How can Secretary Clinton be such a heavy favorite?
Quote: AZDuffmanIf you mean the policy of implementing the Constitution as it was written and not as a "living, breathing" thing then yes, I suppose so.
Do you find it the least bit amazing that every time the SCOTUS sides with you well that is just upholding the constitution but when they side against you that is a usurp of proper powers and they are implementing policy?
Quote: ams288Anyway, Scott Walker officially entered the race yesterday.
I watched part of his announcement speech live......
Yikes.
Some members here seem to think he could win. Keep drinking that Kool Aid. Afterwards, a cable news commentator called him a "black hole of charisma." I think that pretty much sums him up.
What is it about Wisconsin politicians? All dreary?
Seems odd that there's been no sign of Paul Ryan, doesn't it? He had both looks and a bit of (Wisconsin) personality, firmly right Republican, one of the smartest guys in politics, was the VP candidate 2012 and....nothing. Not even a "draft Paul Ryan" movement. What happened there?
Quote: beachbumbabsWhat is it about Wisconsin politicians? All dreary?
Seems odd that there's been no sign of Paul Ryan, doesn't it? He had both looks and a bit of (Wisconsin) personality, firmly right Republican, one of the smartest guys in politics, was the VP candidate 2012 and....nothing. Not even a "draft Paul Ryan" movement. What happened there?
I wonder the same thing. I think Paul Ryan could have been a real contender this election cycle.
He is definitely far-right enough to appeal to the primary base, yet he is able to hide it well and fool independents in the general. He is one I think could have given the Dems a run for their money... Scott Walker? No way.
Quote: TwirdmanDo you find it the least bit amazing that every time the SCOTUS sides with you well that is just upholding the constitution but when they side against you that is a usurp of proper powers and they are implementing policy?
You mean like when you agreed with the ruling on Obamacare but you said the world will end after Citizen's United?
Quote: ams288
The white male voter hasn't mattered in the last two elections, no reason to think they will this time around. It's not like they're a growing portion of the electorate.
Neither are blacks a growing portion, but without them dems lose huge. Democrats have written off the both largest block and block that is most likely to show up on election day. What they have left themselves with is a coalition that must support them in huge margins plus that they historically have do drive or dig up to get to the election.
Chances are that hispanics and asians will not believe the Democrat "vote for us or Jones will come and take the farm back!" scare tactics that black believe.
Quote: AZDuffmanChances are that hispanics and asians will not believe the Democrat "vote for us or Jones will come and take the farm back!" scare tactics that black believe.
Yes, Hispanics are much more likely to believe the Republican "Mexico is sending us their rapists and must be stopped!" scare tactics.
Quote: beachbumbabsWhat is it about Wisconsin politicians? All dreary?
Seems odd that there's been no sign of Paul Ryan, doesn't it? He had both looks and a bit of (Wisconsin) personality, firmly right Republican, one of the smartest guys in politics, was the VP candidate 2012 and....nothing. Not even a "draft Paul Ryan" movement. What happened there?
Yes, Mr Walker joined the race officially yesterday, I have been waiting for a couple of years....
I was apprehensive about watching and listening. He isn't the best TV face in the pack, but didn't look bad.
I mean if we were voting for looks ( and we do... Sadly), well then I'd be in the race (joke).
He didn't sound bad either, he can actually speak. Didn't make the hair on my neck stand up, but didn't miss by much.
I was pleased, I think I will work with his campaign in my state for the primaries.
We could do a lot worse than Mr Walker.
Quote: ams288Yes, Hispanics are much more likely to believe the Republican "Mexico is sending us their rapists and must be stopped!" scare tactics.
At least the GOP position makes sense. Nobody wants illegal alien rapists living among them. Liberals are happy when they live amongst others, outside of nice, safe, gated communities.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou mean like when you agreed with the ruling on Obamacare but you said the world will end after Citizen's United?
There is a difference between disagreeing with a decision or the interpretations of the justices like I did in that case and the Hobby Lobby case and claiming that they are legislating from the bench.
I don't agree with those decisions because I find that it gives the board of directors the ability to act as a proxy for an entity they specifically wanted to be legally distinct from themselves. I do not personally think it makes sense to say this entity is totally distinct from me and thus I can not be punished for his wrong doings, but he totally feels the exact same way I feel about everything and has my religion and political beliefs. It erodes one side of the corporate veil. If the entity is legally distinct from you you should have no say in what it does other then performing your fiduciary responsibilities, a corporation has no religion. The supreme court felt differently and I can understand their reasoning even though I disagree with it. They acted in a manner they thought the constitution required.
You are simply saying that the court acted unconstitutional because you don't agree with their ruling and are providing no reason why you say they are acting unconstitutionally? They are not necessarily acting in the manner of US tradition but that hardly makes something unconstitutional. To say the court acted unconstitutionally and legislated from the bench you have to give a reason why you think that other then disagreeing with their ruling.
Quote: Twirdman
You are simply saying that the court acted unconstitutional because you don't agree with their ruling and are providing no reason why you say they are acting unconstitutionally? They are not necessarily acting in the manner of US tradition but that hardly makes something unconstitutional. To say the court acted unconstitutionally and legislated from the bench you have to give a reason why you think that other then disagreeing with their ruling.
I have given multiple reasons along the way. To repeat, yet again, they blatantly ignored the actual wording of the Obamacare law and made something up so as to fit an agenda. On gay marriage they not rule on "equal protection" but rather forced a redefinition of an institution in both wording and spirit of the law.
Your reading on Hobby Lobby is kind of flawed. By your logic the owners of the company should have no say in corporate operations?
Quote: AZDuffmanI have given multiple reasons along the way. To repeat, yet again, they blatantly ignored the actual wording of the Obamacare law and made something up so as to fit an agenda. On gay marriage they not rule on "equal protection" but rather forced a redefinition of an institution in both wording and spirit of the law.
Your reading on Hobby Lobby is kind of flawed. By your logic the owners of the company should have no say in corporate operations?
They went with original intent of the law which is standard if there is ambiguity. Also no one cares that the institution was redefined that is not in and of itself unconstitutional. The 14th amendment grants equal protection so they granted equal protection.
No I'm saying that corporation have no religion so there is no religious liberties to violate. If the corporation is a distinct entity from you you cannot go around and then claim it also happens to be the exact same religion as me so should be afforded religious protections. We already do limit corporate personhood and restrict the rights they possess because there are no fair ways to say how to exercise them. For instance a corporation as a legal entity cannot vote in elections. I mean why would a corporation as a legal entity have a religion; what sense does that make.
Quote: TwirdmanThey went with original intent of the law which is standard if there is ambiguity. Also no one cares that the institution was redefined that is not in and of itself unconstitutional. The 14th amendment grants equal protection so they granted equal protection.
The intent of the law was for states to set up exchanges. That is why it was written that way. We are not talking about the Constitution from 200 years ago, we are talking about a law not read before voted on. Gays had equal protection, they were free to marry anyone of the opposite sex. Straight and gay alike were not able to marry same sex. I would at least have respect for your position if you admitted as such.
Quote:No I'm saying that corporation have no religion so there is no religious liberties to violate. If the corporation is a distinct entity from you you cannot go around and then claim it also happens to be the exact same religion as me so should be afforded religious protections. We already do limit corporate personhood and restrict the rights they possess because there are no fair ways to say how to exercise them. For instance a corporation as a legal entity cannot vote in elections. I mean why would a corporation as a legal entity have a religion; what sense does that make.
It makes sense because the corporation is the sum of its investors. Your house and car are "not people" yet your constitutional rights extend to them, in the case of being searched for example.
Quote: AZDuffman
It makes sense because the corporation is the sum of its investors. Your house and car are "not people" yet your constitutional rights extend to them, in the case of being searched for example.
It is legally distinct from them though. Shareholders cannot for the most be found liable for actions of the company, barring extreme circumstances where the corporate veil is pierced, so it is not the same entity. Given it is not the same entity you cannot say you are extending religious liberty to it because it does not have a religion unless you say the shareholders are the corporation in which case why does the corporate veil exist. The corporate veil is a two way thing. As for searching that is a different thing and the 4th amendment specifically spells out that your property is free from searches, mainly because if it didn't the 4th would be an almost useless amendment. So the 4th amendment protects you and your property from being searched but I think anyone would find it ridiculous to claim your car has the same religion as you or to claim it had religion at all.
Quote: AZDuffmanAt least the GOP position makes sense. Nobody wants illegal alien rapists living among them. Liberals are happy when they live amongst others, outside of nice, safe, gated communities.
Ha. So you acknowledge that's the GOP position?
Quote: ams288Ha. So you acknowledge that's the GOP position?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Quote: TwirdmanIt is legally distinct from them though. Shareholders cannot for the most be found liable for actions of the company, barring extreme circumstances where the corporate veil is pierced, so it is not the same entity. Given it is not the same entity you cannot say you are extending religious liberty to it because it does not have a religion unless you say the shareholders are the corporation in which case why does the corporate veil exist. The corporate veil is a two way thing. As for searching that is a different thing and the 4th amendment specifically spells out that your property is free from searches, mainly because if it didn't the 4th would be an almost useless amendment. So the 4th amendment protects you and your property from being searched but I think anyone would find it ridiculous to claim your car has the same religion as you or to claim it had religion at all.
The corporation only exists to limit liability and assure a going concern. If not for it no business could grow because each and every shareholder would be similar to a Llyods of London "name" responsible to the last cufflink.
Quote: AZDuffmanHave you stopped beating your wife?
WOW AZ.
What is going on?
So not like you. Where is your conservative logic?
Its just a board here. I know people get upset and heated but you are taking it to another level.
Quote: AZDuffmanHave you stopped beating your wife?
??????
The spread for Clinton is +70. The Donald: +3.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Quote: AZDuffmanGays had equal protection, they were free to marry anyone of the opposite sex. Straight and gay alike were not able to marry same sex.
Even if I bought this reason as reasonable (which I don't) there is no reason to limit something without a real compelling interest. That's just tyranny for no reason.
Even liberals are better than that.
Probably more reasons to limit protection for the disabled since accommodating them with specialized access for work, movement and living is likely pretty costly to the state. Hella more costly than gay marriage I would guess.
(Yes, now ready to hear all false harms of gay marriage.)
Quote: rxwine(Yes, now ready to hear all false harms of gay marriage.)
Since there aren't any, they've moved on to the "they're discriminating against my right to discriminate" argument.
Quote: rxwineEven if I bought this reason as reasonable (which I don't) there is no reason to limit something without a real compelling interest. That's just tyranny for no reason.
This is why I support must-issue carry permits.
Quote: terapinedWOW AZ.
What is going on?
So not like you. Where is your conservative logic?
Its just a board here. I know people get upset and heated but you are taking it to another level.
See what I was replying to. I have had about enough the idea that if you want to protect the border you are a racist and bigot.
Quote: AZDuffmanSee what I was replying to. I have had about enough the idea that if you want to protect the border you are a racist and bigot.
And if the Indians would've protected their borders, you wouldn't be here either.
Quote: IbeatyouracesAnd if the Indians would've protected their borders, you wouldn't be here either.
There's always some white man sneaking up on me these days, been happening for many years.
Quote: IbeatyouracesAnd if the Indians would've protected their borders, you wouldn't be here either.
Hey man they're already here might as well close down the border totally now. I mean legal immigration is basically impossible now a days unless you happen to have family already here so might as well make illegal immigration impossible. Xenophobia is grand ain't it.
Seriously though if we do decide to lock down the border can we at least do something to expand legal immigration in this country because it is a freaking joke right now.
Quote: TwirdmanHey man they're already here might as well close down the border totally now. I mean legal immigration is basically impossible now a days unless you happen to have family already here so might as well make illegal immigration impossible. Xenophobia is grand ain't it.
Seriously though if we do decide to lock down the border can we at least do something to expand legal immigration in this country because it is a freaking joke right now.
I am all for the expansion of legal immigration, but it has to be done by severely curbing illegal immigration. I understand many illegals are people who want to come across through the proper channels but it's a joke of a process right now, and as a result of our immigration policy the US has fueled a thriving black market in getting people into the US illegally.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLThere's always some white man sneaking up on me these days, been happening for many years.
If you want to go that route, look how well open borders worked for the American Indian. Is that what you want? I don't.
Quote: AZDuffmanHave you stopped beating your wife?
I'd just like to come back to this and ask how a personal attack like this isn't suspension-worthy??
Quote: ams288I'd just like to come back to this and ask how a personal attack like this isn't suspension-worthy??
It is not a personal attack. It is a reply to the comment. The comment was saying, "then you admit the GOP is a bunch of racists" yadda yadda yadda. So I made the "have you stopped beating your wife comment.
"Have you stopped beating your wife" is a classic can't win answer. Yes or no you lose. It is my way of saying to find a better line of questions and discussion on illegal immigration than childishly just saying the other side is a bunch of racists.
Look at the line of discussion, and you will see my intent clearly.
Quote: ams288Yes, Hispanics are much more likely to believe the Republican "Mexico is sending us their rapists and must be stopped!" scare tactics.
Quote: ams288Ha. So you acknowledge that's the GOP position?
Sorry, I thought the "have you stopped beating your wife" thing was well known enough that it would easily be seen for what it was meant as.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is not a personal attack. It is a reply to the comment. The comment was saying, "then you admit the GOP is a bunch of racists" yadda yadda yadda.
That was not what I was saying at all. I have never said anything like that.
Trump has taken the GOP down the "Mexico is purposefully sending us their rapists" path, and you seemed to be toeing the party line. I was trying to confirm that.
I avoid immigration debates. I just don't care strongly either way (that being said, Trump's comments are idiotic).
Quote: TwirdmanHey man they're already here might as well close down the border totally now. I mean legal immigration is basically impossible now a days unless you happen to have family already here so might as well make illegal immigration impossible. Xenophobia is grand ain't it.
Seriously though if we do decide to lock down the border can we at least do something to expand legal immigration in this country because it is a freaking joke right now.
Your party would much rather see impoverished illiterate blacks and browns who can reliably counted on to forever vote for the (until the country implodes from debt like Greece) Party Of Owe than educated Asians and Europeans who are likely to end up voting against socialist fiscal insanity.
Quote: ams288That was not what I was saying at all. I have never said anything like that.
OK, then lets just move forward.
Quote:Trump has taken the GOP down the "Mexico is purposefully sending us their rapists" path, and you seemed to be toeing the party line. I was trying to confirm that.
I avoid immigration debates. I just don't care strongly either way (that being said, Trump's comments are idiotic).
Mexico is not sending us their best and brightest. They have been dumping people to the USA for decades now. If they wanted to stop migration to the USA they could at the least really clamp down on it. Instead they encourage it. Do you not think there is a reason for this?
During the Mariel boat life Fidel Castro cleared out his prisons and mental institutions. Mexico may not be to that level, but best and brightest they are not encouraging. We get played for fools again and again.
Quote: AZDuffmanAt least the GOP position makes sense. Nobody wants illegal alien rapists living among them. Liberals are happy when they live amongst others, outside of nice, safe, gated communities.
Quote: ams288Ha. So you acknowledge that's the GOP position?
Quote: AZDuffmanHave you stopped beating your wife?
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is not a personal attack. It is a reply to the comment. The comment was saying, "then you admit the GOP is a bunch of racists" yadda yadda yadda. So I made the "have you stopped beating your wife comment.
"Have you stopped beating your wife" is a classic can't win answer. Yes or no you lose. It is my way of saying to find a better line of questions and discussion on illegal immigration than childishly just saying the other side is a bunch of racists.
Look at the line of discussion, and you will see my intent clearly.
Sorry, I thought the "have you stopped beating your wife" thing was well known enough that it would easily be seen for what it was meant as.
Here is the history of the posts regarding what I perceive is a suspendable insult
AMS288 is right, he was insulted.
In no way was ams288 saying "then you admit the GOP is a bunch of racists" yadda yadda yadda." that AZ attributed to ams288.
Quote: terapinedHere is the history of the posts regarding what I perceive is a suspendable insult
AMS288 is right, he was insulted.
In no way was ams288 saying "then you admit the GOP is a bunch of racists" yadda yadda yadda." that AZ attributed to ams288.
I thought the exchange was fair, and not insulting, but then I was already aware of the conundrum that the question creates when it , or one like it, is used.
It could have been asked differently, more politely, and had the same effect.
Play nice boys and girls.
Quote: MoosetonCrying for others to be suspended should be a suspension worthy offense. Posts like that just waste everyone's time.
Hi. You must be new here.
Clearly you've never seen the 6000+ posts in the Discussion About the Suspension List thread.
Quote: ams288Hi. You must be new here.
Clearly you've never seen the 6000+ posts in the Discussion About the Suspension List thread.
Referring to Mooston as new, with a join date a couple of years before your join date?
The vast majority of posts in the 'Discussion' you refereed to were not requests for a suspension.
Those requests typically are found in a thread, about particular posts, posts like your's for instance.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLReferring to Mooston as new, with a join date a couple of years before your join date?
Gotta pull out the old *facepalm* for this one.
I saw that. It was sarcasm.
If, as Mooseton said, crying for others to be suspended for their derogatory posts is a suspension-worthy offense, imagine what the punishment for crying for others to be suspended because they in turn were crying for others to be suspended would be!!!
A vicious cycle!
With numbers like this, you can see why liberals are so afraid of Trump.
Quote: AZDuffman
With numbers like this, you can see why liberals are so afraid of Trump.
You can keep saying it all you want, doesn't mean it's ever gonna be true.
Right-wingers are waaaaaaaay more afraid of Hillary than liberals are afraid of Trump.
Quote: ams288
Right-wingers are waaaaaaaay more afraid of Hillary than liberals are afraid of Trump.
I don't see anybody afraid of Hillary. That's
why the Dems are now floating Biden out
there. Everytime there's a poll, Hillary is
doing worse. Does that look like fear to
you? "Oh no, she's doing worse in the
polls, we're so afraid of her." They're
afraid of Trump because he IS killing
the polls.
Quote: EvenBobThey're
afraid of Trump because he IS killing
the polls.
Who is "they?" Certainly not liberals.....
Hillary has beaten Trump in every face to face matchup poll they have done.
Republicans are more afraid of Trump (and Hillary).
they know she can be easily beaten. Nobody
likes her, and that's bad in a candidate. I love
the books that have been written by former
Secret Service members that say Hillary is
a monster. Getting put on her detail was like
punishment, nobody but nobody wanted
to be around her.
Quote: EvenBobThey're afraid of Trump because he IS killing the polls.
Why would anyone think the polls provide any information not included in the gambling markets?
If anyone does think that, then great, because you should be earning a lot of money betting on elections. Of course if you aren't earning money betting on them, it pretty much proves these polls don't offer much of anything
Not too hard to find D at -150 and R at +140. We should all be thanking both Clinton and Trump for giving us such an easy way to make money
Quote: TomGWhy would anyone think the polls provide any information not included in the gambling markets?
If anyone does think that, then great, because you should be earning a lot of money betting on elections. Of course if you aren't earning money betting on them, it pretty much proves these polls don't offer much of anything
Not too hard to find D at -150 and R at +140. We should all be thanking both Clinton and Trump for giving us such an easy way to make money
Right up to the last minute in 2012, EvenBob (like many Republicans) was sure Mitt Romney was going to win. Despite what the polls, gambling markets, common sense, etc. said.
Sometimes there is just no reasoning with people...
Quote: petezeke97Deleted by Mod
Secretary Clinton had an "affair" with Vince Foster. He was later found in a park. He had cut his own head off, placed it on a park bench, run 10 years to a river bank and jumped in. It was ruled a suicide and that was the explanation.
