Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

[CRed05]

Vetting process for green cards could take up to 2 years to get approved. So immigrants or "Muslims" aren't just pouring into the U.S. for us to "babysit"

 

It takes a lot of time, money, fingerprinting, background checking, blood testing to apply for a green card. There's a reason why green card holders are allowed to purchase firearms. The only difference between a green card holder and a citizen is the right to vote. They've gone through a lot more than most who just happened to fall out of their mom's fat, sloppy corn fed cunts.

 

You think going to and dealing with BMV employees is bad, try dealing the INS.

[Brandon]

Meh - its funny how easily people fall for BS

 

Even the lefts demi god Elon Musk tweeted out its not nearly what it is portrayed

 

Read the dang thing - 3000 words. Or just read Breitbart and Huffington Post and act like a clown.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2017/01/27/text-of-trump-executive-order-on-barring-refugees/

[2highpsi]

In for Kerry's opinion of Scalia V2 nomination.

[TTQ B4U]

In for Kerry's opinion of Scalia V2 nomination in 25 words or less.

 

FIFY

[Geeto67]

In for Kerry's opinion of Scalia V2 nomination.

 

I'm not thrilled but he could have done a lot worse.

 

I generally don't like conservative orginalists or textualists because they tend to read it politically rather than morally and often use it to exclude rather than include.

 

Orginalism is not an exclusively conservative idea it's just less popular among democrats because of the underlying philosophy that the laws should be read in the context of the time they are being applied. if you want to read good originalist opinions judge Hugo Black is a good place to start (read them in contrast with Scalia and you'll understand what a bad jurist Scalia really was).

 

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued about this when they were drafting the constitution: Jefferson a proponent of it as a living document, and Madison fearful that the base intent of the document would be forgotten. So this isnt a new struggle. However, judges like Scalia and Thomas take it too far where as the Warren court is probably the best example of striking a reasonable balance.

 

In Gorsuch he gets a pretty good legal scholar who isn't the gigantic frat house bag of dicks and roofies Scalia was. Plus since Gorsuch was a clerk to Kennedy I'm hopeful that Kennedy can pull him more mainstream.

[Geeesammy]

If by politically you mean look at it legally, then yea.

 

Morality doesn't mean shit in this country, laws do.

 

You of all people should know this.

[2highpsi]

I'm actually pretty impressed with Kerry's response.

 

We obviously still have a difference of opinion, but that is the kind of post I can engage a meaningful conversation with. (Honestly I rather talk politics with people who see things in a way that I don't. )

 

 

 

Did I miss something in the past few months around here?

[zeitgeist57]

I'm actually pretty impressed with Kerry's response.

 

We obviously still have a difference of opinion, but that is the kind of post I can engage a meaningful conversation with. (Honestly I rather talk politics with people who see things in a way that I don't. )

 

 

 

Did I miss something in the past few months around here?

 

Sshhhh, Jordan...

 

We can't let Kerry know that he's actually providing insightful commentary from a leftist point-of-view that positively influences our thinking through contrast...

 

...we'd never hear the end of it from the guy. :gabe:

[Not Brian]

http://www.bobbyanding.com/2015/10/a-female-doctor-working-in-germany.html

[BStowers023]

http://www.bobbyanding.com/2015/10/a-female-doctor-working-in-germany.html

 

 

In b4 "Wow, she's just an islamaphobic lunatic."

[Geeto67]

If by politically you mean look at it legally, then yea.

 

Morality doesn't mean shit in this country, laws do.

 

You of all people should know this.

 

I don't think you understand the nuance that goes into a judges opinion. Morality is the underlying basis for a lot of the laws we have, ours is a system based on "moral universalism" (a base system of ethics applies to all) but struggles with the concept of moral absolutism (things being clearly ethically right or wrong) in application. Part of the importance of a judges opinion is to settle what the laws mean in terms of their enforcement so there is a clear behavior that the law targets consistent with the other laws that already exist and does not harm the population at large.

 

If you have ever taken any kind of advanced writing class you would have learned that there are millions of ways to write something that captures the overall the same spirit but changes small subtle details, and that it is also possible to write two things almost the same but have their meanings be completely different due to a small change or even just a change in context outside the actual words written. That's what the judge does with their opinion - they look at it and say these words mean this in this context, this is the behavior eh are trying to prevent, and these are the defenses or excuses

 

This isn't just at the supreme court level, this is every court. In every trial there is both a determination of fact (did the event happen or not) and a determination of law (does the law apply to the events that can be proven).

 

Take a parking ticket for example. Say you parked a a meter and got a ticket for the meter because it was expired, but the meter was broken because when you put money in it it did not change its status. So you decide to fight it in court. The statute itself doesn't say "unless the meter is broken" because most statues wouldn't say that be she it is too difficult to anticipate all the excuses as to why it would be ok to park at an expired meter. Let's assume you are able to get s jury trial - the jury would be tasked with figuring out if you were telling the truth about the meter being broken because there were no witnesses but yourself who saw you put money in. The jury would also receive instruction from the judge on how to read the facts as it applies to the statute via jury instruction so that they can render a determination of guilt.

 

If the judge were a textualist he would instruct the jury to read it so it's on the face what the law says and if there no excuse explicitly written then if should not matter if the meter was broken. If the judge subscribed to the living document theory of law where things interpret in the context of the situation, he might instruct the jury to consider whether it is fair to hold you responsible for a violation in light of s broken meter.

 

After the jury renders the verdict it becomes the judges responsibility to write his opinion supporting the verdict and creating precedent for future enforcement. From a moral aspect he might say the meters are there to give everyone a chance at parking in the city and prevent people from treating the street as their own private driveway, but it is also not moral to hold people financially responsible for meters they don't own or service. Or if he is a textualist he might say there is strict liability and a broken meter is no excuse.

 

Understand?

[TTQ B4U]

In for Kerry's opinion of Scalia V2 nomination in 25 words or less.

 

211 but a good answer.

[Geeesammy]

Solution:

 

Don't park at parking meter

[unfunnyryan]

In for Kerry's opinion of Scalia V2 nomination.

 

211 but a good answer.

 

I would have guessed 25 pages, not words.

 

Someone should gather all of his post together and calculate where he is on the spectrum

[BStowers023]

Has anyone been on CNN recently? I don't know how anyone could call that shit a "News source."

[TTQ B4U]

Has anyone been on CNN recently? I don't know how anyone could call that shit a "News source."

 

All their anchors look like scared and confused people that are still shell-shocked that Clinton lost.

[Geeto67]

Has anyone been on CNN recently? I don't know how anyone could call that shit a "News source."

 

The same way people make fun of "Fox" for being "News".

 

In terms of bias we are now entering an age where there are clear lines being drawn in terms of party support, which really shouldn't happen since news reporting is supposed to be objective. That's the influence of "business" on the news and reporting - catering to your audience and squaring off against competition. Right now you can mostly find in the middle ground a rough political polar opposite for each news source. For example CNN and Fox news have sort of squared off as politically biased rivals, esp in the pundit space. go further toward the pundit end of the spectrum and you find huffington post, Brietbart, drudge report, buzz feed, etc....

 

The thing is the more you move toward the pundit side of the scale, the less you are reading actual news. Rush Limbaugh, Bill Reilly, Rachel Madow, these are opinion reporters not fact reporters and often their stuff is dubious enough to be considered an outright fabrication (which is different from the actual lies the president and his administration is telling - reporting that exposes those lies is actually reporting).

 

There are still objective sources but you have to run to the boring side of the scale. Places like The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Bloomberg, BBC (not BBC America), the economist, etc....

 

Personally I would include the NYTimes there as objective because their reporting is still fairly objective, however they tend to get tagged as fairly liberal because their op-ed section is huge and tends to run liberal (but not inaccurate), and can often be mistaken for their other news stories because people generally have a hard time telling fact from opinion. So take it or leave it.

 

so rather than bitch about CNN, which admittedly has lost its way, why not just elevate your news sources and draw your own conclusions. You have options, use them.

[Geeto67]

All their anchors look like scared and confused people that are still shell-shocked that the person who ran as being the more "trustworthy" candidate has now issued more patently and provably false statements than anybody could have imagined.

 

fixed it for you.

[TTQ B4U]

The thing is the more you move toward the pundit side of the scale, the less you are reading actual news. Rush Limbaugh, Bill Reilly, Rachel Madow, these are opinion reporters not fact reporters and often their stuff is dubious enough to be considered an outright fabrication

 

I find Bill O'Reilly is pretty factual. If you subscribe to his site he includes the citations and details along with the transcripts for the show. I also find him pretty fair and balanced. He's as critical of Trump as anyone and is as hard on him and his policies and statements as he was Obama's. None of them are perfect but at least he does far less to near no speculation and does offer citations.

 

Just my opinion.

[Geeto67]

I find Bill O'Reilly is pretty factual. If you subscribe to his site he includes the citations and details along with the transcripts for the show.

Its still his opinion. It's not reporting it's Op-Ed. He may support his argument with facts and citations but they are still his opinions and he gets paid to put a slant on things.

 

It doesn't mean he hasn't been caught in a lie like the rest of the pundits or stretching his argument to meet facts. maybe he has been caught less than some of the other ones but it doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative if you are pundit saying opinionated things is your job.

 

I also find him pretty fair and balanced.

That may have more to do with you agreeing with him than it does with whether he is objectively "fair" or "Balanced". Remember he's opinion based entertainment catering to a market audience - not news.

 

 

He's as critical of Trump as anyone and is as hard on him and his policies and statements as he was Obama's. None of them are perfect but at least he does far less to near no speculation and does offer citations.

He's a pretty old school conservative and right now the real old reganites are having a hard time with the god awful mess they were unable to control holding the prized office as their representative. I honestly expect him to be critical of trump because I don't believe his core audience are diehard trump supporters.

[LJ]

http://www.curvemag.com/radicalmooselambs.jpg

[BStowers023]

so rather than bitch about CNN, which admittedly has lost its way, why not just elevate your news sources and draw your own conclusions. You have options, use them.

 

I was just pointing out that CNN has lost credibility and anyone who still considers them a valid news source doesn't know what news is. Then you had to attempt to enlighten us on how much you know about said topic, like you usually do.

[Geeto67]

I was just pointing out that CNN has lost credibility and anyone who still considers them a valid news source doesn't know what news is.

 

would you say the same thing about fox?

 

 

The one thing (and it may be the only thing) that I like about DJT is that he is forcing the republican party to deal with the split in the party between people who just hate liberals as an abstract concept or because of moral fundamentalism, and people who actually have conservative based political values. Appealing to a social conservative agenda that is largely based on religious morality has cost the party key figures and supporters who have conservative economic and foreign interest outlooks.

 

 

 

Then you had to attempt to enlighten us on how much you know about said topic, like you usually do.

 

Do you want to have a conversation about this or do you just want to shout your frustrations into the void?

[caseyctsv]

http://www.curvemag.com/radicalmooselambs.jpg

 

I don't know why I find her so funny but I laugh at her no matter what she does. I thought this was brilliant - yes I am immature

[LJ]

would you say the same thing about fox?

 

 

The one thing (and it may be the only thing) that I like about DJT is that he is forcing the republican party to deal with the split in the party between people who just hate liberals as an abstract concept or because of moral fundamentalism, and people who actually have conservative based political values. Appealing to a social conservative agenda that is largely based on religious morality has cost the party key figures and supporters who have conservative economic and foreign interest outlooks.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you want to have a conversation about this or do you just want to shout your frustrations into the void?

 

It is just going to eventually show that the country is truly a center based majority that leans more socially liberal and slightly fiscally conservative. Watching people's reactions on social media when they learn that they will lose their health insurance if the ACA is repealed just shows that what people THINK they believe vs what they ACTUALLY believe may not be the same thing.