"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[AdmiralViscen]

Point the first, why, yes, FDR was a vile piece of shit.

Point the second, prohibition was very much so promoted as social justice against those mean ol' fat cats in the beer corporations selling poison to our children.  It was aimed at using governmental power to abolish what was viewed as one of the chief ills of mankind, and thus, improve society.  (See also: Bryan, William Jennings)

Very much so the same sort of blind, utopian, nanny state stupidity found in "progressives" of the modern era.

You view the concept of using government to interfere in people's personal choices and correct moral ills in society as closest a modern progressive philosophy?

[Van Cruncheon]

unless they are choosing to murder adorable baby fetuses, of course, and then jaydubya becomes quite progressive

[Flannel Boy]

It's odd that almost no one in Canada subscribes to originalism when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is literally as old as I am. I say that it's odd because if you want to know know what those who drafted or ratified it meant, you could fucking ask them (in fact, my constitutional prof was involved in both its drafting and ratification). You don't have to attempt to discern the intent of people who died hundreds of years ago in a radically different society with different values and goals.

unless they are choosing to murder adorable baby fetuses, of course, and then jaydubya becomes quite progressive

No, Drinky, don't!

[Van Cruncheon]

hence, it's disingenuous! UNLESS YOU HAVE A QUASI-RELIGIOUS REVERENCE FOR A DOCUMENT hmm hmm.

also, HAPPY HALLOWEEN MANDARK AND MALEK!

[brawndolicious]

Wanting to change the law makes you a "progressive".  That includes the teetotalers and FDR.

[Flannel Boy]

Wanting to change the law makes you a "progressive".  That includes the teetotalers and FDR.

I have no idea whether you're being serious.

[brawndolicious]

Wanting to change the law makes you a "progressive".  That includes the teetotalers and FDR.

I have no idea whether you're being serious.

I am actually being serious.  The literal definition of the word just means that you want to change things.  Obviously, mostly liberal people are considered "progressives" today but it sounds like jw's just arguing about the literal definition of the word and not on the religious motivation that many prohibition advocates had.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Someone needs to print the constitution on toilet paper.  I'd buy a few rolls.

The Constitution worked was written in the late 1700s and reflects that.  However, it is obvious that Madison and Co. realized that in a changing world, the constitution should change along with it, which is why you could add amendments and have the Supreme Court rule on it as well (see stuff like Marbury vs. Madison).  If the creators of the constitution understood this right after they designed it, why don't Libertarians 200 years later?  Given their comments on welfare and commercial trade, I'm not even sure that the average internet Libertarian even read the Constitution.  I mean, if these guys hold it up to be a sacred parchment, at least they should read the thing.

FDR being a "vile piece of shit" makes me LOL.  I'm guessing JayDubya thinks Hoover and Coolidge were top notch Presidents.

Edit: Anyways, I found this story to be pretty interesting.  Maybe people are just writing it off as an "LOL Detroit" story but I expected more controversy and attention towards this.

[Dickie Dee]

Wanting to change the law makes you a "progressive".  That includes the teetotalers and FDR.

I have no idea whether you're being serious.

I am actually being serious.  The literal definition of the word just means that you want to change things.  Obviously, mostly liberal people are considered "progressives" today but it sounds like jw's just arguing about the literal definition of the word and not on the religious motivation that many prohibition advocates had.

Is this the thinking behind "Hiter was really a liberal!"

Laws that change the status-quo can also be regressive.

[The Fake Shemp]

I don't know why you guys even try with JayDubya. He's not even funny to mock like FlameOfCallandor, because he's semi-sentient, which just makes me pity him.

[Stoney Mason]

I don't know why you guys even try with JayDubya

This. It's the exact same discussion every single time. I'm not even taking sides on which side is right or wrong even though its pretty clear where I stand. 

It's just an utterly useless excercise even for internet discussions which are pretty useless anyway. To have a real discussion there has to be some common ground. If there isn't, it might as well be people arguing in different languages. Which these "conversations" quickly devolve into.

But then maybe honestly that's the point. I'm slowly but surely coming to the mindset that political discussion on the internet is simply the new version of sports talk. 

[Human Snorenado]

Just because the bear does the same thing everytime you poke it with a stick doesn't mean it's not still fun.

[Dickie Dee]

It's mostly the quick fix satisfaction of taking on the lowest hanging fruit who seems almost suspiciously compliant in being wrong.

[Human Snorenado]

I still remember fondly when I finally got him to address the tyranny of circumcision.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

SM: These arguments rarely start spontaneously.  It is always started by one side, typically in the method of threadcrapping: where they walk into a thread, present a starkly contrarian viewpoint, and then berate the other side until you get into these ideological arguments like the last couple of pages.

Other conservatives don't seem to have as much problem as FOC and JayDubya and the similarity is obvious: their penchant for shitting all over well functioning threads and then berating the majority side.

[Stoney Mason]

For what its worth I'm not trying to come off as above it.

I've slung my share of shit. It's just after awhile its ground hog day everyday.

Slightly off topic but what happened to my boy Siamese Dreamer. I got a message from him on XBL a few weeks ago but he never seems to post anymore.

[Human Snorenado]

I think we broke his spirit. 

[The Fake Shemp]

I bet I can bring him out of the woodwork by saying that abortion is an alienable right, and terminating an unwanted pregnancy is just as meaningless as removing a cyst.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Last chance and final long shot to try to get the Kucinich / Single-Payer Amendment added to the health care bill.

[The Fake Shemp]

Well, if it's a typo that got you out from whatever rock you reside under, then that'll do too.

[Phoenix Dark]

What's that? We just post on EB and collect our ObamaCash 

[Dickie Dee]

It's mostly the quick fix satisfaction of taking on the lowest hanging fruit who seems almost suspiciously compliant in being wrong.

End yourself, you self-righteous fuck.

oooo, Oooo, OOOO, hot steamy irony

*rubs nipples*

[brawndolicious]

jaydub, are you arguing that both thsoe who blamed alcohol for domestic violence and the first guy to take a legal drink should be filed under "progressive".  If so, maybe you should not use the word "progressive" in describing people in the future since you're casting a pretty wide net when you call somebody that.

[Phoenix Dark]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/lieberman-im-not-obstructing-health-care-reform----public-option-supporters-are.php?ref=fpb

What a piece of shit

[FlameOfCallandor]

Lieberman

[FlameOfCallandor]

Let's put it another way - if you would agree to a contract that is the legal analogue to Calvinball, and you're not Calvin, you're a complete idiot.


Contracts don't just change willy nilly; if you alter the terms, that requires a new consent.

I really don't see why this is so hard for some people to understand, especially when altering the fucking contract is built into it.

God damn the founding fathers were geniuses. Modern politicians aren't worthy.

[Flannel Boy]

God damn the founding fathers were geniuses. Modern politicians aren't worthy.

Yes, but they didn't specify the way in which The Constitution was to be interpreted. They couldn't possibly have wanted future generations to strictly follow their intentions because it's impossible to ascertain what their true intentions were, assuming they all had the same ones.

Even if it were possible to determine their true intentions, they would often be unhelpful. The founders couldn't possibly have foreseen and anticipated every possible government action or every way in which a right could be exercised.

The Constitution contains a lot of broad and ambiguous wording. It's hard to believe that the founders expected that a specific conception of what is "cruel and unusual" would endure for centuries, even as society's view of what is "cruel and unusual" changed dramatically.

[The Fake Shemp]

You wouldn't understand what a contract is, Malek - you're Canadian.

[Crushed]

guess we don't need a judicial system then!


man, i'm so glad that a contract drawn up in secret over 200 years ago by rich white male land-owning politicians (half of whom hated the whole idea) is perfect, and plainly spells out every single thing concerning the country ever.

[The Fake Shemp]

Look at Crushed, haphazardly slapping in modern context.

[Crushed]

*owns human beings as agricultural labor because he believes that the ignorant Negro races are fundamentally inferior and do not have natural rights*
*hates democracy, thinks the poor and uneducated should be left out of political process*
*beats women and children because love is best shown through the rod*
*believes that entire continent belongs to them, not the inhabitants*
*thinks Ohio and western Pennsylvania are savage and terrible lands that cannot be tamed*
*wants to create a literal aristocracy and royalty in US*
*thinks the states are tiny independent countries*
*entire political philosophy is a reaction to a parliamentary monarchy in Europe operating on a system of mercantilism and colonialism*

*is a founding father, will be worshiped as infallible for years to come*

[Van Cruncheon]

REVERENCE IS NECESSARY FOR COMPLIANCE

[The Fake Shemp]

Crushed, I don't think you understand the historical context of the document.

[Van Cruncheon]

look, if we don't take an absolutist, quasi-religious view regarding a single document, regardless of -- or perhaps BECAUSE of -- its nominal mechanisms for transformation, we will all fall under the spell of horrid moral relativists and OH GOD THINK OF THE UNBORN BABIES

[Crushed]

whew, my 500 layers of clothing created by the blood of kidnapped and raped people sure are hot! hurry up guys, we need to jot down some shit on this sheet of dried animal skin. remember, nobody's allowed to know about this, they might disagree and then we can't pretend it's a totally legal contract done with the consent of the people. now then, once we're done let's count the money we get from selling stolen labor to europe.

[Crushed]

look, if we don't take an absolutist, quasi-religious view regarding a single document, regardless of -- or perhaps BECAUSE of -- its nominal mechanisms for transformation, we will all fall under the spell of horrid moral relativists and OH GOD THINK OF THE UNBORN BABIES

wait, are we talking actual babies or non-babies? because in the british common law that forms the basis of the constitution and many of its rights, it's not homicide if it hasn't been granted life by the lord, which isn't until it's in the fetal stage and kickin'!

[FlameOfCallandor]

 

[Crushed]

Of course not, it's just that it's rather silly to call it a "contract" between the law and the citizenry, as if 90% of the citizenry had a choice in the matter!

[FlameOfCallandor]

It's a contract, not an art piece.  You don't interpret it.  You read it.  It's plain and literal.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Of course not, it's just that it's rather silly to call it a "contract" between the law and the citizenry, as if 90% of the citizenry had a choice in the matter!

And the alternative is...

[Crushed]

Of course not, it's just that it's rather silly to call it a "contract" between the law and the citizenry, as if 90% of the citizenry had a choice in the matter!

And the alternative is...

I dunno, democracy? A new constitution that actually has the support and involvement of the common people, isn't developed in secret by an economic elite, and isn't based on a 200-year-old idea of a nation?

[The Fake Shemp]

Perhaps you don't understand what a contract is, Crushed.

[Flannel Boy]

It's a contract, not an art piece.  You don't interpret it.  You read it.  It's plain and literal.

I don't know whether a The Constitution is a contract in a literal sense, but regular contracts are not just read by the courts; they're interpreted. Courts interpret the terms in a contract and even go as far as implying terms not explicitly written.

In a regular contract, courts will try to determine the intent of the contracting parties when there's a dispute. There is a problem here: who are the parties? The founders? The people of the United States?

[The Fake Shemp]

Look, don't come in here with your Canadian mumbo jumbo and limited knowledge of American law, and tell us how to honor our contracts. That document was written in the blood of men who died for country.

All you have is maple syrup and hockey.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Of course not, it's just that it's rather silly to call it a "contract" between the law and the citizenry, as if 90% of the citizenry had a choice in the matter!

And the alternative is...

A new constitution that actually has the support and involvement of the common people, isn't developed in secret by an economic elite, and isn't based on a 200-year-old idea of a nation?

Like people today would be able to even touch the balls of our founding father's genius.

Also, I like how crush's argument against the constitution is basically the title of a Michael Moore chapter. "It was made by old dead white men. That means it's baaaaad!!!"
 

[Crushed]

Perhaps you don't understand what a contract is, Crushed.

Now that our PM session is finished Willco, it's time to unveil our contract.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF EVILBORIA

Article I: All posters have rights, except for libertarians are subhuman and have no rights.
Article II: Everything on Evilbore will be decided by an admin, as normal posters are too dumb to understand posting.
Article III: Give the official Evilbore sponsors (DoritosTM) your money, forever. All laws will make sure that DoritosTM receive your money.
Article IV: A carrier pigeon, bearing the dried skull of a Cherokee, will be the basis for inter-forums commerce.
Article V: When it comes to abortion, owning guns, and the power of Congress, yaere is the good jon.

Welp, that's the contract. You're a part of this contract too libertopians, and I made sure that everything is nice and clear, so no going against it!

[FlameOfCallandor]

I don't know whether a The Constitution is a contract in a literal sense, but regular contracts are not just read by the courts; they're interpreted. Courts interpret the terms in a contract and even go as far as implying terms not explicitly written.

What's that? Who interprets it? Did you say the courts? As in the judicial branch?

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I could have sworn based on some of you guys that the legislative branch is supposed to interpret it.

[close]

[TakingBackSunday]

The grammar in your first article is confusing, Crushed.  Therefore, libertarians do have rights.

[Crushed]

Like people today would be able to even touch the balls of our founding father's genius.

Yeah, the geniuses who disagreed with each other on like everything except when it came to the idea that "natural rights" only applied to 10% of the population.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Can you imagine what a constitution would look like if it was written today by Crushed's "Common People"

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF 'MERICA

Article I: The Right to text and drive at the same time shall not be abridged.
Article II: Everyone has the right to free speech unless someone is offended by it.
Article III: The Work day shall not exceed 2 hours which must include nap time and free Frosties
Article IV: A Free house for everyone over the age of 35, and upon turning 65 a million dollars.

[Crushed]

The grammar in your first article is confusing, Crushed.  Therefore, libertarians do have rights.

First Amendment: No speaking out against Crushed. This is based on the Alien and Sedition Act, a document created by some of the wise and genius Founding Fathers.
Second Amendment: Government-regulated militias being necessary for defending Evilbore, the rights of libertarians will be eternally infringed upon.

[Dickie Dee]

Senator Hatch: Healthcare reform bills threaten survival of two-party system
By Michael O'Brien - 11/02/09 11:15 AM ET

The healthcare reform proposals before Congress threaten the existence of the two-party system, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) alleged Monday morning.

Hatch asserted that the health bills, which he believes represent a "step-by-step approach to socialized medicine," will lead to Americans' dependence on Democrats for their health and other issues.

"And if they get there, of course, you're going to have a very rough time having a two-party system in this country, because almost everybody's going to say, 'All we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party,' " Hatch said during an interview with the conservative CNSNews.com.

"That's their goal," Hatch added. "That's what keeps Democrats in power."

That claim led Hatch to suggest that some Democrats are "diabolical" in their pursuit of health reform.

"Do I believe they're that diabolical? I don't believe most of them are, but I think some of them are," Hatch said. "Maybe diabolical's too harsh of a word, but the fact is, they really, really believe in socialized medicine."

During the interview, the Utah Republican worried about the health bill's provisions on public funding for abortion as well as the potential unconstitutionality of the individual mandate conservatives have argued.

So "socialized medicine" will be so awesome that the people will thank Democrats for it and recognize us for the freakish ghouls we are. Diabolical!

[FlameOfCallandor]

Even Naomi Wolf, a noted liberal wrote in the opening chapter of "The End of America" that the constitution was more relevant than ever.

[Flannel Boy]

Crushed, the problem of consent will crop up with any constitution, if that's what you're getting at.

Jay, a literal reading of a right can lead to a very limited reading of that right. Constitutions tend to be written in very sparse general language. You can't possibly ascertain the nature and scope of a right from a simple reading. And, again, using the founders intent isn't helpful as they couldn't possibly have anticipated every possible way in which a right could be exercised nor the social context in which that right would be exercised.

[Crushed]

First Amendment: No speaking out against Crushed. This is based on the Alien and Sedition Act, a document created by some of the wise and genius Founding Fathers.

Hold the phone.

I don't think I've expressed any love, anywhere for John Adams.  Or Alexander Hamilton, for that matter (thank you very much, Vice President Burr).

I'm talking about FoC, who seems to think that the Constitution is like the True Cross and that the body parts of the founding fathers should be enshrined as relics.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I'm talking about FoC, who seems to think that the Constitution is like the True Cross and that the body parts of the founding fathers should be enshrined as relics.

 

[Kestastrophe]

Jay, a literal reading of a right can lead to a very limited reading of that right.

Yes.

isn't this  code law vs. common law?

[Flannel Boy]

Jay, a literal reading of a right can lead to a very limited reading of that right.

Yes.

Stupid question, but how do you, for example, determine the scope of the The Eighth Amendment? What is "cruel and unusual"? A literal reading of the text is of little help. If you tried to use historical context, you would have to conclude that capital punishment for horse theft or robbery isn't cruel and unusual (I guess this follows if you use Scalia's reasoning in Harmelin v. Michigan).

[brawndolicious]

Also, your chief complaint about the founders of a constitutional republic with delicate checks and balances against all parties, whom, by and large, thought pure democracy sucked ass... is that they weren't more democratic in their approach of forming a Constitution?

The Constitution was drafted by delegates, ratified by the state legislatures.  The states appointed their delegates as well.  This was not some super sekrit oligarch's club.

fucking bullshit. How else can you explain why Andrew Jackson's main campaign platform was that he supported white man's suffrage?  that sounds like a kkk tactic today but it was actually a legitimate civil rights movement.

themoreyouknow.jpg

[FlameOfCallandor]

I'll reassert that I do not support the use of the death penalty.  I would not falsely claim that it's a constitutional matter, however.

Nah dawg, didn't you see National Treasure. That shit was straight up illuminati/freemasons.