Page 33 of 37 FirstFirst ...
23
31
32
33
34
35
... LastLast
  1. #641
    Quote Originally Posted by N-7 View Post
    So, what your saying is that the people should be allowed to purchase war-planes, nuclear weapons, AA missiles, tanks, warships and anything that the military have? do you realize how ridiculous your proposition sounds?
    It's not ridiculous at all. Besides, it's not like some 15 year old gang banger in Chicago is going to be able to afford an aircraft carrier anyway.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-15 at 09:13 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    This is strike team Obdi to strike team 117, prepare to eliminate the Brigadier General, over.

    Oh wait, we don't have radios. Or telephones. Originalism sucks.
    I don't think you know what originalism is. Originalism is how the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not "let's all go back to exactly the way things were in 1787." If you have ever read the Constitution, you'll see that it is still entirely applicable today (and always will be).

  2. #642
    I don't think you know what originalism is. Originalism is how the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not "let's all go back to exactly the way things were in 1787." If you have ever read the Constitution, you'll see that it is still entirely applicable today (and always will be).
    Originalism is a load of crap. Its just an excuse for whatever awful interpretation conservatives feel like pitching.

  3. #643
    Quote Originally Posted by Swazi Spring View Post
    It's just common knowledge that the left is anti-nuclear. One of my hardcore liberal friends is a nut on it, he's not only anti-nuclear power, but he also things America should completely abolish it's nuclear arsenal to "set an example for the rest of the world." He also thinks it's better for "America to get nuked by our enemies and do nothing about it, than it is to attack them back." I always try to use the argument of mutually assured destruction, but he won't have any of it.

    Also look at all of those liberal "anti-nuclear" groups that have popped up after the Japanese hurricane. In many countries, there are left-wing parties that dedicate a good deal of their party platform to "anti-nuclear" propaganda.
    you could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just saying "no, it's just my opinion".

  4. #644
    The Lightbringer N-7's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,572
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    You'd be surprised. Just look at what insurgents have been doing overseas with little more than "automated guns," and improvised explosives. Tanks aren't worth much against an opponent that's not going to get into a slugging match with you, and you're seeing how well-received our government blowing up civilians with collateral damage is going over.
    You realize that most of these insurgents gets financial aid from outside sources and usually get them in cash (easier to protect). Now, if I were the leader of a tyrannical government bent on destroying any resistance, that is what I would do:
    1. Freeze any account that has been identified as "rebel" or suspicious account.
    2. Recall all the army back home.
    3. Take it slowly and exterminate anyone identified as rebel.

    You just need to realize that the US has the strongest and most advanced army in the world that even the next 10 countries can't match it. I'd say it would be like a walk on the park.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-15 at 05:42 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Swazi Spring View Post
    It's not ridiculous at all. Besides, it's not like some 15 year old gang banger in Chicago is going to be able to afford an aircraft carrier anyway.
    The corporations however can and will probably purchase heavy weaponry gaining even more control and intimacy of the USA government.

  5. #645
    Titan PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    14,844
    Quote Originally Posted by N-7 View Post
    You realize that most of these insurgents gets financial aid from outside sources and usually get them in cash (easier to protect). Now, if I were the leader of a tyrannical government bent on destroying any resistance, that is what I would do:
    1. Freeze any account that has been identified as "rebel" or suspicious account.
    2. Recall all the army back home.
    3. Take it slowly and exterminate anyone identified as rebel.

    You just need to realize that the US has the strongest and most advanced army in the world that even the next 10 countries can't match it. I'd say it would be like a walk on the park.
    We're also one of the largest countries in the world and I can guarantee you our military - even if the entirety of it was actually on the side of a despot - can't exert complete control over every square inch of it.
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    I also do landscaping on weekends with some mexican kid that I "hired". He's real good because he's 100% obedient to me and does everything I say while never complaining. He knows that I am the man in the relationship and is completely submissive towards me as he should be.
    Quote Originally Posted by SUH View Post
    Crissi the goddess of MMO, if i may. ./bow

  6. #646
    In a word, no. They won't. The Republican party will always have a core contingent of folks who are batshit religious crazy. And, if I'm honest, it doesn't have so much to do with religion as it does how they use it to impose a subtle caste system on the country. Their personalized beliefs in 'manifest destiny' affirms within them the core idealogical belief that their is no luck - only blessings. And the rich are rich because they'v done the right things, and the poor are poor because they've done the wrong things. It lets them feel as though they operate on an even playing field with everyone else, but somehow manage to do better because they are better.

    This type of thinking enables discrimination and works against critical introspection. But that's not all republicans. There are honest folks who the party has kind of held hostage because the uber repubs hold the most power in the party. These ubers won't give up power or let the party be transformed. Instead you'll see them try to reinvent themselves with a new name - we saw this with the Tea Party - it was hoped that the birth of the Tea Party would signal the divorce of the religious right from fiscal conservatism. That separation lasted maybe two years before they were shacking back up together.

    Since that tactic hasn't worked and folks are on to it now, I fully expect the Republican party to cannibalize itself and start yielding to a new party. We saw the Tea Party gained favor as a movement that was strictly focused on fiscal conservatism. The huge paradox is that a Republican candidate like that can win the general election, but stands zero chance at winning the primary. Romney ran that guantlet better than anyone ever could, save for maybe Bill Clinton'ss long lost, republican twin brother - and he still lost. The next popular party with a focus on fiscal conservatism is the Libertarians, and it'd honestly be refreshing to see some new blood in the mix.

    But, as America ages, so does its original conception of the balance of power between State and Federal government. America has been becoming more and more federealist throughout its history, and this election has highlighted that very well.

  7. #647
    The Lightbringer N-7's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,572
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    We're also one of the largest countries in the world and I can guarantee you our military - even if the entirety of it was actually on the side of a despot - can't exert complete control over every square inch of it.
    We can't know for sure since this situation is highly unlikely (near impossible I'd say) but if it were to happen they only need to control strategic points and use extra forces to hunt down rebels.

  8. #648
    Quote Originally Posted by N-7 View Post
    The corporations however can and will probably purchase heavy weaponry gaining even more control and intimacy of the USA government.
    We already have private military companies, I don't see the problem.

  9. #649
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Swazi Spring View Post

    I don't think you know what originalism is. Originalism is how the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not "let's all go back to exactly the way things were in 1787." If you have ever read the Constitution, you'll see that it is still entirely applicable today (and always will be).
    So originalism = "i don't agree with how the Chief Justices interpreted the constitution?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Swazi Spring View Post
    We already have private military companies, I don't see the problem.
    Yes, but few and far between, and none with close to the capacity of the US military. And none with nuclear capabilities.

  10. #650
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    So originalism = "i don't agree with how the Chief Justices interpreted the constitution?"
    I can never abide by originalism (and yes, swazi, I'm the one who first used the term in this thread, and yes I was using it in a joking way, and yes I know how I misused it). When the constitution was written, there wasn't a germ theory of disease. Maxwell hadn't written down his equations. Guns were single-shot and muzzle loaded. We didn't have railroads going from the atlantic to the pacific. We didn't have the ability to fly from New York City to Tokyo in less than a day. We didn't have...

    Oh, you get my point.

    Interpretation of the constitution has to evolve because we, as a society, have evolved.

    Let's all ride the Gish gallop.

  11. #651
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,969
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    I can never abide by originalism (and yes, swazi, I'm the one who first used the term in this thread, and yes I was using it in a joking way, and yes I know how I misused it). When the constitution was written, there wasn't a germ theory of disease. Maxwell hadn't written down his equations. Guns were single-shot and muzzle loaded. We didn't have railroads going from the atlantic to the pacific. We didn't have the ability to fly from New York City to Tokyo in less than a day. We didn't have...

    Oh, you get my point.

    Interpretation of the constitution has to evolve because we, as a society, have evolved.
    Case in point - We in Canada wrote our constitution from scratch just 30 years ago and stuff in it has already ceased to make sense when applied strictly to today.

  12. #652
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post

    Interpretation of the constitution has to evolve because we, as a society, have evolved.
    Wouldn't the electoral college be a pretty good example as well, given that its necessity has largely dwindled to nothing? There isn't trouble getting public votes now, and the differences between rural and city areas are drastically different.

  13. #653
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    So originalism = "i don't agree with how the Chief Justices interpreted the constitution?"
    I'm not sure what you mean? The sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, based on what the Founding Fathers intended. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has become extremely partisan and many of the justices do not even care about the Constitution, all they care about is pushing their party's agenda.

  14. #654
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Swazi Spring View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean? The sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, based on what the Founding Fathers intended. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has become extremely partisan and many of the justices do not even care about the Constitution, all they care about is pushing their party's agenda.
    Which is why the Republican-based conservative chief justice was the last vote declaring the Democratic health care mandate constitutional, right? This whole recent throw back to originality emphasized by Ron Paul and his ilk is pretty much short sighted and ignorant of reality. The world has changed. A five year old could probably tell you that. So attempting to figure out what they would have said a couple hundred years ago in their own situation as opposed to the current one is facetious.

  15. #655
    Thought I'd share this here since we're discussing the GOP

    Most of the Republican members of a Senate committee investigating the terrorist attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, skipped a classified briefing by administration officials on the incident Wednesday, CNN has learned.

    The missing lawmakers included Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who at the time of the top-secret briefing held a press conference in the Capitol to call for the creation of a Watergate-type special Congressional committee to investigate how and why the attack took place.
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...mment-page-17/

  16. #656
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkacid View Post
    Republicans need to concentrate on getting the American vote and they would win every single election since the Democrats only care about the "latino vote, women vote, black vote".

    Are you implying that latinos, women, and blacks aren't Americans? I honestly hope that was just poor wording. Republicans need to focus on those demographics as well as gays and independents. You can reach those people by not catering to the batshit crazy extremists that are infesting the party. I see myself as a center-left independent, but I would never vote GOP as it is.

  17. #657
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe View Post
    Are you implying that latinos, women, and blacks aren't Americans? I honestly hope that was just poor wording. Republicans need to focus on those demographics as well as gays and independents. You can reach those people by not catering to the batshit crazy extremists that are infesting the party. I see myself as a center-left independent, but I would never vote GOP as it is.
    yeah, i find his comments on this amusing. "democrats ONLY care about everybody but religious white males"

  18. #658
    I can't speak for everyone, but the I believe the GOP will not change. They would need to do an about face on most social issues as well as a few economic ones to get my vote. I'm not sure that they can without alienating a large portion of their established base.

  19. #659
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Swazi Spring View Post
    It's not ridiculous at all. Besides, it's not like some 15 year old gang banger in Chicago is going to be able to afford an aircraft carrier anyway.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-15 at 09:13 AM ----------



    I don't think you know what originalism is. Originalism is how the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not "let's all go back to exactly the way things were in 1787." If you have ever read the Constitution, you'll see that it is still entirely applicable today (and always will be).
    Origanilism is the reason why everyone thinks the second amendment is "the right to bear arms" with the implied any idiot can purchase a gun, where the actual text indicates a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms, which random idiots are not.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  20. #660
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleros View Post
    Origanilism is the reason why everyone thinks the second amendment is "the right to bear arms" with the implied any idiot can purchase a gun, where the actual text indicates a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms, which random idiots are not.
    How many times does this liberal claim have to be proven wrong, before you stop trying to use it? "We have electricity now so we should just make up random definitions for legal terms that have long-standing meanings dating back to at least 1689."

    I'm going to post this video in the thread, again:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •