    Also...



    Quote:

    He also said gays and lesbians, because of historical persecution continuing political vulnerability, are entitled to the same legal protections against discriminatory laws as racial minorities.



  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    HA! A federal judge, appointed by George W. Bush, has ruled DOMA (Defense of Bigotry Act) unconstitutional!



    I love this line:



    Quote:

    "The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority on a minority cannot provide a justification."





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Suck. It. You hating sons of bitches.



    Like Bill Clinton...



    Quote:

    The law, signed by President Bill Clinton





    Anyway...with any luck this will be the beginning of the end of the state's involvement in private relationships.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Anyway...with any luck this will be the beginning of the end of the state's involvement in private relationships.



    Now THAT is change I can believe in.
  • brbr Posts: 8,252member
    Bill Clinton admitted that his views on gay marriage have changed. That's a good thing. He was once a hater, but no longer. Many of you are still currently haters. You, too, can change your mind.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Many of you are still currently haters.



    Like who?
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Like who?



    Yes, BR...who? We're now back to anyone that opposes or even has concerns about gay marriage on ANY grounds being a "hater.". Liberal Moral Superiorty, engage! You know what...I'm going to turn the tables here. Consider this statement:



    Anyone who opposes tax relief for all is a horrible, hateful person who supports stealing, and hurting the poor.



    Now, how do I support that statement? If I was a liberal, I wouldn't have to! I'm right because I'm right because I'm right. Suck it, Haters!
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Yes, BR...who? We're now back to anyone that opposes or even has concerns about gay marriage on ANY grounds being a "hater.". Liberal Moral Superiorty, engage! You know what...I'm going to turn the tables here. Consider this statement:



    Anyone who opposes tax relief for all is a horrible, hateful person who supports stealing, and hurting the poor.



    Now, how do I support that statement? If I was a liberal, I wouldn't have to! I'm right because I'm right because I'm right. Suck it, Haters!



    You're starting to learn.



    The truth is, Liberals don't use this kind of thing very often, but Conservatives use it ALL THE TIME.



    "Iran is dangerous! Anyone who doesn't recognize that is an idiot!"

    "Muslims want to destroy the West, literally! There's a HUGE global movement! Anyone who doesn't see that is blind!"

    "God says homosexuality is an abomination! Anyone with any other interpretation of the Bible hates Christians!"

    "Abortion is murder! Anyone who disagrees is nonhuman!"

    "Believers of Keynesian theory are morons who don't understand real economics!"



    And then there's the constant mocking and the name calling...



    Loony Liberals! (For anyone who believes in environmental protection, social policy or freedom from religious doctrine.)

    Socialist! (For anyone who believes in a safety net.)

    Authoritarian! (For anyone who believes in reasonable regulation.)

    Anti-Semite! (For anyone who thinks Israel is treating the Palestinians like shit.)



    So don't YOU fucking tell ME that Liberals are the only ones who are elitist!
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    "Believers of Keynesian theory are morons who don't understand real economics!"



    Well, that one is true.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Authoritarian! (For anyone who believes in reasonable regulation.)



    Straw man.



    You are authoritarian when you want to force others to do what you think they should do as you've clearly indicated you want to do.



    You are a coward when you won't admit that you want to do this when you so obviously do.



    You are also an authoritarian when you claim the right to declare the terms of debate.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Well, that one is true.



    Of course it is.

    See what I mean? Forget all the Nobel prizes, forget all the textbooks on the subject and university courses and policies put in practice and working well... None of those people understand economics at all.



    No, Libertarians aren't elitist at all!

    Quote:

    Straw man.



    You are authoritarian when you want to force others to do what you think they should do as you've clearly indicated you want to do.



    You are a coward when you won't admit that you want to do this when you so obviously do.



    You are also an authoritarian when you claim the right to declare the terms of debate.



    Do you believe any laws are reasonable? Laws against murder? Laws that you can't dump nuclear waste in the Antarctic? Traffic laws?



    If so then I guess you're authoritarian!!!



    So if we're all authoritarian, why is it a label of insult?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Of course it is.

    See what I mean? Forget all the Nobel prizes, forget all the textbooks on the subject and university courses and policies put in practice and working well... None of those people understand economics at all.



    No, Libertarians aren't elitist at all!



    Well I'm not sure the Nobel Prize is necessarily the best barometer here.



    Look, do some study on this. Keynesianism is bullshit. It has never worked.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Do you believe any laws are reasonable? Laws against murder? Laws that you can't dump nuclear waste in the Antarctic? Traffic laws?



    Of course. Don't be ridiculous. The first two you mention are laws having to do with basic rights of life, liberty and property. I've been very consistent in stating these as the foundation. The third...well first, I think the roads should be private. Then, I believe that if you freely chose to use someone's roads you agree to be bound by the terms of their use...which would be "rules of the road." This is no different from saying there are rules when you walk into a restaurant or movie theater.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    If so then I guess you're authoritarian!!!



    So if we're all authoritarian, why is it a label of insult?



    Well there's a difference.



    Since the state is unique in that it is the only institution in society that has a monopoly on the use of force and violence. As such, I believe this power should be limited to protecting each person's basic, natural rights of life, liberty and property.



    Therefore the laws I support are those that protect every person's basic, natural rights of life, liberty and property.



    This is not authoritarian.



    You, however, wish to use the states power of force to actually violate those rights when you think someone must be forced to pay for something you think they should pay for or to force someone to do something you think they should do or forcibly stop someone from doing something you don't think they should do even it isn't a violation of another person's rights.



    Do you see the difference here?
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Look, do some study on this. Keynesianism is bullshit. It has never worked.



    Millions of respected economists disagree with you completely. See what I mean about elitism?



    Quote:

    Since the state is unique in that it is the only institution in society that has a monopoly on the use of force and violence.



    Really? You've never seen private security guards with firearms? You've never seen a dog in a yard, for God's sake?

    Quote:

    As such, I believe this power should be limited to protecting each person's basic, natural rights of life, liberty and property.



    So we shouldn't have laws against overfishing, for instance?

    Quote:

    Therefore the laws I support are those that protect every person's basic, natural rights of life, liberty and property.



    Only directly, or does indirectly count?

    Quote:

    This is not authoritarian.



    By your definition, it is.

    Quote:

    You are authoritarian when you want to force others to do what you think they should do...



    ...Like when you want people to keep quiet in the theater while a movie is playing but they want to give their friend a running commentary? You're authoritarian!

    Quote:

    You, however, wish to use the states power of force to actually violate those rights when you think someone must be forced to pay for something you think they should pay for or to force someone to do something you think they should do or forcibly stop someone from doing something you don't think they should do even it isn't a violation of another person's rights.



    Yes, that's called 'law'.

    Quote:

    Do you see the difference here?



    Sure. I believe in government and regulation, and you believe in anarchy except under the most obvious direct situation. Indirect? Fuhgeddaboudit!
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Millions of respected economists disagree with you completely.



    Millions?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Really? You've never seen private security guards with firearms? You've never seen a dog in a yard, for God's sake?



    Oh dear. You don't actually see the difference.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Only directly, or does indirectly count?



    You'll have to give specific examples.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    ...Like when you want people to keep quiet in the theater while a movie is playing but they want to give their friend a running commentary? You're authoritarian!



    Not at all. :roll eyes:





    Why can't just admit that you prefer to use force to make people do what you think they should do?
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Millions?



    How many trained or practicing economists do you think there are in a world of 7 billion people? I think you'll find that the majority actually believe that Keynesian theory is a respected and sound theory.

    Quote:

    Oh dear. You don't actually see the difference.



    On the contrary, apparently it's you who don't see the similarity. It's a shame, really, but not surprising.

    Quote:

    You'll have to give specific examples.



    If a restaurant is not regulated, and they decide to serve the leftover pork from last week, before market forces have the chance to react, someone may be deprived of their right to life. Therefore restaurant hygiene regulation is a valid law.

    Quote:

    Not at all. :roll eyes:



    Of course not.

    Quote:

    Why can't just admit that you prefer to use force to make people do what you think they should do?



    Again, that's the definition of law.
  • sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    You're starting to learn.



    The truth is, Liberals don't use this kind of thing very often, but Conservatives use it ALL THE TIME.



    "Iran is dangerous! Anyone who doesn't recognize that is an idiot!"

    "Muslims want to destroy the West, literally! There's a HUGE global movement! Anyone who doesn't see that is blind!"

    "God says homosexuality is an abomination! Anyone with any other interpretation of the Bible hates Christians!"

    "Abortion is murder! Anyone who disagrees is nonhuman!"

    "Believers of Keynesian theory are morons who don't understand real economics!"



    And then there's the constant mocking and the name calling...



    Loony Liberals! (For anyone who believes in environmental protection, social policy or freedom from religious doctrine.)

    Socialist! (For anyone who believes in a safety net.)

    Authoritarian! (For anyone who believes in reasonable regulation.)

    Anti-Semite! (For anyone who thinks Israel is treating the Palestinians like shit.)



    So don't YOU fucking tell ME that Liberals are the only ones who are elitist!



    Right on the money!



    The silence that accompanies embarrassment followed the above comment...
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    You're starting to learn.



    The truth is, Liberals don't use this kind of thing very often, but Conservatives use it ALL THE TIME.



    "Iran is dangerous! Anyone who doesn't recognize that is an idiot!"



    That's not moral superiority. It's calling someone out on denial of obvious facts.



    Quote:



    "Muslims want to destroy the West, literally! There's a HUGE global movement! Anyone who doesn't see that is blind!"



    That's not moral superiority. It's calling someone out on denial of obvious facts.



    Quote:

    "God says homosexuality is an abomination! Anyone with any other interpretation of the Bible hates Christians!"



    I'm not aware of anyone that has claimed that last part.



    Quote:

    "Abortion is murder! Anyone who disagrees is nonhuman!"



    Again, an extreme position. And it's not moral superiority...it's just extreme.



    Quote:

    "Believers of Keynesian theory are morons who don't understand real economics!"



    Again, calling someone out on denial of obvious outcomes is not inherent moral superiority.



    Quote:



    And then there's the constant mocking and the name calling...



    Loony Liberals! (For anyone who believes in environmental protection, social policy or freedom from religious doctrine.)

    Socialist! (For anyone who believes in a safety net.)

    Authoritarian! (For anyone who believes in reasonable regulation.)

    Anti-Semite! (For anyone who thinks Israel is treating the Palestinians like shit.)



    So don't YOU fucking tell ME that Liberals are the only ones who are elitist!



    You don't get it. I'm talking about claiming the moral high ground on every position, from gay rights to taxes to national security. To be fair, you display behavior less often and less intensely than does BR, among others.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    That's not moral superiority. It's calling someone out on denial of obvious facts.



    That's not moral superiority. It's calling someone out on denial of obvious facts.



    I'm not aware of anyone that has claimed that last part.



    Again, an extreme position. And it's not moral superiority...it's just extreme.



    Again, calling someone out on denial of obvious outcomes is not inherent moral superiority.



    You don't get it. I'm talking about claiming the moral high ground on every position, from gay rights to taxes to national security. To be fair, you display behavior less often and less intensely than does BR, among others.



    Point, set, match. Double down on your conservative elitism, that's the ticket.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Point, set, match. Double down on your conservative elitism, that's the ticket.



    We're talking about taking MORAL stances here, and denouncing those who disagree. Understanding the threat posed by Iran is not a moral position, nor are several of the others you mentioned.



    An example of a position based on a moral stance would be: "Gay marriage should be legal. Anyone who opposes it is a hater." Another one would be: "Iran is a sovereign nation. They have a right to pursue nuclear weapons if they choose. Anyone who disagrees doesn't believe in national sovereignty, or is a war monger."
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    We're talking about taking MORAL stances here...



    Oh, I see. You've lost the argument and now you're moving the goalposts. But you didn't really, did you. Let's stick to the big ones then, shall we? Are you honestly saying the Christians calling abortion murder aren't taking an elitist moral stance and denouncing those who disagree? Are you honestly saying the Christians against gay marriage, screaming at every breath that marriage is between one man an one woman aren't being elitist? Riiiight.
Sign In or Register to comment.