Guest kinojay33 Report post Posted January 30, 2006 Just a question--why does it always seem like right-wing conservatives are always on the defensive, like they're an oppressed minority group that is just fighting against the liberals who run everything? Republicans own the business world, the White House & Congress. 'Nuff said. If anyone's an oppressed minority group. By the way-- 1) Democrats are not trying to take your guns away 2) Democrats are not going to take your Jesus away 3) Democrats are not going to take your land or business away (that's the domain of the right) 4) Democrats are not going to let hardened criminals roam the streets and most importantly... 5) THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "LIBERAL" MEDIA. If there was, that drug-addled dumbass in the White House wouldn't have had it so easy during his first term. Using proper grammar & not shouting during newscasts isn't indicative of a liberal bias--it's proper journalism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest pixelthief Report post Posted January 30, 2006 If conservatism is really the "status quo" then why don't they trot this guy out and let him say what he really thinks? They can't, because the majority of the Americans don't agree with you. And try as you will to define liberalism as the "status quo" that must not be upset, I am not buying it. Now let's let the process play out. 59443[/snapback] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMSDigital Report post Posted January 30, 2006 59457[/snapback] LOLOL! ur out of control! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest govinda Report post Posted January 30, 2006 Designers have been pie-starved! All things in moderation though. A thread tomorrow about, say, the SOTU would probably be over the line. In honor of the OMFGLOLROTFLMAO Jesus bit above, I've officially changed my avatar. Tee dee fucking hee! Book of SteveKilisky, Chapter 9: 18. And a light SHONE down upon me, saying unto me, govinda, you who humbly herd cattle, 19. Twirleth thee down the holy triangular doodad to the left of the keyable attribute 20. And examineth the holy bezier curves of your Savior. 21. For they are the ease, the easy ease, and the linear of the motion most holy. 23. And a light shone upon them, for God uses Trapcode Shine a little too much, 24. Just like Liberty Media Inc. 25. And God further sayeth in a confidential aside, pssst, yo, bro, I can see Clint from up here, check it out, I'll IM you a snap, he's in a corner taking it up the yingity by the liars, incompetents and criminals he supports and crying out for more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fredcamino Report post Posted January 30, 2006 you can't spell liberal without LIE and you can't spell conservative without OAT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest christianchoice Report post Posted January 30, 2006 25. And God further sayeth in a confidential aside, pssst, yo, bro, I can see Clint from up here, check it out, I'll IM you a snap, he's in a corner taking it up the yingity by the liars, incompetents and criminals he supports and crying out for more. 59493[/snapback] uh oh. if only the world were run by care bears & smurfs....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest pixelthief Report post Posted January 30, 2006 daaaaaaaaang. 25. And God further sayeth in a confidential aside, pssst, yo, bro, I can see Clint from up here, check it out, I'll IM you a snap, he's in a corner taking it up the yingity by the liars, incompetents and criminals he supports and crying out for more. 59496[/snapback] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest basilisk Report post Posted January 30, 2006 miracle of sacred symbol appearing spontaneously in AE timeline... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Beaver Report post Posted January 30, 2006 Bet you wouldn't be saying that if Alito still looked this secsy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest govinda Report post Posted January 30, 2006 Effects>Render>Lightning strikes govinda. Typing with burned fingers as charred hair sets off smoke alarm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest pixelthief Report post Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) NYT: In Alito, GOP Reaps Harvest Planted in '82 Edited January 30, 2006 by pixelthief Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest christianchoice Report post Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) NYT: In Alito, GOP Reaps Harvest Planted in '82 "Judge Alito's confirmation is also the culmination of a disciplined campaign begun by the Reagan administration to seed the lower federal judiciary with like-minded jurists who could reorient the federal courts toward a view of the Constitution much closer to its 18th-century authors' intent, including a much less expansive view of its application to individual rights and federal power." whats wrong with interpreting the constitution the way it was meant to be interpreted?????? if one doesn't agree with the constitution, they can move to canada. I think the keywords here are "18th-century authors' intent." you guys have a great night i'm OFF!!!! *it's funny how two different people with two different opinions/views can interpret an article to mean two different things. i love democracy . Edited January 30, 2006 by christianchoice Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest pixelthief Report post Posted January 30, 2006 Hey, shitbird, we've passed a few amendments to the constitution since the 18th century. What about "less individual rights" sounds good to you? People owned slaves in the 18th century, for chrissakes! Clint, tell him. "including a much less expansive view of its application to individual rights and federal power." whats wrong with interpreting the constitution the way it was meant to be interpreted?????? if one doesn't agree with the constitution, they can move to canada. I think the keywords here are "18th-century authors' intent." *it's funny how two different people with two different opinions/views can interpret an article to mean two different things. i love democracy . 59518[/snapback] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest govinda Report post Posted January 30, 2006 Contrary to Awesome_Swelles' read, Supreme Court nominees only *willingly* follow precedent. As in voluntarily. There is no higher court, so they can do like Berger and swing toward fulfilling the promise of the Constitutions and an open society, or they can do as this court will likely do, and accelerate the slide into banana republic, paid-off, corrupt, religious charlatanistic, kleptocratic authoritarianism with wars timed to the election cycle for maximum patriotic effect. Not to short-sell this: this is big. The only upshot is that by dismantling or even overturning Roe, of which the former is likely, the mask will finally be off. The true face will show. And will the public buy it? Note to future Repub president: start a war quick! I respect religion. So I believe religion should stay out of politics for its own sake, let alone ours. Or does 2,000 years of history mean nothing? Do we need a Richelieu or a cynical Pope-like figure whose ring our elected leaders must kiss, circa 1535? Because that's not far away--it's happening now among the Republicans (see 'coronation' of Sun Myung Moon in the Senate Office Building, 2004). Imagine a nation that truly enshrines 'Christianity' as a principle. The power grabs by politician liars are bad enough, let's just sit back and think about the religious beauts we'd see. We'd have more Ralph Reeds. We'd have more, unforeseen, organized stupidity like Intelligent Design popping up. Public education is a hindrance to the power-grab because it doesn't conform to religious education, so it'd be further undermined. We'd have, in short, the corruption of religion by political power. For God's sake, just go to church and worship, Clint. It's a free country. Leave your faith out of politics or your faith will become a filthy thing. And vice versa. What is religion that strips itself of all kinds of love, except self-love? Because that's the variety that's been trying to wedge itself back into power of late. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Awesome Swelles Report post Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) Contrary to Awesome_Swelles' read, Supreme Court nominees only *willingly* follow precedent. As in voluntarily. There is no higher court, so they can do like Berger and swing toward fulfilling the promise of the Constitutions and an open society, or they can do as this court will likely do, and accelerate the slide into banana republic, paid-off, corrupt, religious charlatanistic, kleptocratic authoritarianism with wars timed to the election cycle for maximum patriotic effect. Not to short-sell this: this is big. The only upshot is that by dismantling or even overturning Roe, of which the former is likely, the mask will finally be off. The true face will show. And will the public buy it? Note to future Repub president: start a war quick! 59522[/snapback] I was writing more in relation to the "it's only interpretation" line of argument. The point being that legislation (including the constitution) always relies on interpretation for its substance, and in that grey area lurks real law-making power. And that's true whether the judge is left or right leaning. We hope that they can impartially interpret the law, but that assumes that law operates in a political vacuum, which it doesn't; a lot of law boils down to really simple questions of policy to which there isn't a legal answer, just a personal opinion. There's no solution to this, or means by which a divide between politics and law can be created, you just have to accept the lottery by which a democrat or republican president gets to shift the balance when a supreme court judge dies or retires (arguably shorter terms might help make the process less of a lottery). And senatorial inquisitions and filibusters only serve to ensure that you get men like Roberts being nominated. Men who avoid controversial cases or decisions, and who do not participate in academic discourse, for fear that they may leave some kind of smoking gun. And that's bad for everyone. I disagree with Alito's views on torture and on abortion. But I think it's disingenuous of me to oppose his nomination when I would happily support someone who was liberally inclined. Edited January 31, 2006 by Awesome Swelles Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest christianchoice Report post Posted January 31, 2006 Hey, shitbird, we've passed a few amendments to the constitution since the 18th century. What about "less individual rights" sounds good to you? People owned slaves in the 18th century, for chrissakes! Clint, tell him. 59520[/snapback] let me restate what the sentence ACTUALLY says: a less expansive view of its application to individual rights and federal power. federal power being the key phrase we're looking at here. Your statement declaring that "people owned slaves" then too, shows your lack of intelligence and ability to do a little research. I think those same 18th century guys also stated that ALL MEN (and women) are created EQUAL. Obviously the majority of our founding fathers respected all peoples; even slaves. You've also not done your research on slavery or you would find out that the MAJORITY of slaves were actually treated well by their "owners." Just because abusive Southern owners make better drama on TV/Film doesn't mean its acurate history. *a quick note: most slaves were sold into slavery by THEIR OWN PEOPLE. Warring tribes in Africa usually sold the loser to the rich white man for profit; so who has committed the greater sin? the seller or the buyer? Did you ever stop to think that by buying these "slaves", the white man in fact spared their lives???...Though i'll be the first to admit, saving their lives was not the first thing on their minds.... But i guess thats a lot to expect from someone who has use vulgar language to try to devalue/anger his debating opponent by trying to look "cool" to his peers. I admire your passion about your country's politics pixel, but unless you've been there, all you have are 3rd party facts & opinions (which are sometimes confused as being a fact). And leave Clint alone. The man just stood up for his beliefs, which contrary to popular belief, isn't necessarily his religion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest pixelthief Report post Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) No need for a rebuttal from me when you've sort of rebutted yourself. Congrats! You're fucking nuts! the MAJORITY of slaves were actually treated well by their "owners." Just because abusive Southern owners make better drama on TV/Film doesn't mean its acurate history. *a quick note: most slaves were sold into slavery by THEIR OWN PEOPLE. Warring tribes in Africa usually sold the loser to the rich white man for profit; so who has committed the greater sin? the seller or the buyer? Did you ever stop to think that by buying these "slaves", the white man in fact spared their lives???...Though i'll be the first to admit, saving their lives was not the first thing on their minds.... 59530[/snapback] Edited January 31, 2006 by pixelthief Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento Report post Posted January 31, 2006 federal power being the key phrase we're looking at here. Your statement declaring that "people owned slaves" then too, shows your lack of intelligence and ability to do a little research. I think those same 18th century guys also stated that ALL MEN (and women) are created EQUAL. Obviously the majority of our founding fathers respected all peoples; even slaves. You've also not done your research on slavery or you would find out that the MAJORITY of slaves were actually treated well by their "owners." Just because abusive Southern owners make better drama on TV/Film doesn't mean its acurate history. *a quick note: most slaves were sold into slavery by THEIR OWN PEOPLE. Warring tribes in Africa usually sold the loser to the rich white man for profit; so who has committed the greater sin? the seller or the buyer? Did you ever stop to think that by buying these "slaves", the white man in fact spared their lives???...Though i'll be the first to admit, saving their lives was not the first thing on their minds.... 59530[/snapback] Who wrote those books about how happy the slaves were? I seem to remember it being illegal for the slaves to learn to read or write, so it must have been someone else . . . . but who? Certainly not anyone who would skew the truth a bit right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest christianchoice Report post Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) <begin> you guys seem to be mixing racism with slavery. blacks weren't slaves because they were black. they were slaves because they were cheap; just like the chinese factory workers who work countless hours for just a few dollars a month. you say they weren't allowed to read or write, but why should they when they had their own language??? most white people didn't know how to read or write untel the early 1900's....especially those in the south. you seem to be under the impression that they were an ignorant people because they weren't an english speaking people. i think that is the greater tragedy. read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Slavery_in_the_Americas shows that most people in the US were in fact, against treating slaves poorly and that most wanted slaves to be free & EQUAL. wait, could it be?? yes, that does in fact support my earlier statement about thost "18th century" guys....... but then again you guys are always right. always. ignorance is greater in numbers. </end> Edited January 31, 2006 by christianchoice Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest pixelthief Report post Posted January 31, 2006 pffffft. A. Anyone can edit wikipedia posts. B. You are clearly insane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fredcamino Report post Posted January 31, 2006 this has progessed nicely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Beaver Report post Posted January 31, 2006 this has progessed nicely. 59543[/snapback] I know, I'm just trying to bump up my total posts in here now. Is that geeky? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kinojay33 Report post Posted January 31, 2006 Am I the only one who's starting to get confused about who's on the left & who's on the right here? (Except for Clint, who's obviously an African American Satan worshipping Communist homosexual ) This is the strangest online political debate I've ever engaged in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fredcamino Report post Posted January 31, 2006 I know, I'm just trying to bump up my total posts in here now. Is that geeky? 59556[/snapback] no, not at all. i'm just trying to confuse people... seems it's worked on kinojay. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kinojay33 Report post Posted January 31, 2006 no, not at all. i'm just trying to confuse people... seems it's worked on kinojay. 59559[/snapback] well, apparently.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
