Suck it, haters. - Page 3

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.

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.

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


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.


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.

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.


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


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.

I love this line:




Like Bill Clinton...



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.

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!

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!

Well, that one is true.



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.

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!

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?

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.



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.



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?

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


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

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

Only directly, or does indirectly count?

By your definition, it is.

...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!

Yes, that's called 'law'.

Sure. I believe in government and regulation, and you believe in anarchy except under the most obvious direct situation. Indirect? Fuhgeddaboudit!

Millions?



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



You'll have to give specific examples.



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?

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.

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

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.

Of course not.

Again, that's the definition of law.

Right on the money!

The silence that accompanies embarrassment followed the above comment...

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.

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."

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.

I've been talking about moral stances all along. WTF are you saying?


If they are doing both and refusing to engage in a logical defense of their position, yes...they are. If they simply have strong moral beliefs on the issue, that's fine.


That really depends. If their argument is based on their on private moral and religious beliefs (coupled with a refusal to discuss the legal and social implications), then yes. Though, I don't know that "elitist" really applies, because these are not typically people in positions of power and influence. It's more applicable to media figures, celebrities, politicians, etc. In any case, it's not moral elitism when one stands up for that which he believes.

For example, I happen to believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. However, me advocating that as law has nothing little or nothing to do with my religious and moral beliefs.

Congratulations to Maryland for doing it the right way.

Who are they?

The people who claim, "That's the way it's always been -- you can't change the definition!" or the people who claim, "That's what the Bible says!" without regard for (or capability to understand) what's right and wrong. Cue SDW saying I'm being morally elitist. I don't care.

Yeah, because all opponents of gay marriage are racist, sexist, homophobic bigots. It's moral elitism once again.


Actually, I don't think you are being morally elitist in this post. We simply disagree. I believe there are serious problems with changing the definition of marriage. One of the biggest ones is it leaves no moral or legal grounds for preventing future changes, ones that will destroy the institution itself. Changing the definition to include gays means that almost any group will have the moral (and perhaps legal) grounds to argue for their "right" to marry...particularly in regard to marrying more than one person.

As for those that argue on religious grounds, they are entitled to their own beliefs and practices. Obviously the law cannot be based on those beliefs.

Like I said, some people lack the inherent ability to understand what's right and wrong. If you can use a slippery slope argument in this case then you're an example.

Oh, the irony. I still can't get you to explain to me exactly why stealing is wrong unless it's done by a group of individuals calling themselves a government.

It's not stealing. It's a business transaction. By using the roads, the education system, the rail, the sea ports, the military defense of our country, access to the emergency safety net 'just in case', even if you never end up using it, you have entered into a contract to pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes then it's you who are stealing those services from the government.

You will claim you never agreed to such a contract. Your parents did, you idiot. The minute they decided to get you a social security number when you were born, they agreed to the contract. They could have opted out by leaving the country when you were born and raising you somewhere else, and never applying for your US citizenship. You are bound to the contract now. Live with it. Things could be worse. Still don't like it? Blame your parents. What about your kids? I assume you decided not to bind them to this contract, right? Oh... Shit. I guess you forgot to do them this kindness.

That's why it's not theft. Now ignore reality some more and claim it's theft again in five minutes as if this conversation never took place.

How come 50% of the people involved with this social compact don't owe anything towards it?

That's part of the contract. Got a problem with that?

How come someone accused of a crime can get free legal representation?

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S FAIR AND RIGHT.

And keep in mind it's not that those 50% don't owe anything. It's that they don't have to pay until they can afford it. Seems fair in the context of humanity and what's right and wrong.

What you say is true, but most of those are state taxes, so in the interest of the discussion of Federal taxation, I left this very valid point out.

It isn't part of the contract. I do have a problem with it and that is why I think everyone ought to have some skin in the social contract game.


You are talking about the steps we will take before we deprive someone of their rights. That is very different. Saying you should pay a nickle on your soda to make sure we all have roads is far from saying you should be deprived of your rights and be locked up without representation.


Given the debts we have, society cannot afford their lack of participation. Likewise people cannot properly help prioritize and seek out their interests when when they have no financial stake besides who gets the goodies.

It is part of the contract. If you want to change the contract use your vote. In my mind it's fair to give poor people a pass on things they can't afford, because the system benefits partially on their backs, and keeping them there.

I'm talking about the steps we take before we deprive someone of their basic living.

The debts we have are a result of the massive inequalities in society. Want to lower welfare payments? Start discouraging the billion dollar CEOs and start encouraging the $50,000 worker.

The interracial marriage analogy is highly flawed. No one is able to choose his race. People ARE able to choose their sexual orientation, at least in some cases. People ARE able to choose whether or not to marry more than one person (or at least, they would be).


Specifically? Polygamists. And what grounds would we prevent it...that their taxes would be complicated? As for the institution, it would be destroyed because the term "marriage" would become meaningless and diluted. It would become something else entirely. This is why I support civil unions. It's far less risky path and still entitles gays to equal rights of law and property.