1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#302 Feb 19 2015 at 7:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Well, a man marrying a man certainly makes it easier to murder your stalking victim.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#303 Feb 19 2015 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
You do see the comparison, right?
Okay, and considering how you're adamantly, if not furiously, against the government infringing on a state's rights to recognize or not a gay marriage certificate, then we can infer that you're also against the government's infringement of a state's rights on whether they acknowledge an out of state concealed carry permit, correct? After all, I'd hate for you to appear as though your positions are based purely on ridiculously predictable political bias and your vaunted consistency be questioned.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#304 Feb 19 2015 at 9:28 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Senator John Cornyn wants concealed weapons to be portable to places where they're currently illegal.

Because it's okay to impose your morality across state lines, as long as you're not a **** liberal.

Lol. It's a brilliant play on the precedent set with same se.x marriage. Kinda funny really. Doubly so given NY is the state complaining.

You do see the comparison, right? I mean, if a concealed carry permit is granted in Michigan, that permit ought to be respected in New York. Otherwise... Shenanigans!

Well, it needs to be put into context. One of those puts the lives of civilians in public places at risk, the other is designed to allow a segment of the population to enjoy the same benefits of familyhood as everybody else. But, I guess the specifics don't matter, as long as one is okay then the other one has to be.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#305 Feb 19 2015 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
But putting people's lives at risk is what makes it so brilliantly funny!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#306 Feb 19 2015 at 10:11 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Guess I should read all the posts in a thread before I make the exact same comments as someone else.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#307 Feb 19 2015 at 11:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
That seems like it would only take the fun out of things.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#308 Feb 19 2015 at 11:30 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
But putting people's lives at risk is what makes it so brilliantly funny!
Not people. Liberals.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#309 Feb 19 2015 at 1:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Debalic wrote:
Guess I should read all the posts in a thread before I make the exact same comments as someone else.
No it's ok as I'm Canadian. My comments are irrelevant.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#310 Feb 19 2015 at 2:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Guess I should read all the posts in a thread before I make the exact same comments as someone else.
No it's ok as I'm Canadian. My comments are irrelevant.
It's not that they're irrelevant, it's just that we're aware Canadians are known lobbyists for the pro-moose agenda, so we need to take every you say with a grain of salt.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#311 Feb 19 2015 at 4:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Shiny new Republican governor Bruce Rauner is finding out that playing the role of Union Buster is harder in Illinois than it is in Wisconsin or Indiana. Rauner gave an executive order prohibiting public unions from collecting "fair use" dues from non-union employees (since everyone benefits from collective bargaining, everyone pays into it even if you elect not to join the union). His immediate attack on the unions has baffled pretty much everyone for a guy who'll need Democratic assistance to do... well, basically anything. While the Illinois voting public deeply disliked former governor Quinn, they also re-elected every single Democratic member of the state legislature and every Democratic holder of an executive office aside from said governor. In other words, Rauner's win wasn't a newly formed groundswell of Republican support in the state, it was a function of not liking a single guy. The state legislature has Democratic super-majorities in both chambers, enough to be veto-proof should they hold together. Hence the executive order from Rauner, an attempt to get around the impossible hurdle of the state assembly.

Anyway, the attorney general has said that Rauner's orders won't pass muster and is going to fight them in court. The only other Republican-held office, state comptroller, is who would enforce the order. Except even she says that the attorney general is probably right and won't be enforcing it, making Rauner's attack on the unions toothless. Even more amusing, said comptroller was JUST appointed by Rauner when the previous comptroller suddenly died after the election before taking office. So basically no one agrees with him. I just read three editorials in Crain's Chicago Business saying that Rauner was making a big mistake. Guess we'll see where he goes from here.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#312 Feb 19 2015 at 4:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In unrelated news, the Obama presidential library will (probably, almost certainly) be in Chicago, after facing unexpected competition from New York and Hawaii. Rahm Emanuel probably has an extra spring in his step at today's announcement as he goes into his mayoral re-election next week.

Edited, Feb 19th 2015 4:34pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#313 Feb 20 2015 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Does every president get a library?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#314 Feb 20 2015 at 8:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
According to the Washington Post:
Quote:
Presidential libraries aren’t mentioned in the Constitution or in any of our other founding documents. They date to 1938, when Franklin D. Roosevelt — midway through his second term of office — announced that he would personally construct a public archive in his native Hyde Park, N.Y.

Roosevelt was worried that the records of his administration — like many prior presidents’ papers — would be lost, destroyed or sold off to private bidders. He also wanted a place to write his memoirs and, most of all, to burnish his image as a defender of democracy.
[...]
In 1955, the Presidential Libraries Act converted Roosevelt’s precedent into law. Each succeeding president would raise money to construct his own library, while the federal government would pay for its operation and upkeep.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#315 Feb 20 2015 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Elinda wrote:
Does every president get a library?
Some barely deserve the children's fiction section of a small town Books-a-Million.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#316 Feb 20 2015 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In unrelated news, the Obama presidential library will (probably, almost certainly) be in Chicago, after facing unexpected competition from New York and Hawaii. Rahm Emanuel probably has an extra spring in his step at today's announcement as he goes into his mayoral re-election next week.


The real Obama Library will be in Kenya. And will probably be central to the plot of National Treasure 5.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#317 Feb 20 2015 at 9:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. He lost the Senate.

Which had zero to do with filibuster rules.


It wasn't about the filibuster rules, but breaking them sure didn't help them convince the public that they were honest brokers with the power they had been vested with. It played right into the GOP talking points about the Dems being willing to abuse any power they had to push forward with their agenda, regardless of public support or opposition. So yeah. It had consequences far more significant than the appointments gained. How much this affected the various Senate races is impossible to say, but it was certainly a factor.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#318 Feb 20 2015 at 9:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
How much this affected the various Senate races is impossible to say

Essentially not at all. I say "essentially" because, out of 300 million people, I suppose someone out there decided this was his or her pet battle but it had nothing to do with the senate loss.

Edited, Feb 20th 2015 9:20pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#319 Feb 20 2015 at 9:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You do see the comparison, right?
Okay, and considering how you're adamantly, if not furiously, against the government infringing on a state's rights to recognize or not a gay marriage certificate, then we can infer that you're also against the government's infringement of a state's rights on whether they acknowledge an out of state concealed carry permit, correct? After all, I'd hate for you to appear as though your positions are based purely on ridiculously predictable political bias and your vaunted consistency be questioned.


That applies in the other direction though, right? if you are furiously in support of the argument that a marriage license granted in State A must be honored in State B, then you should also furiously support the argument that a concealed carry permit granted in State A also be honored in State B. Right?


For the record though, my positions are based on whether the state is being obligated to do something in response to said legal status, or simply allowing someone to do something because of said legal status. I guess it's yet another case of the positive versus negative rights thing. The right to carry a concealed handgun is a negative right. The state only has to agree to *not* arrest and/or prosecute the person for carrying a concealed handgun. Requiring the state to grant marriage benefits to a group of people is a positive right issue. The state is being obligated to do something *for* that person, not just not do something *to* them. Totally different cases.

For the sake of completeness sake though, I don't think that a concealed weapons permit granted in State A should be honored in any state that does not have any sort of concealed weapons permit process at all. However, a reasonable case could be made that if a state does grant concealed weapon permits, that it ought to honor the same if granted in another state. And this case is strengthened by the very same arguments being used for marriage licenses. That's the point I was making. IMO, the argument for CC is actually stronger than that for GM since the former merely requires that the state allow someone to do something, while the latter requires that the state do something for the person in question.


I'm sure you disagree. Probably for some nutty reason though. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#320 Feb 20 2015 at 9:48 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
ColoUr me crazy, but didn't the GOP run one fillibuster after another to **** on Obama? Now fillibusters are bad?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#321 Feb 20 2015 at 9:49 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Probably for some nutty reason though.
Yeah, a state's right to govern itself is such a crack pot reason. Big government!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#322 Feb 20 2015 at 9:52 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Totally different cases.
Nope. State law vs state law. Your peripheral ideas about it are irrelevant.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#323 Feb 20 2015 at 9:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How much this affected the various Senate races is impossible to say

Essentially not at all. I say "essentially" because, out of 300 million people, I suppose someone out there decided this was his or her pet battle but it had nothing to do with the senate loss.


You're free to your opinion, but one of the major GOP strategies (which worked well) was to tie Democrats running for re-election to Obama and his policies and governing. Fair or not, being associated with Obama was a negative for Dems. In that environment, breaking longstanding filibuster rules in order to help Obama get some appointments through the approval process kinda puts a big exclamation point on the "Senate Dems are bending over for Obama" idea. Again, it's hard to say how much that one thing affected the outcome, but when combined with the failed shutdown, and the horrific rollout of Obamacare, it's just one more think lumped onto the pile.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#324 Feb 20 2015 at 10:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
ColoUr me crazy, but didn't the GOP run one fillibuster after another to **** on Obama? Now fillibusters are bad?


I didn't say they were bad. I said that they help or hurt the party engaging in them based on the public perception of the thing they are filibustering. If the minority party uses the filibuster to block legislation that the public doesn't like, they're seen as the underdog fighting to protect the people from an abusive majority. If the same party uses the filibuster to block legislation that the public does like and want, then they're seen as obstructionists, blocking the will of the people.


And yes, both sides will attempt to paint the effort in the terms most beneficial to themselves, but public opinion does tend to make itself known. And when ignored, can affect the next election outcomes to a degree (obviously, we're still just talking about one factor of many). Of course, choosing to break the filibuster rules when public opinion fails to fall in your favor is guaranteed to result in a serious negative backlash. Again, the whole point here is that public opinion and the threat of harm in the next election can be used to break a filibuster when it's unpopular, but will fail when said filibuster is popular. The Dems choosing to eliminate the filibuster in this case says clearly that they didn't have public opinion on their side, the GOP wasn't losing anything from blocking those nominations, but the Dems didn't care about what the public wanted and just changed the rules to "win" anyway.

Which, IMO, cost them more in the long run than any filibuster could have. They just proved to a large number of people that the GOP was right about their "might makes right" approach to politics. Hence my point that it was really stupid for Reid to do this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#325 Feb 20 2015 at 10:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Probably for some nutty reason though.
Yeah, a state's right to govern itself is such a crack pot reason. Big government!


So you're saying that a state has the right to decide who qualifies for any given state benefit? Like marriage benefits?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#326 Feb 20 2015 at 10:13 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
So you're saying that a state has the right to decide who qualifies for any given state benefit?
So you're saying that you're okay with big government intervention even after all the tirades you've gone on against that very same thing? For the record, if a state doesn't want to honor an out of state marriage certificate that's on them. People will either not move there and the state'll lose that money or just wait until it comes to town.

By the way:
gbaji wrote:
For the sake of completeness sake though, I don't think that a concealed weapons permit granted in State A should be honored in any state that does not have any sort of concealed weapons permit process at all.
And for completions sake, exactly which states are the ones that have no permit process at all?

Edited, Feb 20th 2015 11:16pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 211 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (211)