[reply]President can only veto or sign a bill into law after it has passed both the House and Senate.
which includes passing a number of sub committees in both houses, before it even gets voted on there.
You want change? Choose wisely.
That sounds like a Bernie Sanders endorsement. Good for you!![/reply]
Smrfy, you know me too well.
Let me state it again slightly differently, and you can tell me if this does or doesn’t have a logical flow to it.
I find the SCOTUS ruling a.) good for homosexuals but b.) as likely to be part of a larger campaign towards allowing the FedGov to be the primary arbiter of morals in this country, a job which they should not hold. More on that in a moment.
False premise. so, no it’s not logical. The SCOTUS is not specifically ruling on morality, here. They are ruling on the constitutionality of discrimination. Discrimination of a minority group is not a moral clause. And even if it was your argument would look like this…
“The fire Department is good for people whose houses are burning down but I find that the Fire Dept is part of a larger campaign to wrestle water rights away from the citizens and have no authority to put out the work of arsonists.”
It makes no sense and is grounded in nothing.
I stated that I don’t believe they deserve to be the moral arbiter of anything,
Well, then I’ve got some bad news for you. That’s exactly their job. The congress legislates morality (that’s what laws attempt to do) and if their is a complaint on said legislated morality then the SCOTUS steps in and decides based on constitutionality. It’s their sole function.
using an example of erratic foreign policy to show that they do not act along lines of moral consistency, but simply do whatever is politically expedient at the moment.
again, wrong example. The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over any other country. Attempting to force their rule over other countries would result in the government being guilty of precisely what you are wary of. Not only that, the SCOTUS neither has the ability to wage war or stop war. They have no part in war.
So if it is convenient for them to use some Middle Eastern country, in which gays can be publicly executed, to have a military launchpad from which to attack another country, then good for them I suppose…but their overall approach towards the sanctity of human life is very very flawed.
First off this isn’t a sanctity of human life situation. (it’s a ruling on some jerks ability to discriminate) As has already been said, the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over any other countries and any attempt to force their rule on other countries would result in exactly what you’re scared of.
I suppose I am just one of these people who would object if SCOTUS determined that it’s legal for free Gummi Bears to be distributed to all American children on the 15th of each month.
As am I. You have presented another false equivalency. Ruling that the law says you are not allowed to discriminate (deny people rights cause they are gay) against people is no where close to ruling that kids have to be given gummie bears. There is no constitutionality in Gummie Bears. There is, however constitutionality in non discrimination.
Sorry. I know it is hard to understand,
No offense, but I think this statement only applies to you (and possibly Pon3) when it comes to understanding the mechanics of our government.
but though I am not against the outcome of this ruling, I disagree with this level of interference in social life and in social institutions like marriage which (though they have been interfered with by government for millenia) should not require a state stamp of approval to exist.
I understand you disagree with the interference in social life but that shows that you don’t understand function of the court. You’re right you “shouldn’t” need the seal of approval from the state to get “married” and you don’t. nothing keeps people from living together as married without being recognized by the state. But people should be free to choose if they would like the State to recognize them.
Now, the Court ruling that people MUST get married if they are going to cohabitate, that I can agree, would be an over step of Courts powers, and a specific legislation on morality. BUT THAT IS NOT THIS CASE. This case was establishing the rights of a minority group that should have never been in question the first place.
I have to contest actions like these simply because they get the government more into the game of steering our value preferences.
That is incorrect because that’s exactly what the courts were set up for.
Or at the very least they condition the public to think that this is the way things should be.
It has nothing to do with swaying public opinion. It has to do with equal protection under the law.
Think of it this way.
There is no other way to think of it. It’s just equal protection under the law.
If we are to have a government at all (my opinion on that was made clear in the other thread) It is perfectly acceptable for that government to make, for example, driving laws that help us to synchronize with the behavorial expectations of other drivers, and to keep people at an optimal level of road safety.
equal protection under the law.
Now - to accomplish that, these rules tell us which side of the road to drive on, how fast we are allowed to go etc. These rules do not indicate things such as what route we should take from point ‘a’ to point ‘b’, or (borrowing your non sequitur example) what color car you should have during the drive. Until those things can be proven as public safety issues and not personal value preferences, open society itself should come to its own conclusions on these matters.
Again this is not what this ruling was about. White people can drive. Gay people cannot was what was being practiced. How is that anywhere near your fears of car color, drive routes, etc, etc. Under your example it shows everyone driving. Only, in the applied practice of your example the way it was everyone is not allowed to drive. See the difference?
[reply]Obviously an attempt to make others into what we want… isn’t that what you wrote? that’s what you wrote, right? Countries kill gays yet we have no problem with those countries… well we have a problem with them but the alternative is the meat grinder. you can’t have it both ways.
Sure you can - well we can sure as hell stop using our role as globo-cop to help the countries that persecute gays.
[/reply]
you’ll get no argument from me about the global cop thing but that has nothing to do with how our governments treats our own citizens. Our laws are ours and their laws are theirs. Are their laws barbaric? sure. So, I couldn’t tell you why we support them but that doesn’t mean we should start adopting their barbaric laws here. I would imagine it’s because broader politics are at play not because of some dark conspiracy to take away rights by granting more of them.
If, again, we wish to have any leg at all to stand on when we are trying to “make the world safe for democracy” (a mantra that at least the past couple U.S. administrations have used as justification for foreign invasions), actions like these eventually need to be taken into consideration.
“The world safe for democracy” was only used by W. (and we quickly understood why- and is an oxymoron sputtered out by a moron). Our laws and societal practices are not based on other countries. If the SCOTUS could rule that all the fucked up shit that other countries do is no longer legal I’m sure they would but unfortunately foreign policy is not as easy (for lack of a better word) as domestic policy.
I know all about that stuff and it doesn’t work.
Says you because… ?
I think it does or at least did until corporations became more powerful than the government.
The people that made the constitution were old and would be really old if they were alive today.
So how long before you’re irrelevant because of your age? or are you already there and we should pay no attention to you?
[reply]I know all about that stuff and it doesn’t work.
Says you because… ?
I think it does or at least did until corporations became more powerful than the government.
The people that made the constitution were old and would be really old if they were alive today.
So how long before you’re irrelevant because of your age? or are you already there and we should pay no attention to you?[/reply]
Damn, Smrfy! I beat him up some yesterday, and you continued the beating today.
You can’t beat the beater.
Yes, you are a masterbeater. [:P]
[reply][reply]I know all about that stuff and it doesn’t work.
Says you because… ?
I think it does or at least did until corporations became more powerful than the government.
The people that made the constitution were old and would be really old if they were alive today.
So how long before you’re irrelevant because of your age? or are you already there and we should pay no attention to you?[/reply]
Damn, Smrfy! I beat him up some yesterday, and you continued the beating today.[/reply]
I wouldn’t call it beating on him. Just informing.
[reply]You can’t beat the beater.
Yes, you are a masterbeater. [:P][/reply]
[laugh]
In reply to Grmpy’s previous debate post here (as the remaining fireworks go off outside):
First off, yes it was W. who explicitly spewed the “making the world safe for democracy” silliness. But the subsequent administration has implicitly endorsed and continued that trend, just with slightly different methods and actors. A slightly more reluctant Commander-in-Chief, sure, but a bloodthirsty harpy fronting the State Dept. and a lot of certifiably insane individuals (e.g. John McCain) still being allowed to actually influence matters of extreme importance.
Much of what you wrote last time around was about how ‘x’ government body is in charge of ‘y’ function, and I’m aware of that (though, echoing Justice Roberts’ dissent, I sorta feel like SCOTUS was making a NEW law here rather than interpreting an existing one, which you claimed should be its true role.)
As long as the U.S. is a globe-spanning empire, we need to act as if the legislation we enact here is one and the same with what we expect from our client states. Thus my endlessly laboring this connection between local and global policies.
This puts us in a kind of no-win situation now, vis-a-vis the other countries we have as subjects, because we must now either drag our feet and look the other way as they commit human rights abuses against gays, OR we have to use military force, sanctions etc. to punish those states.
I recently stumbled upon [url http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/06/28/the-obergefell-effect-gay-marriage-and-us-foreign-policy/]this article by a gay journalist / activist, who makes interesting points regarding that. Quote:
“while supporters of gay marriage are celebrating their victory, they would do well to remember that every burst of sunlight has its darker aspect. Outside the US, the Obergefell Effect will make it harder for Washington to impose its will on the rest of the globe – and, simultaneously, make it more determined to do so. And that does not bode well for the cause of peace.”
The bolded part there is obviously what I find most important and sobering.
Grmpysmrf: 1
Tomasz - 3
The People Of East Hampton Connecticut - 1
Grmpysmrf: 1
Tomasz - 3
The People Of East Hampton Connecticut - 1
Does the eventual debate winner qualify for the coveted ‘Tom of Finland Prize’ for Text-Based Contentiousness?
(though, echoing Justice Roberts’ dissent, I sorta feel like SCOTUS was making a NEW law here rather than interpreting an existing one,
since when is interpreting the law to say you may not discriminate against minorities a “New Law?”
As long as the U.S. is a globe-spanning empire, we need to act as if the legislation we enact here is one and the same with what we expect from our client states. Thus my endlessly laboring this connection between local and global policies.
perhaps in a perfect world but since we don’t live in one, No we don’t. Look up the definition of Imperialism.
This puts us in a kind of no-win situation now, vis-a-vis the other countries we have as subjects, because we must now either drag our feet and look the other way as they commit human rights abuses against gays, OR we have to use military force, sanctions etc. to punish those states.
No it doesn’t. we are not in charge of everybody. there is no connection between our laws and the rest of the world. It would be nice if we could do that easily with no bloodshed but it’s not in the interest of any country to impose its domestic laws on other countries. If other countries turn to Genocide then sure we have a duty to step in but it’s not that.
I recently stumbled upon [url http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/06/28/the-obergefell-effect-gay-marriage-and-us-foreign-policy/]this article by a gay journalist / activist, who makes interesting points regarding that. Quote:
“while supporters of gay marriage are celebrating their victory, they would do well to remember that every burst of sunlight has its darker aspect. Outside the US, the Obergefell Effect will make it harder for Washington to impose its will on the rest of the globe – and, simultaneously, make it more determined to do so. And that does not bode well for the cause of peace.”
The bolded part there is obviously what I find most important and sobering.
He offers no reasons why? Also “Washington imposing it’s will” is exactly what you didn’t want. It would be nice if the rest of the world was peaceful but it’s not our job to make it so. The SCOTUS’s only concern is this country.
Grmpysmrf: 1
Tomasz - 3
The People Of East Hampton Connecticut - 1
I’m the only one with a positive score?
[reply]
Grmpysmrf: 1
Tomasz - 3
The People Of East Hampton Connecticut - 1
Does the eventual debate winner qualify for the coveted ‘Tom of Finland Prize’ for Text-Based Contentiousness?[/reply]
Since you’re at -3 you should try to focus on staying on topic and addressing the same points I keep making and not bring up unrelated nonsense, instead of worrying about “winning.”
Despite all that i can’t help but think I’ve helped you understand our Govmnt a little better.
All I see is a circular argument: I don’t want big government interfering, but I want US world domination to right the human rights wrongs in other countries.
Global humans rights will not happen in my lifetime.
International affairs/business is very tricky because we are no longer dealing with one set of laws or one set of morals/customs in how business transactions take place. Bribes, payouts, and leverage apply and are very very common in completing business transaction despite US law strictly prohibiting them.
All I see is a circular argument: I don’t want big government interfering, but I want US world domination to right the human rights wrongs in other countries.
Couldn’t have said it better.
International affairs/business is very tricky because we are no longer dealing with one set of laws or one set of morals/customs in how business transactions take place. Bribes, payouts, and leverage apply and are very very common in completing business transaction despite US law strictly prohibiting them.
WHich is why the little people seldom get anything in their favor anymore. It’s goddamn feudalism. [pirate]
All I see is a circular argument: I don’t want big government interfering, but I want US world domination to right the human rights wrongs in other countries.
When did I ever say I wanted 'US world domination to right […] wrongs in other countries?
That’s precisely the opposite of what I want.
If anything, this whole discussion has been building up to my claim that maintaining a bloated Empire is something that needs to end (and it WILL end; just whether it collapses in chaos or segues peacefully into something else remains to be seen.) We’ve made it so that any significant action we take at home gets interpreted, for better or worse, as what we want and expect from the rest of the world.
And that’s a key reason as to why I feel non-governmental, spontaneous public action, as opposed to directed governmental action, needs to be the basis for how we define acceptable social conduct.
Decisions made in the latter way, IMHO, are less likely to make the rest of the world (and the dissenting parties in the U.S. itself) feel as if they are now going to be held at gunpoint until they comply with our changes in attitude. There is a minority of fundamentalists and radicals who will never change their opinion no matter who is seen as the “approving” body, but let them exhaust themselves with ranting and railing against their fellow men, rather than preparing for all-out war against the powers that be. Which, again, is what the state lives for anyway, since ‘all-out war’ gives it every opportunity to expand its legislative overreach (see: recent National Defense Authorization Act, USA PATRIOT Act, etc.)
edit: deleted a double post with same content as this one just now :-/
[reply]All I see is a circular argument: I don’t want big government interfering, but I want US world domination to right the human rights wrongs in other countries.
When did I ever say I wanted 'US world domination to right […] wrongs in other countries?
That’s precisely the opposite of what I want.
[/reply]
You keep claiming that foreign and domestic policy are mutually exclusive when they are not. You started out saying you know they are not the same and then have made every attempt to tie them together.
You are apparently scared that that is going to become a basis for war. Well it hasn’t happened yet so your fears are unfounded.
We don’t go to war with countries because they have violated our domestic policies. If we did then there would be far more wars than we’ve had now. There is no precedent. They are not starting one now. They wouldn’t need to start now. If the Legislature body did so, the SCOTUS ruling would have nothing to do with that decision.
Foreign policy and domestic policy are not connected no matter how much you want them to be.
If anything, this whole discussion has been building up to my claim that maintaining a bloated Empire is something that needs to end (and it WILL end; just whether it collapses in chaos or segues peacefully into something else remains to be seen.)
You are talking about two different things. Extending rights to gay people is not “bloating our empire.”
We’ve made it so that any significant action we take at home gets interpreted, for better or worse, as what we want and expect from the rest of the world.
So what? It’s not a declaration of war on those countries that don’t follow through. Apparently you think it is, but that thinking is unfounded. There is no basis for it.
And that’s a key reason as to why I feel non-governmental, spontaneous public action, as opposed to directed governmental action, needs to be the basis for how we define acceptable social conduct.
That would be nice if things like that happened but That’s not justice for the people getting screwed. We’d still be waiting for segregation to end and woman’s suffrage if that were the case. Really what it comes down to is your type of (non)“logic” (Irrational Fear is really what you have, not logic) on these issues caters to the bigots.
“Let’s fuck our citizens over because if don’t we can’t do business with other countries that aren’t like us and if we do continue business with them then we have to invade that country to make them behave”
That’s lunacy and not how it works. Not now not ever. If that were the case woman everywhere could vote and drive cars and own property because we would have gone in and set things right at the time of those decisions. lunacy.
Decisions made in the latter way, IMHO, are less likely to make the rest of the world (and the dissenting parties in the U.S. itself) feel as if they are now going to be held at gunpoint until they comply with our changes in attitude.
Who cares how the dissenting parties feel? they are law breakers in the country. and yes the people in the country will be “held at gunpoint” until they comply with the law,because they are criminals But those are our “citizens” NOT THE REST OF THE WORLD
There is a minority of fundamentalists and radicals who will never change their opinion no matter who is seen as the “approving” body, but let them exhaust themselves with ranting and railing against their fellow men, rather than preparing for all-out war against the powers that be.
They will never exhaust themselves they are still there. there are still large pockets of people in the south who hate Lincoln for freeing the slaves. That was 150 Years ago. They don’t die off. They don’t exhaust themselves. there is always a new crop to take their place. It would be irresponsible to wait around for them to “see the light.”
Which, again, is what the state lives for anyway, since ‘all-out war’ gives it every opportunity to expand its legislative overreach.
No it doesn’t. Let me put this in perspective for you.
OK we’ll uphold the constitution by extended rights to those that have been screwed out of them just so everyone will get pissed off about how we are abusing our authority by creating a MORE FREE society so we can get a war going?
Absurd.
You really don’t know how our government works do you? I mean you see what goes on today with courts and what not but you don’t know the actual paths, History and reasoning behind the separation of powers, the different branches of governments, checks and balances and all of the stuff that actually goes into our government, do you?
That’s sad because in my opinion that is what makes Governments dangerous (Not upholding the goddamn constitution like they’re supposed to, like you seem to think). That’s what let’s Governments get away with abuses because the constituency doesn’t know any better. If you don’t know how your government works then how do you know they are behaving accordingly? How do you know to hold them responsible? Well, you don’t. So, the easier thing to do besides learn it is to distrust all of it. So you get to look smart and disgruntled (Because smart people are always disgruntled) It’s win win baby!
Pathetic.
Why did Europeans leave Europe and come to America?
What happened when they arrived here in America; specifically, what happened to the Irish immigrants?
what happened to the Irish immigrants?
No work for you! Get the FUCK OUTA here ya filthy McC.
[reply] what happened to the Irish immigrants?
No work for you! Get the FUCK OUTA here ya filthy McC.[/reply]
Most of the first Irish to arrive in America were “indentured servants” a.k.a. slaves for whoever paid their transit across the Atlantic. They “worked” for a number of years for the family that hosted them before they could go out on their own. Later, England said ‘fuck you’ and let the Irish starve v. sending aid, further boosting Irish immigration to America.
Groups of Europeans were enslaving/killing other groups of Europeans due to their religious beliefs. Finally, some had had enough and set sail for the Americas to ensure that religious prosecution by their neighbor would never be an issue again. Separation of church and state. However, it seems to keep rearing its ugly head due to those who do not understand the history of how or why the Europeans left Europe for America.
This is an ignorance issue. The broad topic of European immigration is covered in schools, but not to the depth that is required for a full understanding of the issues and how they impact society.
How did I find all this out? I was doing genealogy research on my paternal gggrandfather who was born in NYC in 1840. The trip I took to Ellis Island was really eye-opening and in some cases also heart-wrenching.