Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-30-2018, 07:55 AM   #91
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
maybe you should take your own advice ... seems anything about gender or skin color gets you fired up ... in general
Ummm, I get fired up when people discriminate based on color or gender...it's not the gender/color that gets me fired up, it's bigotry based on skin/color.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 08:40 AM   #92
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I'll let the kids say their peace, When David Hogg uses nothing but f-words to describe everyone who disagrees with him, he deserves a whole lot of pushback.
I think he's earned the right to drop a few f bombs. The pushback isn't because he swore in an interview, it's because some see him as a threat.
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 08:41 AM   #93
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
One of those kids, a quite in-you-face-girl, admitted to actively ostracizing the shooter since middle school. But it's all the gun's fault.
Once again, you should read what she actually said in context instead of educating yourself from meme's.
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 09:00 AM   #94
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

The pushback isn't because he swore in an interview, it's because some see him as a threat.
you say the funniest things
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 09:01 AM   #95
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Once again, you should read what she actually said in context instead of educating yourself from meme's.
"spencetext"
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 10:36 AM   #96
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,616
Why would Latinos worry about deportation. Why would their experience count?
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/conten...eat-depression

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 11:07 AM   #97
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I think he's earned the right to drop a few f bombs. The pushback isn't because he swore in an interview, it's because some see him as a threat.
"I think he's earned the right to drop a few f bombs."

About what happened, sure. Directed at everyone who disagrees with him? It shows precisely why it's a bad idea to let traumatized children shape public policy.

"The pushback isn't because he swore in an interview, it's because some see him as a threat"

Nobody sees him as a threat, just an annoyance, a profane, vulgar annoyance. I feel horrible for him, the lefty media is using him as a sock puppet, and he's buying into it hook, line and sinker, he thinks he's Rosa Parks. When they no longer have any use for him and they cast him off, he may not handle it well. No one seems to be looking out for his long term interests.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 11:09 AM   #98
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
"spencetext"
I saw her on TV, I am responding to her words.

According to Spence, if you are critical of something a liberal said or did, you are necessarily taking it out of context.

The biggest cop -ut in the world, from people who are literally incapable of being self-critical, is that you took it out of context. It's a useless defense.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 11:11 AM   #99
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I saw her on TV, I am responding to her words.

According to Spence, if you are critical of something a liberal said or did, you are necessarily taking it out of context.

The biggest cop -ut in the world, from people who are literally incapable of being self-critical, is that you took it out of context. It's a useless defense.
Well you did, or perhaps you just don't know what ostracized means?
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 11:15 AM   #100
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Why would Latinos worry about deportation. Why would their experience count?
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/conten...eat-depression
What is your point?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 11:34 AM   #101
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
When a nation is divided, what will the law that looks like it . . . look like?
Luckily because parties in power change we seem to attain a balance between Originalists and Non-Originalists.
Of course those who think that they have the only definition allowable have concerns, but things average out just like the weather.
My concern is that the far reaches of politics on both sides have an inordinate amount of power. I think there are several reasons for this, our electoral process and the effect of the media at a minimum.
The extremists on both sides should have an effect but it should be moderated by the moderate politicians in the middle.
I compare the federal government to a giant sphere rolling along, for most of our government's existence it was pushed along by the people in the middle and it's path was altered to left and right by people pushing from the sides. We seem to now have reached a time where everyone has moved to the left or right and few are left to push us along.

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 11:37 AM   #102
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
What is your point?
Where did you learn about Mexican repatriation?
In school?
From your family members that we removed?
Knowledge and experience count, if it did not Judging could be done by a machine.

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 12:34 PM   #103
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Where did you learn about Mexican repatriation?
In school?
From your family members that we removed?
Knowledge and experience count, if it did not Judging could be done by a machine.
If people, and governments run by people, acted like machines, then not only could judging be done by machines, it would not even be necessary. Except that even machines malfunction.

Knowledge and experience in fixing machines have nothing to do with being Mexican. Knowledge of constitutional law is relevant to being a SCOTUS Judge. Being Mexican has nothing to do with it.

Again, what is your point?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 01:13 PM   #104
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
perhaps you just don't know what ostracized means?
Perhaps. Or perhaps I know exactly what it means, and perhaps instead you are biologically incapable of criticizing the left about anything. Perhaps you make Sean Hannity look neutral...
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 02:12 PM   #105
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Perhaps. Or perhaps I know exactly what it means, and perhaps instead you are biologically incapable of criticizing the left about anything. Perhaps you make Sean Hannity look neutral...
Do you know what context means?
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 02:20 PM   #106
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
If people, and governments run by people, acted like machines, then not only could judging be done by machines, it would not even be necessary. Except that even machines malfunction.

Knowledge and experience in fixing machines have nothing to do with being Mexican. Knowledge of constitutional law is relevant to being a SCOTUS Judge. Being Mexican has nothing to do with it.

Again, what is your point?
My point is that justice should be blind, but not deaf.
That by whatever name you call the two sides of the argument about Constitutional Law, they are both important. That while the Constitution is a largely static document, it can change thru amendment and interpretation. The interpretation part is controlled politically by the appointment of Judges for life so that a political party gets to choose and it has a long term effect but not a permanent one.
One may choose to select Originalist appointees or Living Constitutionalists, but neither is prohibited or required by the Constitution.

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 02:27 PM   #107
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Do you know what context means?
Yes.

Do you know what a blind, thoughtless, brainwashed, automaton is?
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 02:30 PM   #108
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Yes.

Do you know what a blind, thoughtless, brainwashed, automaton is?
A Trump Supporter?


That was

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 02:57 PM   #109
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
A Trump Supporter?
I wonder if he's ever, even just once did a little research into what he posts.
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 03:19 PM   #110
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Luckily because parties in power change we seem to attain a balance between Originalists and Non-Originalists.

Balance applies to things that are in some way measurable. Principles are not quantifiable. There is no balance between good and evil. Between correct and incorrect. There may be variations of each, but no balance between them.

Textual Originalists and Progressives have different ideological and legal views of the Constitution. There is no middle ground of judicial "interpretation" between them. The most obvious and critical difference is that the Originalist views the Constitution as immutable written law whose text is changeable only by amendment and which must be interpreted by the original meanings of its words, whereas a Progressive views the Constitution, at best, as an artificial quasi-directional context from which any interpretation which satisfies a personal notion of some form of justice supercedes any impediment that words in a text might impose.

In effect, the originalist holds the Constitution as the law of the land, and a Progressive views the Constitution as an obstacle to good and efficient government. An Originalist understands the Constitution basically as the legal limitation and description of government power. A Progressive is antithetical to the notion that good and efficient government should be limited.

Any so-called balancing interpretations of those two separate views will necessarily chip away a the original notion of the Constitution being the law of the land and a limitation on government. And with every new case which leads to a "balancing" effect, ever more of the original notion is destroyed, until, eventually it no longer, in any practical sense, exists.

The same process can be said in attempts to "balance" good and evil or right and wrong. Eventually, with every balancing act, the original concepts will be erased.


Of course those who think that they have the only definition allowable have concerns, but things average out just like the weather.

The weather is quantifiable. Average weather is a mathematical balancing of observed patterns. And that "average" changes as patterns change. So an "average" temperature merely describes what is, not what it should or must be. In that respect, there is no real and permanent "middle," there are only different numbers on a changing spectrum, each with its own value.

My concern is that the far reaches of politics on both sides have an inordinate amount of power. I think there are several reasons for this, our electoral process and the effect of the media at a minimum.
The extremists on both sides should have an effect but it should be moderated by the moderate politicians in the middle.

There is no "middle." What you call the middle is a position which once established will be held to as fast as any other position. In a sense, all positions are "extreme." They are extremely what they are. Those you refer to as "the far reaches on both sides" consider themselves to be no more extreme than your "middle." If they have a notion of the "middle," they consider themselves to be the true middle--all others being extreme, or wrong, or stupid.

The notion of an extreme position is a preferential point of view, and it does not lead to rational discussion. Discussions or debates not based on any common principles lead to foaming at the mouth rants based on myopic opinions. Or to incoherent and prejudicial Supreme Court decisions.

Claiming to be a "centrist" or in the "moderate" middle is a rhetorical trick to paint opponents as extreme.


I compare the federal government to a giant sphere rolling along, for most of our government's existence it was pushed along by the people in the middle and it's path was altered to left and right by people pushing from the sides. We seem to now have reached a time where everyone has moved to the left or right and few are left to push us along.
If it were a giant sphere, the surface on which it roles along would have no center. There would be no "middle" for people to inhabit. And the universe through which it rolled would have no left or right. Those are relative terms.

And the time which we have now reached is one in which we are divided by classical views and post modern ones--the classic view being that there is objective reality, and the post modern view that realities are merely fictions or social constructs.

Our Progressive jurists are closer to the post modern view than to the classical, and the Originalists, vice versa. That is one of the reasons that the Constitution, for a Progressive, is a fiction to be molded into whatever the current social constructs decree.

Last edited by detbuch; 03-30-2018 at 08:37 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 03:44 PM   #111
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
If it were a giant sphere, the surface on which it roles along would have no center. There would be no "middle" for people to inhabit. And the universe through which it rolled would have no left or right. Those are relative terms.

And the time which we have now reached is one in which we are divided by classical views and post modern ones--the classic view being that there is objective reality, and the post modern view that realities are merely fictions or social constructs.

Our Progressive jurists are closer to the post modern view than to the classical, and the Originalists, vice versa. That is one of the reasons that the Constitution, for a Progressive, is a fiction to be molded into whatever the current social constructs decree.
I'll stick with this, change the names as you wish. I am assuming that they will be Good and Evil.
The sphere is not a physical sphere but a description of how our society moves and changes and apparently too hard to comprehend.
"That by whatever name you call the two sides of the argument about Constitutional Law, they are both important. That while the Constitution is a largely static document, it can change thru amendment and interpretation. The interpretation part is controlled politically by the appointment of Judges for life so that a political party gets to choose and it has a long term effect but not a permanent one.
One may choose to select Originalist appointees or Living Constitutionalists, but neither is prohibited or required by the Constitution."

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 03:50 PM   #112
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I wonder if he's ever, even just once did a little research into what he posts.
I've noticed that out of the dozens of times you have accused others of taking things "out of context", I'm not sure you ever enlighten us with what the correct context is. It's a shame to keep such keen perception to yourself, rather than sharing it with us.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 03:51 PM   #113
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
A Trump Supporter?


That was
I thought they were all married women who were threatened to vote Trump by their husbands, isn't that what he opponent recently claimed?
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 04:26 PM   #114
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I thought they were all married women who were threatened to vote Trump by their husbands, isn't that what he opponent recently claimed?
I think those were the Stepford Wives
blind, thoughtless, brainwashed, automatons
Was that comment another But Hillary?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 06:10 PM   #115
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
I'll stick with this, change the names as you wish. I am assuming that they will be Good and Evil.
The sphere is not a physical sphere but a description of how our society moves and changes and apparently too hard to comprehend.
I admit...I cannot follow what you are talking about...probably me

metaphorical spheres..some good some evil...moderately extreme...push me pull you....

must be a good perscription
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 06:14 PM   #116
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I've noticed that out of the dozens of times you have accused others of taking things "out of context", I'm not sure you ever enlighten us with what the correct context is. It's a shame to keep such keen perception to yourself, rather than sharing it with us.
If I do your work for you will you become even weaker? Use the google, takes a few seconds.
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2018, 08:26 PM   #117
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
I'll stick with this, change the names as you wish. I am assuming that they will be Good and Evil.
The sphere is not a physical sphere but a description of how our society moves and changes and apparently too hard to comprehend.
"That by whatever name you call the two sides of the argument about Constitutional Law, they are both important. That while the Constitution is a largely static document, it can change thru amendment and interpretation. The interpretation part is controlled politically by the appointment of Judges for life so that a political party gets to choose and it has a long term effect but not a permanent one.
One may choose to select Originalist appointees or Living Constitutionalists, but neither is prohibited or required by the Constitution."
You and Spence have a lot in common in your use of language. Your posts, like this one, are a flow of vague words that seem to imply something substantial but never really deliver it.

And what does the quote you will stick with mean by "the two sides of the argument about Constitutional Law" and that both are important? Important in what way?

There are more than two Progressive methodologies taught and used by Justices to "interpret" constitutional cases. e.g., Monumentalism, Instrumentalism, Realism, Formalism, Cognitive Jurisprudence, Universal Principal of Fairness, Rule According to Higher Law, Preferred Freedom (or Selective Rights Jurisprudence), Utilitarian Jurisprudence, Positivist Jurisprudence, Sociological Jurisprudence, among others such as strict scrutiny, etc. These are mostly concocted ways to skirt constitutional text and deliver verdicts that could not otherwise be found in the structure of the Constitution and are means which are not bound by any form of originalism or strict constructionism. This is especially true in cases which test actual articles in the Constitution. In cases needing decision on statute law, there is a little more leeway since many statutes are not as strictly written as is the Constitution.

I assume your quote is lumping all forms of "originalism" into one "Originalist side" in which change can only be made by amendment, and all of the Progressive concoctions lumped into a loose construction, a "Living Constitutionalist side" in which change can also be made by "interpretation."

The writers of the Constitution did not conceive of constitutional text being changed by interpretation. Text was only to be changed (replaced) by amendment. "Interpretation" was to be the application of the text to the facts of the case. "Interpretation" that changed the meaning of the text in order to arrive at a decision not grounded in the original text is obviously not an application of the text but actually a rewriting of it. This sort of "interpretation" does not create a "Living Constitution." It leads to a "dead" one. It creates a new unwritten constitution that replaces the written one which no longer applies since the text is completely malleable and therefor meaningless. The "Living Constitution" nullifies written text and adjudicates instead by unbounded and unprescribed judicial opinion. The Living Constitution, in effect, is not a document, it is the constant mill of personal opinions cranked out by the majority of the SCOTUS jurists.

And how are both "sides" important?

The "originalist" side of the argument secures unalienable individual rights and liberties which can only be abridged by the representative vote of those individuals.

The "Living Constitution" side guaranties no individual rights but secures to government the ability through its Court the power to decide what rights individuals and collectives have

Last edited by detbuch; 03-30-2018 at 11:36 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2018, 03:53 AM   #118
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

"Interpretation" that changed the meaning of the text in order to arrive at a decision not grounded in the original text is obviously not an application of the text but actually a rewriting of it.
BINGO

this is akin to Spence taking the exact wording of a statement and claiming that "taken in context"....those words mean or were intended to mean something completely different than what was actually stated....I've lost count of how many times he's attempted this....it's all about arriving at a desired conclusion...who needs Google or a Constitution when you can just make it up as you go along
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2018, 05:02 AM   #119
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
Jonah G was praising retired Justice Stevens yesterday for at least having the audacity to be honest.....something that has been rare in the debate where the left has spent considerable time mocking and attacking 2A advocates for "unfounded fears" that the left would like to make significant changes to the Rights of Americans where guns are concerned...Wayne inferred and all but admitted his best "solution" recently but I couldn't quite get him to step out of the shadow...


"Stevens’s argument cuts through all of the fictions and double-talk and says plainly what millions of Americans and lots of politicians and journalists truly believe: Law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be able to buy guns easily, or at all, if it makes it easier or even possible for non-law-abiding citizens to get their hands on them.

But there’s another reason I applaud Stevens’s position. He seeks to change the meaning of the Constitution the way the Founders intended: through the amendment process.

For more than a century, progressives have argued that the Constitution should be seen as a “living and breathing document,” in the words of Al Gore and countless others. What they usually mean is that judges and justices should be free to discern in its text new rights that progressives like, from the right to privacy to the unfettered right to abortion. One needn’t be absolutist about this. I do think we have a right to privacy, because I think you can find that right implicit in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, among other places.

What is ridiculous and despotic is when courts radically reinterpret the text to conform to contemporary norms or fads. Often, when I rail against the “living” Constitution, someone will say to me, “If the Constitution didn’t change, we would still have slavery,” or, “Women wouldn’t be allowed to vote.” That’s true. But those changes weren’t the product of a living, breathing Constitution. They were the result of constitutional amendments, which are as valid and binding as the original text."

those progressives are a sneaky bunch...never take your eyes off of them
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2018, 07:06 PM   #120
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
Oops!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com