If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
You and I may differ on what is ethical, but I believe you have no right to use the power of government to achieve your ethical, "social justice" type goals.
Geez, I ask this in all seriousness and with respect. I agree with your statement above. How does that measure up to the GOP's oft proclaimed intent to stack the SCOTUS with devout anti-abortionists?
“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx
FTR, overturning Roe v Wade would not be using the affirmative power of government to do anything. It would simply allow states to pass laws as they see fit. Then the states may or may not use their power to laws through representative democracy.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
most recently my challenge to come up with a mass shooting in a gun-allowed zone
With all due respect -- and I really mean that, because you make me think harder and are one of my favorite people with which to argue politics on a sports forum -- but come on. There've been plenty and I showed it. This stands out as one of the few times you've proven immune to new information. I generally find you to be very open to new information and really like that about you.
........ I believe you have no right to use the power of government to achieve your ethical, "social justice" type goals.
In the absence of those holding the wealth to fulfill their social responsibility - that ethical framework I spoke of in my post, perhaps there is.
I don't know if it is possible to convincingly show that the wealthy tend to build their wealth, perhaps beyond what is actually needed for a fine life-style, rather than use a portion of it to benefit the society at large.
There are certainly exceptions but I believe that is exactly what they are ...... I acknowledge that I do not know the degree to which this occurs one way or the other but if one is to look at the wealth of the few and the suffering of the many, anecdotally I think it is fair to say the wealthy don't do enough.
From a historical perspective, especially examining the underpinning of the Revolutionary War waged by the colonies against the British Monarchy, there are examples of nations being born out of the struggle between the wealthy, in this case the aristocratic landowners of the British Empire, and those less fortunate, not because of a lack of effort but because of being born into different stations in life. The French revolution is another example. So is the Russian Revolution(s) (much later, in fact) that dismantled the Tsarist autocracy and ultimately led to the USSR.
I would think that the 1% I've spoken of in my posts that thrive today, which can be favorably compared to the Aristocratic landowners of the 18th and even the 20th centuries in Europe, would want to avoid the outcomes of past history brought about by an angry 99%.
I think it fruitless to engage in a detailed discussion here about how one goes about doing that - leveling the playing field for the underclass - but history, both current and past, has some good (and bad) examples of how governments might do it and have done it ....... and it is here that you and I are going to fundamentally disagree that government has any role in that endeavor at all. I think it does, you don't.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. But the shine on the NC Trophy is embarrassingly wearing off. It's M B-Ball ..... or hockey or volley ball or name your college sport favorite time ...... until next year.
I think you have to both recognize the degree of difficulty, and expect to fail frequently, but that's not an argument for not trying. There's not a better way, and until you define citizens as unequal, politics is about working for the greatest good for the greatest amount. That could be through prescriptive actions within the system, or system-level design. I'm more comfortable with the latter, but the interventions that characterize the former are just going to be part of it. They just are, on either end.
Bill Clinton agreed to appear at a gala for the model Petra Nemcova’s charity in 2014 after Ms. Nemcova offered a large donation to the Clinton Foundation.
Clinton received $500k to be an honored
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
FTR, overturning Roe v Wade would not be using the affirmative power of government to do anything. It would simply allow states to pass laws as they see fit. Then the states may or may not use their power to laws through representative democracy.
I don't buy that. It is "representative democracy" that confirms or rejects a SC justice. For members of the "representative democracy" to publically proclaim that they will affirm/reject someone put forth for the SC depending on a single moral issue is (ab)using the affirmative power of gov't. To claim the SC should overturn settled federal law in favor of a state choice is little more than a smoke screen covering the intent to impose morality that is not shared by others..
“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx
I don't buy that. It is "representative democracy" that confirms or rejects a SC justice. For members of the "representative democracy" to publically proclaim that they will affirm/reject someone put forth for the SC depending on a single moral issue is (ab)using the affirmative power of gov't. To claim the SC should overturn settled federal law in favor of a state choice is little more than a smoke screen covering the intent to impose morality that is not shared by others..
Agree that its malarkey....Pubs want abortion to be a state issue because that?s where they hold the most sway in banning it. They were just fine with using federal power in regards to the DMA.
Its really just about who?s ox is getting gored, as with just about everything else.
The Supreme Court allowing the states to do as you please is not affirmatively imposing social policy. There's no debating that. Period. It doesn't mean they're right in doing so, but they are not creating an affirmative right.
The fact that some of us now look to the SCt to legislate is more a comment on the how the Court has changed over the past century or so. Whether that's good or bad is, again, an open question. But that the Court has changed is not.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
According to a 2011 report, just over 6000 total Muslims served in the war on terror, and 14 were killed. In a macro sense, the service numbers percentage is roughly 1/3 of their population percentage.
It's a nice story in the political sense - it's sad in the human sense. But as a policy statement, I'm not sure what it supports. As I said, it's anecdotal and anomalous.
Trump is an ass. I'd hate to not reiterate that.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
Trump lashed out at Colorado Springs Fire Marshal Brett Lacey at his Friday rally, blaming him for the fact that not everyone who held tickets to the event could get inside ? but Lacey said that was because rally organizers gave out too many tickets. The hall at University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, where the rally was held, holds a maximum capacity of 1,500 ? and Lacey allowed 100 more inside after evaluating the crowd.
Another 1,000 people were allowed into an overflow room, KKTV reports.
But that didn?t stop Trump from bashing him, according to the Denver Post.
?The reason they won?t let them in is because they don?t know what the hell they?re doing,? Trump said Friday. ?Now because of your fire marshal, who I am not a fan of, he?s probably a Democrat, probably a guy than doesn?t get it, I?m going to go into the other room and say hello to people that didn?t get your location.?
This came after Colorado Springs firefighters rescued Trump and about ten others from a stalled elevator just before his speech by prying open the top and lowering a ladder, according to KKTV.
Lacey responded by simply saying it is his job to make sure everyone is safe at such events.
?There?s an old adage that when a fire marshal walks into a room, milk curdles,? he told the station. ?So because we?re always looking out for public safety and trying to make certain venues go off successfully and safely sometimes there are people that aren?t very happy with some of the rules and regulations that we?re required to enforce. But it doesn?t bother me at all.?
Lacey recently received recognition from the city for helping the wounded after the 2015 mass shooting at Planned Parenthood.
Trump was bashing the fire marshal and mayor of Columbus today under similar circumstances. "They won't let more people into the hall because they're BIASED!!"
This seems like it'll be a recurring theme for him. The campaign lacks money (or is just cheap) so they can only afford smaller venues. Trump then gets to whine that the firemen won't let 2,500 cram into a 1,000 capacity room because of 'bias". He also gets to claim that he speaks only to capacity crwods with thousands more outside begging to be let in and bask in his presence.
He is also already prediciting that the election will be 'rigged'
Tweet
Comment