|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge.
You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years.
|
On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years.
From what I read of that piece, it seemed more like a provocative legal theory/though experiment and something someone would try to argue make a full legal base on. I had a hard time seeing as anything serious.
|
On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years.
On June 29 2018 05:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. From what I read of that piece, it seemed more like a provocative legal theory/though experiment and something someone would try to argue make a full legal base on. I had a hard time seeing as anything serious.
Just to be clear the position is it was left to the states to determine who the constitution applied to?
|
There's other arguments here, but I don't see how "the country acted as if X was constitutional for Y years" is a terribly good argument for anything being constitutional in either a strict constructionist or other interpretations of the constitution. I mean, there was 60 years between Plessy and Brown and one literally said "separate but equal is possible and doesn't contradict the 14th Amendment" and the other said "separate but equal is impossible and always contradicts the 14th Amendment when it comes to public education." Nothing changed constitutionally there.
Which leaves aside the fact that "the country" often is extremely heterogeneous in whether it thinks a given law is constitutional *cough gay marriage cough*. Whether that occurred with slavery is another matter.
|
On June 29 2018 05:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. From what I read of that piece, it seemed more like a provocative legal theory/though experiment and something someone would try to argue make a full legal base on. I had a hard time seeing as anything serious.
Yes, this is basically correct. It was an academic argument published by a law review. It has no legal significance whatsoever.
|
On June 29 2018 04:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol I can't believe anyone even entertained slightly the comparison between Nazi/KKK rallies/politicians to "riots" by oppressed people literally pleading for their lives.
The violence of far right and centrist policy is exponentially worse than anything ever done by anyone connected to "the far left" in the US.
Just remember, according to xDaunt we should use the police to protect armed Nazis calling for genocide, but people blocking immigrant families from being torn apart should be arrested for breaking the law.
Maybe our laws suck? There is little wrong with our laws. The problem is that you have zero concept of either the rule of law or even equal protection under the law. This is the single greatest conceit and danger of the far left. You are so preoccupied with the ends that you care very little for the means used to achieve them. Wait you say the never trumpers are hypocrites and complain that the far left is "so preoccupied with the ends that you care very little for the means used to achieve them". Bloody hell m8.
Would be surprised if you get a response to this, truly baffling.
|
On June 29 2018 06:01 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 04:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On June 29 2018 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol I can't believe anyone even entertained slightly the comparison between Nazi/KKK rallies/politicians to "riots" by oppressed people literally pleading for their lives.
The violence of far right and centrist policy is exponentially worse than anything ever done by anyone connected to "the far left" in the US.
Just remember, according to xDaunt we should use the police to protect armed Nazis calling for genocide, but people blocking immigrant families from being torn apart should be arrested for breaking the law.
Maybe our laws suck? There is little wrong with our laws. The problem is that you have zero concept of either the rule of law or even equal protection under the law. This is the single greatest conceit and danger of the far left. You are so preoccupied with the ends that you care very little for the means used to achieve them. Wait you say the never trumpers are hypocrites and complain that the far left is "so preoccupied with the ends that you care very little for the means used to achieve them". Bloody hell m8. Would be surprised if you get a response to this, truly baffling.
I generally ignore the unintelligible.
|
On June 29 2018 05:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's other arguments here, but I don't see how "the country acted as if X was constitutional for Y years" is a terribly good argument for anything being constitutional in either a strict constructionist or other interpretations of the constitution. I mean, there was 60 years between Plessy and Brown and one literally said "separate but equal is possible and doesn't contradict the 14th Amendment" and the other said "separate but equal is impossible and always contradicts the 14th Amendment when it comes to public education." Nothing changed constitutionally there.
Which leaves aside the fact that "the country" often is extremely heterogeneous in whether it thinks a given law is constitutional *cough gay marriage cough*. Whether that occurred with slavery is another matter.
The point I'm getting at is this has been a part of our country since the beginning. That society can look at the law and see things that are or are not there and thinking political appointees like SCOTUS are going to save us from a society that signs off on the total disregard of our laws and constitution requires an ignorance of our history that I've come to realize is actually pretty prevalent and bipartisan.
On June 29 2018 06:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 06:01 crms wrote:On June 29 2018 04:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On June 29 2018 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol I can't believe anyone even entertained slightly the comparison between Nazi/KKK rallies/politicians to "riots" by oppressed people literally pleading for their lives.
The violence of far right and centrist policy is exponentially worse than anything ever done by anyone connected to "the far left" in the US.
Just remember, according to xDaunt we should use the police to protect armed Nazis calling for genocide, but people blocking immigrant families from being torn apart should be arrested for breaking the law.
Maybe our laws suck? There is little wrong with our laws. The problem is that you have zero concept of either the rule of law or even equal protection under the law. This is the single greatest conceit and danger of the far left. You are so preoccupied with the ends that you care very little for the means used to achieve them. Wait you say the never trumpers are hypocrites and complain that the far left is "so preoccupied with the ends that you care very little for the means used to achieve them". Bloody hell m8. Would be surprised if you get a response to this, truly baffling. I generally ignore the unintelligible.
It literally does not compute to him^.
|
Someone at my office just saw the segment and it’s gross. Fox is pretty shit, but I pretty taken back that they would talk about ideological bent right after a shooting, as if that was a relevant factor they should be judging when this happens. It’s a really creepy look.
|
They don't care about freedom of press anymore. If it doesn't write pieces that support their ideology, it's okay for someone to barge in and start shooting. That's the end of it.
Also "pretty" shit is an understatement if ever there was one. Fox News sets the bar for lowering the bar.
|
On June 29 2018 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
It literally does not compute to him^.
No, I have a pretty good idea about what his half-assed argument is, but I'm not particularly inclined to fill in the gaps in an effort to respond. Frankly, if he actually thought it through, he'd probably figure out that it doesn't work anyway.
|
On June 29 2018 06:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
It literally does not compute to him^. No, I have a pretty good idea about what his half-assed argument is, but I'm not particularly inclined to fill in the gaps in an effort to respond. Frankly, if he actually thought it through, he'd probably figure out that it doesn't work anyway.
Mmhmm. Surely. Or perhaps several of us already have, see his point and your response and I presume none of us are surprised.
Could be either one though.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37120 Posts
On June 29 2018 04:31 Doodsmack wrote:
Active shooter situation at a newspaper in Maryland. It could be that a civil second amendment person has taken it upon himself to take care of the enemy of the people. We will have to see what his background is.
Do you have a credible source for this statement?
|
|
|
Milo has never really been that politically relevant. Let avoid poisoning our lives with his existence until we are sure the shooter was a fan or whatever.
|
On June 29 2018 06:37 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 04:31 Doodsmack wrote:
Active shooter situation at a newspaper in Maryland. It could be that a civil second amendment person has taken it upon himself to take care of the enemy of the people. We will have to see what his background is. Do you have a credible source for this statement?
There's a CBS story with a fair amount of detail here:
www.cbsnews.com
As for the conjecture, I'd say it comes from a combination of the last 500 days of administration rhetoric, the fact that the shooter is a young male, and Milo's cangofuckhimselfopolis's statement a few days ago about wanting vigilante squads to gun down journalists.
|
On June 29 2018 06:57 Plansix wrote:
Milo has never really been that politically relevant. Let avoid poisoning our lives with his existence until we are sure the shooter was a fan or whatever.
This is fair, it's probably much more a result of dear leader himself's words, but the timing is painfully close.
|
On June 29 2018 06:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 06:01 crms wrote:On June 29 2018 04:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On June 29 2018 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol I can't believe anyone even entertained slightly the comparison between Nazi/KKK rallies/politicians to "riots" by oppressed people literally pleading for their lives.
The violence of far right and centrist policy is exponentially worse than anything ever done by anyone connected to "the far left" in the US.
Just remember, according to xDaunt we should use the police to protect armed Nazis calling for genocide, but people blocking immigrant families from being torn apart should be arrested for breaking the law.
Maybe our laws suck? There is little wrong with our laws. The problem is that you have zero concept of either the rule of law or even equal protection under the law. This is the single greatest conceit and danger of the far left. You are so preoccupied with the ends that you care very little for the means used to achieve them. Wait you say the never trumpers are hypocrites and complain that the far left is "so preoccupied with the ends that you care very little for the means used to achieve them". Bloody hell m8. Would be surprised if you get a response to this, truly baffling. I generally ignore the unintelligible.
Let me simplify this for you. Overlooking Trumps (many) flaws that would normally have been deal breakers for a lot of people who vote Republican regularly because of one of any number of reasons that they absolutely needed to elect a Republican instead of a Democrat, such as the open Supreme Court seat, is the epitome of focusing solely on the ends and ignoring the means used to achieve them.
|
On June 29 2018 07:26 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 06:01 crms wrote:On June 29 2018 04:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On June 29 2018 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol I can't believe anyone even entertained slightly the comparison between Nazi/KKK rallies/politicians to "riots" by oppressed people literally pleading for their lives.
The violence of far right and centrist policy is exponentially worse than anything ever done by anyone connected to "the far left" in the US.
Just remember, according to xDaunt we should use the police to protect armed Nazis calling for genocide, but people blocking immigrant families from being torn apart should be arrested for breaking the law.
Maybe our laws suck? There is little wrong with our laws. The problem is that you have zero concept of either the rule of law or even equal protection under the law. This is the single greatest conceit and danger of the far left. You are so preoccupied with the ends that you care very little for the means used to achieve them. Wait you say the never trumpers are hypocrites and complain that the far left is "so preoccupied with the ends that you care very little for the means used to achieve them". Bloody hell m8. Would be surprised if you get a response to this, truly baffling. I generally ignore the unintelligible. Let me simplify this for you. Overlooking Trumps (many) flaws that would normally have been deal breakers for a lot of people who vote Republican regularly because of one of any number of reasons that they absolutely needed to elect a Republican instead of a Democrat, such as the open Supreme Court seat, is the epitome of focusing solely on the ends and ignoring the means used to achieve them.
Let’s see if you can add the other buttcheek: how does republicans voting for Trump to get a conservative judiciary undermine equal protection and the rule of law?
Keep in mind that what I chided GH for was denying first amendment rights to Nazis.
|
On June 29 2018 06:59 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 06:37 Seeker wrote:On June 29 2018 04:31 Doodsmack wrote:
Active shooter situation at a newspaper in Maryland. It could be that a civil second amendment person has taken it upon himself to take care of the enemy of the people. We will have to see what his background is. Do you have a credible source for this statement? There's a CBS story with a fair amount of detail here: www.cbsnews.comAs for the conjecture, I'd say it comes from a combination of the last 500 days of administration rhetoric, the fact that the shooter is a young male, and Milo's cangofuckhimselfopolis's statement a few days ago about wanting vigilante squads to gun down journalists.
To be entirely fair, that wasn't a statement, that was a private message that the journalist then publicised.
It's nonetheless a retarded message, no argument there - but saying it was a statement is factually untrue.
He's still a dumb asshole, that fact didn't change though.
edit: that being said, from the legal side - if it turns out that this gunman in fact was emboldened by that message, could that Milo guy get into trouble for that? I'd hope so, but realistically?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
