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:

 
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 07-02-2014, 09:37 AM   #31
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I'm still dumfounded how Alito could play the corporations are people card without any reference to Citizens United.

There's a lot of irony as well.

So the for profit corporation now has deep Christian convictions that must not be infringed...but what would Jesus think about company owned by billionaires?

And perhaps the best part is the Right celebrating a case where the Court says the easy solution is for the Government to just pay for the contraception.

That's rich.

While this case may not open up the flood gates like some predict I do think it's opened up a can of worms the Court may regret.

-spence
So you assume Jesus hates rich people ??
Am I wrong in assuming you make money off the market? That's freaking ironic .
This is all moot anyways. Obama is just going to overrule the Supreme Court
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline  
Old 07-02-2014, 09:42 AM   #32
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
So you assume Jesus hates rich people ??
Am I wrong in assuming you make money off the market? That's freaking ironic .
This is all moot anyways. Obama is just going to overrule the Supreme Court
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You weren't paying attention in Sunday School were ya?

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 07-02-2014, 10:09 AM   #33
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
You weren't paying attention in Sunday School were ya?

-spence
Never went . Catholic school educated I still don't recall the part where Jesus hated rich people.
Maybe you went to the same church as Obama
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline  
Old 07-02-2014, 11:34 AM   #34
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I'm still dumfounded how Alito could play the corporations are people card without any reference to Citizens United.

There's a lot of irony as well.

So the for profit corporation now has deep Christian convictions that must not be infringed...but what would Jesus think about company owned by billionaires?

And perhaps the best part is the Right celebrating a case where the Court says the easy solution is for the Government to just pay for the contraception.

That's rich.

While this case may not open up the flood gates like some predict I do think it's opened up a can of worms the Court may regret.

-spence
"could play the corporations are people card"

No one is sayng corporations are people. What they're saying, is that the owner of a small business isn't obligated to leave his religion at the door to his office.

"I do think it's opened up a can of worms the Court may regret."

When the Supreme Court is deciding the constitutionality of a law, they aren't supposed to be concerned with the inconvenient ramifications of their decision. The constitutionality is what matters.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-02-2014, 11:42 AM   #35
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
The liberal reaction to this was perfectly predictable. And tiring. And dishonest to the core.

(1) conservatives want to deny women their right to healthcare. Insane. HL was willing to provide 16 of the 20 forms of contraception mandated by Obamacare. They only objected to the 4 that don't take effect until after the egg is fertilized, which they see as abortion.

Have liberals become so paralyzed with entitlement that they actually claim that if someone doesn't wish to buy something for you, that's the same as them denying you access to that something? Have liberals completely abandoned the notion of self sufficiency? I am bald. My employer will not pay for me to receive a scalp transplant if I asked. Is my employer therefore denying me of my right to get a scalp transplant? Of course not. I can get it on my own if I so choose. He is under no obligatuion to give me everything I could possibly want, and he's not denying me access to anything when he says "I'm not paying for that".

(2) The owners of HL are imposing their beliefs on their employees. Ridiculous. The owners of HL are not trying to change their employees' minds about Christianity or abortion. The employees are still free to do whatever they choose. They just have to leave their employers out of it. The only ones here subjected to coercion, were the owners of HL, who were being forced by the feds to be complicit in that which violates their religion.

This should not have been a toughie, it should have been 9-0.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-02-2014, 01:22 PM   #36
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
When the Supreme Court is deciding the constitutionality of a law, they aren't supposed to be concerned with the inconvenient ramifications of their decision. The constitutionality is what matters.
Yes, that's how the Justices operate, with utter disregard for the ramifications of their decisions. They probably don't care about the constitutionality of precedents either.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 07-02-2014, 01:47 PM   #37
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Yes, that's how the Justices operate, with utter disregard for the ramifications of their decisions. They probably don't care about the constitutionality of precedents either.

-spence
What I meant was. when they are deciding if the owners of HL had their constitutional rights violated, they aren't supposed to care about opening up a larger can of worms. If the law is unconstitutional, they should declare such, and deal with the ramifications. At least, that's how it's supposed to work with SCOTUS.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-02-2014, 10:13 PM   #38
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
QUOTE=PaulS;1046179]I think your comment took a lot more thought (as you certainly spent more time that I did on typing your response).

Thanks for amending your original "too much thought" to "a lot more thought." I plead guilty to that, but, as I said. it didn't take much thought, just more, as we both agree, than you gave.

I do thank God (capitalized ) that if someone does something as minor as vote differently than I do, I don't wish a miserable disease on them. I don't have the hatred you mention.

So, then, you do thank God. That may be important to you in a larger context, but of little significance to your post here--just an expression. A sort of general gratitude and pat on the back that you're better than someone else in some particular way.

But if you stretch your imagination a bit, expand your consciousness within the boundaries, expansive as they may be, of this thread, can you see how your post in which you thank God, and speak of voting, and the President in a thread about religious freedom before the Supreme Court . . . can you see how someone might wonder how your apparent belief in God would fit into our larger present day political scheme and how it would reconcile the problems of the ACA mandates and religious freedom? I thought it would be very interesting to hear what your thoughts are on all of this. Apparently, none of that interests you and was dismissed as too much thinking.


Am I getting into a typical detbuch poopoo now?

If you wish. It is fun, but a distraction from the flow of the thread--a sort of thread hijacking. I tried to bring your comments re Raider Ronnie into that flow in a meaningful way, but you apparently would have none of that, just, it seems, to insist on your reproof of RR.

Thanks for the backhanded insults.

I don't thank God, or anybody else, that I don't feel insulted when someone asks my opinion or says something truthful about me. Perhaps it's politically incorrect egotism on my part that I find back and forth discussions on political, religious, or personal philosophies and truthful comments about me as portions of personal growth and satisfaction--not stupid, closed-minded, made-up-minds arguments, but real and open dialogue.

Is it a wonder people ignore the vast majority of your posts. (how is that for "shaking off the chains of constraint")[/QUOTE]

YES!!!! A true and powerful blow to my unworthy ego (and no doubt backed by solid research and survey of all members). I bet that felt good! And it should. That's what nasty, snide remarks and insults are for. To make you feel good, or to have a little malicious fun (which also makes you feel good). But you are much nicer about it than those you chide. You don't use cuss words or wish miserable diseases . . . and no hatred . . .just mild, good natured, corrective abuse. But the motivation is the same.

By the way, your policing of what you consider classless or offensive comments would be more convincing if you applied it equally to all who make such comments, not just those who particularly irritate you (or are of a certain political persuasion). Otherwise it makes it seem that you have an agenda other than cleaning up the political forum.

And thanks for responding to my posts. Every time you do, it brings attention to some of my vast majority of posts which would otherwise go unnoticed.
detbuch is offline  
Old 07-03-2014, 09:55 AM   #39
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Yes, that's how the Justices operate, with utter disregard for the ramifications of their decisions. They probably don't care about the constitutionality of precedents either.

-spence
I don't absolutely know how the Justices operate, but guess that contrary to "utter disregard" (another one of those little absolutes that slip into your comments though you believe there are no absolutes?) they adjudicate specifically on the ramifications of their decisions. I think they intend specific ramifications. The major difference between "conservative" and progressive judges is that the former intend to uphold their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, the latter, in spite of their oath, intend to advance their opinion on some current variant of notional social justice--even if the ramification is nullification of the Constitution.

I would say that those who uphold their oath care far more about constitutionality, whether it be precedent or originality, than those who wander into judgment by personal opinion. But both, in my opinion, are aware of, and actually seek, the ramifications of their decisions.

BTW, the idea that a "precedent" is in and of itself constitutional is not an absolute. Every Court decision which creates new precedent that previously didn't exist, is in itself a change from and often a contradiction to previous precedent. And if later Courts find in a precedent a contradiction to the Constitution, they would be absolutely correct in striking it down.

The Constitution has been overburdened to the point of destruction by bad precedent.

Last edited by detbuch; 07-03-2014 at 10:01 AM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 07-03-2014, 11:07 AM   #40
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
QUOTE=spence;1046194]I'm still dumfounded how Alito could play the corporations are people card without any reference to Citizens United.

???????

There's a lot of irony as well.

???????

So the for profit corporation now has deep Christian convictions that must not be infringed...but what would Jesus think about company owned by billionaires?

The entire ACA and its implementation is an infringement not just on First Amendment Rights, but on the whole founding notion of individual liberty and personal unalienable rights. I guess, since that doesn't dumbfound you, you would be dumbfounded by some small infringement on the whole massive infringement.

As for Jesus . . . He would not be concerned by any of it. Not by conservatism, progressivism, the Constitution, Marxism, statism, whatever . . . render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's. If the State were to take your life because of your belief in Him, what would matter to Him is that you would give that life to follow Him. The State would lose a body, but heaven would gain a soul.

I may be wrong, but that is my understanding.


And perhaps the best part is the Right celebrating a case where the Court says the easy solution is for the Government to just pay for the contraception.

That's rich.

That is a progressive notion which "the Right" should not adopt, but throws, probably sarcastically, back at the dependence on government regulation instead of self regulation. It is, in my opinion, wrongheaded. "The Right" should stick with personal responsibility in matters such as choice of contraception. Anyway, when the government "pays" for something, it is always the people, in the long run, who are doing the paying. It's just that, when the government rather than the individual decides, some individuals get shafted and others benefit. But that is exactly, besides the massive infringement, what the government mandated ACA does.

While this case may not open up the flood gates like some predict I do think it's opened up a can of worms the Court may regret.

-spence[/QUOTE]

The can of worms was long ago opened by the Court when it began en masse abandoning the Constitution and legislating from the bench. The process is just carrying itself out. This decision is just a tiny correction.
detbuch is offline  
Old 07-03-2014, 01:39 PM   #41
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Woa, maybe you guys have it all wrong

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/us...thecaucus&_r=2

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 07-03-2014, 06:30 PM   #42
Fishpart
Keep The Change
iTrader: (0)
 
Fishpart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Road to Serfdom
Posts: 3,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Woa, maybe you guys have it all wrong

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/us...thecaucus&_r=2

-spence
NY Times=Pravda

Looks like some "scholar is Pole Vaulting mouse turds. Even as a stand alone sentence the meaning is not that different..

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,.... " Which means We The People tell the government what to do not the other way around. Applying it to modern times, Congress is closest to the people therefore, Congresses' "obstructionisim" is clearly communicating to our monarch the People's wishes.

“It’s not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections,” Antonin Scalia
Fishpart is offline  
Old 07-03-2014, 10:05 PM   #43
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishpart View Post
NY Times=Pravda

Looks like some "scholar is Pole Vaulting mouse turds. Even as a stand alone sentence the meaning is not that different..

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,.... " Which means We The People tell the government what to do not the other way around. Applying it to modern times, Congress is closest to the people therefore, Congresses' "obstructionisim" is clearly communicating to our monarch the People's wishes.
Yup. But even with the minimal ability required to jump those small turds, their leap is so weak that the "scholar" and those who hail abolishing the period as the means to make "you guys have it all wrong," can't get off the ground and fall face down on the droppings. I think, according to their view, that removing the period is not supposed to make that which follows it a stand alone sentence, but a connected qualifying clause of equal importance to what goes before it. That is, it is supposed to stress that without government "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" would not be possible. That government is co-equal to those rights, or even precedent to them in importance. And the next step would be the progressive one that not only is government more important than those rights . . . it grants them. That is, it creates them. Therefor, government is supreme, not rights. And, of course, the straw man is then created that constitutional conservatives devalue the importance of government, or accuse government of being an evil, or at best an obstacle to freedom and rights.

But the slightest rational scrutiny of what conservatives believe finds no such view of government. On the contrary, they concur with those who wrote the Declaration and formed the GOVERNMENT described by their Constitution and by all of the collateral documents they left for posterity. Their view is that government is necessary, but not co-equal to their unalienable rights, nor certainly not the creator or granter of those rights. Conservatives of a constitutional stripe are not anti-government. They cherish the government derived from the Declaration and the Constitution. They are against government which would destroy the one they cherish and replace it with an all powerful central authority which recognizes only those rights it creates.

As you say, period or no period, the meaning is not changed. The Declaration makes it clear that it is not government which grants those unalienable rights, but a Creator--that Creator clearly not being the government since it says ". . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." Unless government can create "all men" it cannot be the creator, and if it did create unalienable rights, then it could not alienate them, which would be a contradiction. It is clear that those rights endowed by a Creator were meant to be free, most importantly, from government usurpation.

The secondary importance of government re our unalienable rights is established, as you say, by the words following the phantom period: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . ." That is, people create governments, not, as you say, the other way around. And, in our founding, government was created mainly to protect already existing rights, which could not be usurped or alienated by that government. And further, government derives its ". . . just powers from the consent of the governed . . ." Again, as you well say, We the People are not dictated to or regulated against our consent. And that is further ordained by limitations placed on government in the Constitution which is a plan for government created by We the People.

And if all that still leaves some doubt as to which is more important, our unalienable rights or government, consider the next words that follow the above quotes: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . . ." Does this leave any doubt about what was intended to be most important--unalienable rights or government?

And yes, on the Federal level, Congress was meant to be the people's voice, not the President. Congress was meant to be the most powerful and influential branch of the Federal Government. And originally congressional power was mainly to rest in the House of Representatives. The Senate was meant to be mostly an advisory appendage of Congress and to presidential appointments and treaties. As such, it was appointed by state legislatures, not by direct vote. That was done intentionally so as not to weaken the power of Congress by a competing section of longer duration in its own branch. And to secure the power that States possessed at the founding by preventing a major portion of the Congress from aligning with the central Federal political establishment against the will of the people as expressed by their own state governments. The Senate was a throw in to appease some who worried about a too powerful House of Representatives, and, to some extent, a transfer of the bicameralism in the Articles of Confederation and the English Parliament. So now, instead, we have a too powerful Senate and a weak House. It was not really necessary to even have a Senate in the first place. It became one of the Trojan Horses used by progressives to weaken federalism and advance to an all-powerful central government. That was accomplished by their 17th amendment.

The Senate now regularly opposes House legislation. And it protects the President in his unconstitutional endeavors. And the Senate/President coalition rams through regulations and rhetorically demagogues the House painting it as do nothing while they don't allow it to do things, and further demonize any "conservative" efforts perennially painting them as the racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-middle class, for the rich, anti-environment, anti-progress, etc., etc., etc., very little of which can be rationally demonstrated, but most of which is very effective as The People are progressively dumbed down on political and historical awareness.

And yes, we are closer to an elected monarchy than a constitutional republic. And NO, we who oppose this do not have it all wrong.

Last edited by detbuch; 07-03-2014 at 11:14 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 07-06-2014, 02:36 PM   #44
Swimmer
Retired Surfer
iTrader: (0)
 
Swimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sunset Grill
Posts: 9,511
One point that Ronny makes, and is echo'd by many on both sides of the aisle, is that people on the handout train will never vote for anyone else other than someone like O'Bama, who strives for a single party system in this country by keeping those underachievers of which he spoke on the gravy train. In other words they are indentured servants to the democratic party, i.e. slaves.

Swimmer a.k.a. YO YO MA
Serial Mailbox Killer/Seal Fisherman
Swimmer is offline  
Old 07-06-2014, 02:38 PM   #45
Swimmer
Retired Surfer
iTrader: (0)
 
Swimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sunset Grill
Posts: 9,511
Not blowing smoke up anyone's arse, but quite a few of you articulate very well your thoughts into words here. I enjoy reading these disertions from time to time.

Swimmer a.k.a. YO YO MA
Serial Mailbox Killer/Seal Fisherman
Swimmer is offline  
 

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 06:01 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