|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 15 2015 10:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2015 09:24 lastpuritan wrote:
Its like you -members in this topic- know each other for a looooooooong loooooong time. well this thread has been running since 2012 Personally, I've been posting on this webpage since September 22 2002. 
This thread is like the home you grew up in with your parents, but after uni you're reluctant to return because you know that even if you go back, nothing's changed and that irks you.
<3 you guys, but I won't be back for Christmas.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
pouring out some libation for samizat
|
On March 15 2015 10:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2015 09:24 lastpuritan wrote:
Its like you -members in this topic- know each other for a looooooooong loooooong time. well this thread has been running since 2012 Personally, I've been posting on this webpage since September 22 2002.
Origin time everybody!
This thread started out as the thread for the US presidential campaign but shortly after that was winding down it was decided that teamliquid should have one megathread for all us politics.
|
On March 15 2015 13:13 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2015 10:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 15 2015 09:24 lastpuritan wrote:
Its like you -members in this topic- know each other for a looooooooong loooooong time. well this thread has been running since 2012 Personally, I've been posting on this webpage since September 22 2002. Origin time everybody! This thread started out as the thread for the US presidential campaign but shortly after that was winding down it was decided that teamliquid should have one megathread for all us politics.
The original was a great thread with quite a spirit to it. A little bit of that lives on here. I know a lot of what we talk about today is trapped between the main thrusts of two irreconcilable positions, interesting only as they color current events. I regard it as the same old conflict with both sides rather set in their trajectories by the 1940s or earlier.
I do enjoy reading the current stances and arguments of the left and centrists (American conception of both, at least). I hope also to be another conservative poster actually espousing the positions, in contrast to the puppets frequently offered up by the opposed views and targeted. I know some will think it of little difference!
|
Canada11607 Posts
Oh, and congratulations to farvacola- if memory serves at least two previous US politics/ election threads wound up having the original poster permanently banned. You have so far avoided their fates.
|
What would a US Politics Megathread superhero comic look like? We know that sam is one of our deceased heroes/villains for sure with Igne and Jonny being eternal enemies.
|
I got all nostalgic and I went lurking through the old threads. I found this in a 25+ page thread and couldn't help but laugh.
^That was from 2011 btw.
Went ahead and grabbed some quotes I found interesting/funny too.
+ Show Spoiler +The Tea Party is not homogenous. Those of us actual Tea Partiers (You know the ones supporting Ron Paul in 2007 when we started the Tea Party) call the other half of the so-called Tea Party Tea-O-Cons, as they are nothing, but the same Neo-Conservative jackwipes we were fighting against in 2007. The thing is a fake. It was computer generated. Here's a video showing Adobe Illustrator saying so. It automatically tells you where the differentiating parts are. I am open minded regarding the birth certificate until I can find expert opinions regarding its authenticity. Unfortunately, thus far I have only found, overall, photo shop experts seem to believe the birth certificate is a fake.
Wonder why "Tea-O-Cons" never caught on?
|
|
|
On March 15 2015 15:34 Shiragaku wrote:
What would a US Politics Megathread superhero comic look like? We know that sam is one of our deceased heroes/villains for sure with Igne and Jonny being eternal enemies.
How do you decide which side is heroic and which is villainous?
I'd love to see someone go into this though, it'd be pretty funny.
|
On March 15 2015 16:17 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2015 15:34 Shiragaku wrote:
What would a US Politics Megathread superhero comic look like? We know that sam is one of our deceased heroes/villains for sure with Igne and Jonny being eternal enemies. How do you decide which side is heroic and which is villainous? I'd love to see someone go into this though, it'd be pretty funny.
There has to be a writer lurking the thread that could do a fanfic style story that would be pretty entertaining, especially if it was written for people who look but rarely/never post.
Also damn that nominations thread had some gold. Bachmann... lol...
|
iirc, people were voting Bachmann cause they thought that for sure she would lose or something like that. lol.
|
On March 15 2015 16:21 Introvert wrote:
iirc, people were voting Bachmann cause they thought that for sure she would lose or something like that. lol.
I presumed a significant amount of the votes/comments were trolling but some of them were either really good or serious.
She was leading in Iowa polls for a while too.
According to a new poll from Mason Dixon Polling and Research, 32 percent of people questioned in the survey say they are backing the congresswoman from neighboring Minnesota for the GOP presidential nomination. At 29 percent is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who’s making his second bid for the White House. Bachmann’s lead is well within the poll’s sampling error.
|
still not sure why people like Hider survived those threads unbanned..
and since we are going down memory lane: the best and worst of all forum-kind came about in the ultimate thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/313472-should-people-be-allowed-to-own-and-carry-guns
+ Show Spoiler +but regarding the we all know each other for to long issue i can't refrain from posting that blast from the past: Whitedog is a well known anti-semite, living in a bubble where if his morning cereal tastes bad, he starts looking in the cupboards for Jews.
But he calls them zionists, so it's all good.
|
I took one look at the title of that thread and thought "nope, not going to discuss that on TL."
Thankfully there was a small number of decent posters who did ok when defending the ownership of guns, so that was a plus...
Considering the length and consistency of this thread, I think that it has done quite well for itself. For one thing, it lacks lots of outrageous conspiracy theories that seem to derail other threads. Still some wacky accusations, but compared to the Ukraine thread...
Maybe the fact that it is dedicated to the single political "unit" (although a very large and varied one) of the US helps harmonize things.
|
On March 15 2015 15:25 Falling wrote:
Oh, and congratulations to farvacola- if memory serves at least two previous US politics/ election threads wound up having the original poster permanently banned. You have so far avoided their fates.
It hasn't been easy getting here, as I'm sure my moderation history suggests
And now for something different (but not really lol)....
WASHINGTON — The partisan divide over same-sex marriage among top elected officials remains stark, with Democrats overwhelmingly on record in favor and Republicans mostly silent so far.
The list of Republicans who are supporting same-sex marriage, in a case set for arguments March 28 at the Supreme Court, is much longer than it was two years ago, but it remains conspicuously short of sitting members of Congress and governors.
President Barack Obama is the top Democrat calling on the Supreme Court to extend same-sex marriage nationwide. He is joined by 211 Democrats and independents in Congress and 19 Democratic state attorneys general.
On the Republican side are just seven sitting members of Congress and one governor, Charlie Baker of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts was the first state in which same-sex couples could marry, starting in 2004, as a result of a state Supreme Court ruling.
Baker put his support in personal terms. “My view on this is pretty simple. I have a brother who’s gay. He lives in Massachusetts. He’s married,” Baker said when the Republicans’ brief was filed in early March. “There simply wasn’t a moral justification” for denying same-sex couples the right to marry, Baker said.
Senators who signed the brief are Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois. The House members are Reps. Carlos Curbelo of Florida, Bob Dold of Illinois, Chris Gibson of New York, Richard Hanna of New York and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.
Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, who announced his support for same-sex marriage in 2013 after Portman’s son told him he is gay, is not among the signers. The Supreme Court is considering state marriage bans from Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee.
Other prominent Republicans who joined the brief are: billionaire political donor David Koch; former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; Mary Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney; former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, six former governors and 16 former members of Congress.
Few top GOP officials back same-sex marriage at high court
|
Any reason not to support same sex marriage at the supreme court, except being a bigot?
Or do state rights etc. play a role too?
|
On March 15 2015 23:30 Paljas wrote:
Any reason not to support same sex marriage at the supreme court, except being a bigot?
Or do state rights etc. play a role too?
In terms of legal formalism, the battle falls along a very traditional battleground; the liberals will point to section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In my opinion, this seems an obvious case for establishing that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the benefits conferred to married couples through the Federal and state governments. Conservatives, on the other hand, will likely point to the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
They will probably argue that it effectively supersedes the implications of the Equal Protection Clause and they'll accordingly point to controversial (and, in my opinion, outdated) Supreme Court precedent in which similar Federal attempts at oversight were ruled unconstitutional.
All of that is besides the point though; the voice of those who oppose same-sex marriage is becoming weaker and weaker here in the US, and conservative justices Kennedy, Roberts, and to a lesser extent, Alito, have indicated in their previous jurisprudence that the attitude of the public is a factor that they will not ignore when it comes to impliedly moralistic laws. The States Rights/Federal divide is where the lawyers play (call it the legal dog and pony show), the actual political climate of the country combined with a bare minimum reference to legal principle is usually what the decisions are made of.
|
Another minor factor, I'm sure some politicians don't care personally, but are against it/silent because of their constituency. Probably some of that on the other side too.
|
On March 15 2015 23:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2015 23:30 Paljas wrote:
Any reason not to support same sex marriage at the supreme court, except being a bigot?
Or do state rights etc. play a role too? In terms of legal formalism, the battle falls along a very traditional battleground; the liberals will point to section 1 of the 14th Amendment: Show nested quote +All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In my opinion, this seems an obvious case for establishing that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the benefits conferred to married couples through the Federal and state governments. Conservatives, on the other hand, will likely point to the 10th Amendment: Show nested quote +The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. They will probably argue that it effectively supersedes the implications of the Equal Protection Clause and they'll accordingly point to controversial (and, in my opinion, outdated) Supreme Court precedent in which similar Federal attempts at oversight were ruled unconstitutional. All of that is besides the point though; the voice of those who oppose same-sex marriage is becoming weaker and weaker here in the US, and conservative justices Kennedy, Roberts, and to a lesser extent, Alito, have indicated in their previous jurisprudence that the attitude of the public is a factor that they will not ignore when it comes to impliedly moralistic laws. The States Rights/Federal divide is where the lawyers play (call it the legal dog and pony show), the actual political climate of the country combined with a bare minimum reference to legal principle is usually what the decisions are made of.
There's a lot of conservatives, myself included, who are pro gay marriage but are against the way it's being protected. I'm totally fine with gay marriage, but I don't like the constructionist reasoning that's being used to rule gay marriage bans unconstitutional.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 15 2015 16:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2015 16:17 Introvert wrote:On March 15 2015 15:34 Shiragaku wrote:
What would a US Politics Megathread superhero comic look like? We know that sam is one of our deceased heroes/villains for sure with Igne and Jonny being eternal enemies. How do you decide which side is heroic and which is villainous? I'd love to see someone go into this though, it'd be pretty funny. There has to be a writer lurking the thread that could do a fanfic style story that would be pretty entertaining, especially if it was written for people who look but rarely/never post. Also damn that nominations thread had some gold. Bachmann... lol...
I'd do it but I'm lazy ;; I could see it being pretty funny though.
+ Show Spoiler +Jonny glanced over his shoulder at GreenHorizon as the latter fell to his knees, begging the soft conservative to reconsider. "Please, Jonny... please understand."
Jonny reverted his gaze to the ground before him as GreenHorizon's cries for reevaluation struck his heart, and the sight of the tender liberal was currently too much to bear. But after a harrowing lull evoked a wealth of guilt within the young man, Jonny found himself kneeling before his pleading friend with his hand placed gently on his shoulder, his eyes amiable and his lips smiling. "So you admit you were wrong?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CjFfIC3.png)
