Page 33 of 37 FirstFirst ...
23
31
32
33
34
35
... LastLast
  1. #641
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    The weird comma placement...
    I have the same complaint about Charles Dickens and Jane Austen.

    I know you don't disagree with me. I've never heard anything I'd consider satisfactory as a counter-argument to the 2nd's first four words. As was mentioned earlier, even Scalia admitted it's not absolute.
    Potato.

  2. #642
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Future Gadget Lab
    Posts
    2,864
    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).

  3. #643
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  4. #644
    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".

  5. #645
    The Lightbringer N-7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,469
    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.

  6. #646
    Old God PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    10,768
    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
    The best you people can do is throw insults and lay your perspective on what a real adult is onto me but I will continue to reject them. And you will try and try again, force me into submission but I will continue to press on.
    MMOC IRC!

  7. #647
    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.

  8. #648
    The Lightbringer N-7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,469
    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.

  9. #649
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Future Gadget Lab
    Posts
    2,864
    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.

  10. #650
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    9,989
    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.

  11. #651
    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.
    Potato.

  12. #652
    Immortal Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    7,602
    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.

  13. #653
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    9,989
    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.

  14. #654
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Future Gadget Lab
    Posts
    2,864
    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.

  15. #655
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    9,989
    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.

  16. #656
    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/
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  17. #657
    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.

  18. #658
    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"

  19. #659
    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.

  20. #660
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Unfortunately for you, dictionaries are not authorities on the definitions of words.
    Ezekiel 23:20, Ezekiel 16:49-50, Mark 10:25, James 5:1-6, Luke 16:19-31, Matthew 19:21, Numbers 5:11-31

Posting Permissions

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