|
Oh my it seems that Eric, son of Eric has falls afoul of Donald Trump.
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
Subterfrugal posted:Oh my it seems that Eric, son of Eric has falls afoul of Donald Trump. Donald Trump barred from Eric Erickson's "RedState Gathering" : A Secret GOPe Payoff for Eric ? quote:To: Patton@Bastogne quote:To: Patton@Bastogne quote:To: Patton@Bastogne quote:To: Patton@Bastogne quote:To: DoughtyOne quote:To: ken5050 quote:To: ken5050 quote:To: ken5050 quote:To: Patton@Bastogne
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Hmm bonus misogyny, ooh yeah that's the stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
North Carolina Hindu temple sign hit with over 60 shotgun blasts The Times of India ^ | Sunday, July 19, 2015 | Press Trust of India Posted on July 19, 2015 at 17:51:08 GMT by Jyotishi quote:To: Jyotishi quote:Hey, don't you boys the difference between Hindus & Muslim establishments of faith? No seriously, I wouldn't doubt it if the Muslims did it to garner persecution pity. Real Americans know what ther targets are & won't be roaming the streets of Manhattan with paint ball guns!😆 After one of their holidays there is a lot of jihad and suspicious activity. These people think they are going to win this one. Tsk quote:Don’t think it was right to shoot the sign, but idolatrous or anti-Biblical religions must NOT be allowed to practice here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
The only moral First Amendment right is my First Amendment right 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
No , you stupid communist, it only says congress can't restrict religious freedom, it doesn't say anything about the states. States' Rights! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
At least some of them get that the shooters have no idea what the hell they were doing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:No , you stupid communist, it only says congress can't restrict religious freedom, it doesn't say anything about the states. This is unironically what Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia believe re: the establishment clause.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
I mean that was even for Trump a grotesque thing to say and I'm glad he's getting some poo poo for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Feinne posted:I mean that was even for Trump a grotesque thing to say and I'm glad he's getting some poo poo for it. If by poo poo you mean even more popular with Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Feinne posted:I mean that was even for Trump a grotesque thing to say and I'm glad he's getting some poo poo for it. I have to say I am genuinely surprised this is what anyone in the GOP is taking a stand over though. I mean, yeah it was lovely, but compared to what he has said in the past? It's like getting upset about a guy flicking you on the shoulder after he's broken your nose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:I have to say I am genuinely surprised this is what anyone in the GOP is taking a stand over though. I mean, yeah it was lovely, but compared to what he has said in the past? It's like getting upset about a guy flicking you on the shoulder after he's broken your nose. They're taking him to task because they want to sink him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:This is unironically what Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia believe re: the establishment clause. And the fourteenth amendment doesn't apply because... I mean, I get that many conservatives would like it not to exist, but that doesn't mean a judge can ignore part of the Constitution without at least giving some sort of reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:They're taking him to task because they want to sink him. Yeah I mean it's not earnest at all but it's still great for him to suffer even some slight consequence for one of his horrid statements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Jagged Jim posted:
Honestly? Lol at anyone in 2015 that still thinks  is or was ever fair and balanced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:I have to say I am genuinely surprised this is what anyone in the GOP is taking a stand over though. I mean, yeah it was lovely, but compared to what he has said in the past? It's like getting upset about a guy flicking you on the shoulder after he's broken your nose. They took him to task over claiming all immigrants are rapists sent here by the Mexican government to rape our women too, it's just that didn't work because whoops turns out that's what a ton of Republican voters believe!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:And the fourteenth amendment doesn't apply because... Original intent. Since it was not part of the original constitution it does not count as much as the Establishment Clause, which was written by the wise sage Madison, and therefore can be ignored when we talk about issues of states rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:This is unironically what Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia believe re: the establishment clause. BUG JUG posted:Original intent. Since it was not part of the original constitution it does not count as much as the Establishment Clause, which was written by the wise sage Madison, and therefore can be ignored when we talk about issues of states rights. But, it actually isn't that strange of a belief. Even after the Bill of Rights, states like Massachusetts and Connecticut both kept state Churches. It was only relatively recently that, both through the doctrine of incorporation (1925) and through the specific incorporation of the establishment clause (1947) that it was understood that the states were bound by the establishment clause. I am not making the claim that they are correct in this interpretation, but the idea that the establishment clause does apply to the states is very new. Also, that isn't what original intent means. Original intent is the belief that when determining law, the central factor is what the original meaning of the law was at the time the law was drafted, not any other factors (e.g. such as public policy concerns, concerns for consequences, or even concerns for previous cases). That the 14th amendment came after the first, does not mean that the first is superior to the fourteenth from an originalist perspective. The question would be whether the original meaning of the 14 amendment at the time of drafting would be that the states would be banned from establishing a church. Normally, the standard is either would a reasonable person living in the time and reading the law interpret it that way or what exactly did the law makers intend when drafting and passing the law. Now, we can say that that is ridiculous for many reasons. E.g. Could two different reasonable people look at a document and come to different conclusions? Can we ever know what the original intent of the law makers were? Even if we could, it seems that original intent arguments often lead to bad public policy outcomes, which we would want to avoid. To what extent should legal history play a role in understanding original intent? If judges have favored one interpretation for a long time, can we say that they were always wrong to favor those interpretations? Etc. But, the idea that older parts of the Constitution are more important than later parts is not at all bundled up with the originalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
quote:I say hands, they have no discernible features, hands or feet. Each comes to a useless point. I want to believe this guy stands outside public restrooms and rants at the signs on them. quote:I’m unqualified to speak to South Africa, but I can speak to racists, because my life has been on the line because of the color of my skin more than once. I didn’t go away hating black people. I was more aware our civilization is becoming a jungle and there are dangerous animals in it. It takes more than having two legs to be called a human being. "I didn't go away hating black people, I just went away thinking blacks are subhuman creatures."
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
There used to be a huge and extremely strong extreme-right militia movement in South Africa that violently resisted the end of apartheid. It mostly collapsed when they decided to launch a serious military campaign to preserve the apartheid government by preventing elections in the Bophuthatswana bantustan, which also conveniently gave them the excuse to come in and shoot a bunch of black people. Specifically, the reason it collapsed is because, while one of their convoys was doing a drive-by of a black neighborhood, one of their cars got riddled with bullets and had to pull over. The three men inside crawled out, surrendered, and then - surrounded by reporters and cameras, on live TV, broadcast to the entire nation - a black police officer grabbed his rifle, walked over to them, and just loving executed all three while screaming 'WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN MY COUNTRY?' It would have been extrajudicial police brutality, but the cop got off because the neo-Nazi group the men were a part of considered itself a military organization engaged in a legitimate armed conflict against the ANC-controlled South African government, which made it a military matter and resulted in him being included in the general amnesty for combatants in the conflicts that led to the end of apartheid. The thing about militia groups like that is that they're almost always gigantic cowards in practice; they don't want to fight for a cause, they want to kill for a cause, and killing for a cause stops being fun when you have to risk your life to do it. You have some hardliners who stuck around anyway and there's still a pretty sizable fascist element to Afrikaner politics, but a good 80-90% of the armed white-supremacist militia movement evaporated into the loving ether almost literally overnight as soon as those three dudes got shot. They didn't expect the kaffirs to fight back, that's no fair! They're still butthurt about it 20+ years later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Do you have any names or links for this story? Sounds interesting. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bophuthatswana_conflict_(1994)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
Y'all have to watch that video, just for the amazing "I'm not racist but.." interview with the kid's parents  
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Y'all have to watch that video, just for the amazing "I'm not racist but.." interview with the kid's parents How is this real? The decor, their clothes, their hair- it's like something out of an off-color British TV show.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
Reflections85 posted:Now, we can say that that is ridiculous for many reasons. E.g. Could two different reasonable people look at a document and come to different conclusions? Can we ever know what the original intent of the law makers were? Even if we could, it seems that original intent arguments often lead to bad public policy outcomes, which we would want to avoid. To what extent should legal history play a role in understanding original intent? If judges have favored one interpretation for a long time, can we say that they were always wrong to favor those interpretations? Etc. But, the idea that older parts of the Constitution are more important than later parts is not at all bundled up with the originalism. King v. Burwell really showed how hollow the "original intent" philosophy is. The people who drafted the ACA are almost all alive, most of them made public statements that the plaintiffs' interpretation was wrong, and yet Scalia, Thomas, and Alito all voted to ignore the stated intent of the people who wrote it and impose an anal, literalist reading of the clause because "words have meaning."
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:King v. Burwell really showed how hollow the "original intent" philosophy is. The people who drafted the ACA are almost all alive, most of them made public statements that the plaintiffs' interpretation was wrong, and yet Scalia, Thomas, and Alito all voted to ignore the stated intent of the people who wrote it and impose an anal, literalist reading of the clause because "words have meaning." And then the VRA: "Yeah but Congress probably only passed it because they were afraid they'd get voted out if they didn't so it's not a real law"
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
The decision doesn't so much show that originalism is hollow as much as it shows that the originalist justices fail to practice originalism. There is actually a cool article about that on SCOTUSblog http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/symposium-the-grant-in-king-obamacare-subsidies-as-textualisms-big-test/ To be fair, the author is approaching this from a textualist perspective (originalism is a subset of textualism), but the point remains that, if one looks at how Scalia says one ought to interpret a text, then Scalia voting against shows that he is violating his own rules. This says nothing about the rules themselves, but says a lot about Scalia's character.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Kavak posted:How is this real? The decor, their clothes, their hair- it's like something out of an off-color British TV show. They're SA rednecks. Living upon the carcass of the apartheid era. Darkman Fanpage fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Trump Twitter Rant: ‘Megyn Kelly Bombed Tonight,’ Retweets Post Referring To Her As ‘Bimbo’quote:To: conservative98 quote:To: conservative98 quote:To: conservative98 quote:To: Boonie  ingquote:To: VerySadAmerican quote:To: driftdiver quote:To: Rona_Badger quote:To: ek_hornbeck
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Yeah the GOP establishment definitely wants to get rid of Trump and is happy to use whatever means they have to do it and although he is an idiot clown that is not really how these things are supposed to be decided I thought? I am probably voting libertarian as usual but mabne the Objectivist Party will have someone good on the ballet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Yeah the GOP establishment definitely wants to get rid of Trump and is happy to use whatever means they have to do it and although he is an idiot clown that is not really how these things are supposed to be decided I thought? I am probably voting libertarian as usual but mabne the Objectivist Party will have someone good on the ballet? Ahahaha, the Objectivist Party...heh. At least the Libertarians nominated a real politician who'd been elected to stuff and had never hired a hit man. Anyway, I'd say Megyn's questions about Trump's rampant misogyny were fair questions about his electability, since the Hillary campaign would undoubtedly bring those up, and Trump's answer (say she's on her period for challenging him)...probably not a good one if you're looking to win the general. But then Fox got into some weird stupid questions like paying gotcha with filing bankruptcy for some of his casinos which was just clumsy and bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ahahaha, the Objectivist Party...heh. At least the Libertarians nominated a real politician who'd been elected to stuff and had never hired a hit man. Yeah I actually thought the "how will you respond to this thing you will certainly face if you are the Republican candidate, especially versus Hillary Clinton" was a completely valid and non-biased question when I saw it and was weirded out by his response.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Yeah the GOP establishment definitely wants to get rid of Trump and is happy to use whatever means they have to do it and although he is an idiot clown that is not really how these things are supposed to be decided I thought? I am probably voting libertarian as usual but mabne the Objectivist Party will have someone good on the ballet? Have you heard of DOCTOR Ron Paul?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
kik2dagroin posted:Trump Twitter Rant: ‘Megyn Kelly Bombed Tonight,’ Retweets Post Referring To Her As ‘Bimbo’ Of course, I want my future president to be a childish rear end that gets in twitter slap fights. He can't act like a reasonable adult with mild prodding, imagine the meltdowns when half the nation or more are slinging insults at him "Welcome to Russia, Mr. President" *penis-copter makes an appearance* "YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF VODKA SWILLING, BACKWARDS ASSHOLES! WHY DON'T YOU GO MELT DOWN ANOTHER REACTOR SO YOU CAN ALL JUST DIE!" SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Of course, I want my future president to be a childish rear end that gets in twitter slap fights. You're in luck my friend, because that's exactly what we're gonna get.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Has JimRob laid down an official position on Trump?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Has JimRob laid down an official position on Trump? I hope JimRob goes the Gingrich route, so that all the Freepers rush to say that they never supported Trump's liberal socialist positions, how dare you. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Has JimRob laid down an official position on Trump? Last time I checked, he was in favor, albeit not to the "you will be zotted if you defy us" degree we saw a couple times for 2012.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Last time I checked, he was in favor, albeit not to the "you will be zotted if you defy us" degree we saw a couple times for 2012. JRob has been getting less purge-happy as his membership base shrinks, presumably because he's worried that he might eventually ban so many people that the remaining members will no longer be able to donate enough money for him to maintain his lifestyle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Trump's response to being accused of misogynistic posts on Twitter is to make misogynistic posts on Twitter. #45, baby. At least some of the freepers get that it's lovely behavior. Some. Apparently it's okay for a presidential candidate to be butthurt about being questioned and to throw around petty insults on twitter if the target deserves them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:At least some of the freepers get that it's lovely behavior. Some. Apparently it's okay for a presidential candidate to be butthurt about being questioned and to throw around petty insults on twitter if the target deserves them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 06:18
|
|