|
Xander77 posted:Personally, I only find out about Republican talking points in this thread, so...  Do you deliberately do these post-avatar combos? I think I remember one happening anywhere from 2-3 years ago in this thread.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
Xander77 posted:Personally, I only find out about Republican talking points in this thread, so... Fair enough  I'll work through it step by step:Antonin Scalia was famous for his doctrine of Constitutional Originalism, aka Original Intent. This doctrine only exists in contrast with common law interpretations of the Constitution, which admit that society is not static, or at the very least is so complex that no legal document can be written to account for every possible interaction. When ambiguities crop up, judges interpret the letter of the law in such a way that you get a sane outcome, at least until the law is amended to clear up that ambiguity. Originalism is basically the same thing, but with a different idea of what outcomes are sane (Decriminalizing sodomy? Why not decriminalize murder while you're at it!) and a spurious claim to being Actually Objective. It's this claim to being Actually Objective that Republicans love, because without an objective principle firmly rooted in the past, you're just being arbitrary! Never mind that Originalism, if it were sincere, would be utterly silent on ambiguities stemming from technological changes, or worse demand completely insane results. The GOP talks a lot about the Constitution being bedrock and rock-solid and immovable as a mountain and the like, in this case playing on: quote:The saying "solid as the Rock of Gibraltar" is used to describe an entity that is very safe or firm.[9] Considering that rhetoric, there's no way that wasn't supposed to be the Rock of Gibraltar, especially since insisting that it's an iceberg results in a nonsensical cartoon. It's still a BAD cartoon, since it's just illustrating a talking point without adding anything, it relies on you already being familiar with the talking point, and Lester committed the Art Crime of drawing something with neither a reference nor practice. Hope this helps someone appreciate this mediocre politoon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:
Man, it sure does suck for Trump to have to work with people who have conflicts of interest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 04:38
|
|
1
|
Abyssal Squid posted:Fair enough You're wrong on most of this. The actual debates over constitutional and legal theory are at a remove of at least one step from why Scalia is hated. Scalia practiced a form of Textualism, which is (broad brush here) a particular form of Originalism, which is a particular form of Formalism, which is a legal theory that stands in contrast to Realism. "common law interpretation" isn't really a thing in constitutional theory, unless you're referring to the entirety of all movements within that body. That would include Scalia's theory. While there's a big formalist/realist divide in legal theory, and realists tend to be more politically liberal these days, it's not really a match to political divides over the content and interpretations of the constitution. The crossover is only because differences of legal theory position have some presumed effects on the outcomes of specific cases, such as Griswold. Scalia's textualist approach is particularly hated because it had the trappings of being internally consistent, but was never applied that way in practice. Scalia would discard or selectively apply textualism to produce results he preferred, and was an rear end in any decision he wrote, whether majority, concurrence, or dissent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Also rocks aren't transparent
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
It's just the Prudential Insurance logo
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
FaradayCage posted:Do you deliberately do these post-avatar combos? I think I remember one happening anywhere from 2-3 years ago in this thread. Anyways, pictures of comrade Stalin. No matter the ostensible subject matter, I think they all drew from the same, highly specific, guidebook. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Stalin and Gorky 9  10 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
See, this is why male models retire before they hit 30. He couldn't pull off any of those looks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Pants Donkey posted:"Goods and services that society as a whole is bettered by everyone having are best distributed via government" is literally ECON 101.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:
On the other hand, it's nice to see Lester is opposed to violence against women. santanotreal posted:Someone make a cartoon where a protestor is disappointed to find that they were paid in Soros bucks instead of US dollars. "One Soros dollar is worth five British pounds. That's the rate they will set after I kidnap their queen."
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
Lenin: Boy am I glad I've made it so clear that I don't want this rear end in a top hat being my successor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Not really sure what you mean by that. Both the post-avatar combo thing and the "I think this happened some years ago" part. I think a Wee-Bay shrug is a fitting complement to any post that ends in "so..." For the latter part, I think that's just one of those random things my brain decided to store as a memory. Moving on, I can't pass up on this one: Xander77 posted:Not really sure what you mean by that. Both the post-avatar combo thing and the "I think this happened some years ago" part. Look, I like having the circle magazine on top too. I think it looks very neat. ...but...and history may prove me wrong here...I think I have to go with Dmitri's idea instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
FaradayCage posted:Look, I like having the circle magazine on top too. I think it looks very neat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
 I misread this at first and thought Dan was being reasonable. NOPE. Bible literalist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Wait is the guy in the yellow shirt supposed to come across as unreasonable/crazy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Wait is the guy in the yellow shirt supposed to come across as unreasonable/crazy? 6000 years, baby
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Man, a Tinsley comic, just the thing to give on Valentines day. 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Zesty Crab Legs posted:
Genesis 1 posted:Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds... the third day... Genesis 2 posted:Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but stream came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. So which of these does he want me to take literally? He's using Adam and Eve while citing Genesis 1, but the two creation stories are completely incompatible from a literalist standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Wait is the guy in the yellow shirt supposed to come across as unreasonable/crazy? He is supposed to represent a Day-Age Creationist rather than a Young Earth Creationist. A Day-Age Creationist interprets the passage in Genesis that says "On Day X God made Y" as an arbitrary amount of time before the next supposed day mentioned in the Bible. A Young Earth Creationist reads the same passage and takes it to literally mean "It was an actual 24 hour period of a day that God made that."
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:So which of these does he want me to take literally? He's using Adam and Eve while citing Genesis 1, but the two creation stories are completely incompatible from a literalist standpoint. I'm not trying to defend this dumb comic, but his literal citation is Jesus, from the book of Mark. e: although I guess there are those Genesis and Matthew citations that don't seem tied to anything in particular, gently caress this dumb cartoon anyway
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Volcanic Vents posted:I'm not trying to defend this dumb comic, but his literal citation is Jesus, from the book of Mark. But the phrase "God made them male and female" is from Genesis 1. Jesus was quoting the first creation story, yet the comic thinks he was talking about Adam and Eve. Dan even cites Genesis 1:27 while claiming it's about Adam and Eve, who are in a different story in the next chapter. You'd think this guy would at least know how to read a simple concordance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Senpai noticed him 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:if i knew about ramirez's cartoons i'd post one here where he complains about Obama's "executive over-reach" I think you'll be disappointed. I haven't looked through his whole archive from Obama's terms, but he's pretty consistent on demanding immigration reform, and his cartoons about Obama usually take the form of, "All his accomplishments are bad, and he hates you."  Vib Rib posted:Sorry, how did the media destroy due process? Is this something about how certain celebrity suspects are "guilty until proven innocent" in the eyes of the media (which does not actually affect court rulings) or what? August 2014 was the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson. He's complaining that the media are eager to judge the cop guilty before the courts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
(I'm making a joke about the fact that between the two of them, drum magazines won the format war.) (And look so much less ridiculous.) My "optional mushy message" was: Oh. gently caress. I thought we all earned a break. Mallentines. FaradayCage fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
It's kind of disturbing, and says a lot about the grey, perpetually smug/outraged headspace of Tinsley, that this is the first time in seven years of keeping up with this thread that I've ever seen that loving duck smile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Not really sure what you mean by that. Both the post-avatar combo thing and the "I think this happened some years ago" part. I like to think that there were more people in the original painting that just got painted over as they fell out of favor. Edit: Some of the people in the background to the right seems kinda of half assed, so maybe they were. 
Rincewinds fucked around with this message at 11:01 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
The stirring rod is missing a "Melissa McCarthy" label. The (original, haven't seen the second) Sean Spicer bit was so well-written and portrayed that I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to apologize on behalf of you(r edit) to me, and it is not accepted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:I like to think that there were more people in the original painting that just got painted over as they fell out of favor.     Xander77 fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
Instant 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Okay honest question: What do those Christians who, like that cartoonist, follow the Bible literally say when you point out poo poo like treating menstruating women like they have the plague, cutting the hands off of any women who goes after a dudes dick during a fight, slavery is totally rad, or stoning to death non virgins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
"Old Testament rules were for God's chosen people, we have a new pact, only New Testament counts (except for when it doesn't) and Old Testament doesn't (except for when it does)". EDIT: This is from someone raised in strong Southern Baptist lands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
When it comes to evangelicals, "Hey have you tried pointing out holes in their logic?" never works.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Apple Pie Hubbub posted:
 that's literally what the construction says . You don't even have to interpret it
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:28
|
|
1
|
Retromancer posted:The point of the cartoon is that the judges are giving due process to non-us citizens, who are not protected under the constitution. It's the lovely argument used to justify the ban. Lol wow are you wrong
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
The Jewish laws are the old convenant meant to be fulfilled by the messiah, Jesus dying and rising again creates the new convenant with Christians - Paul spends a lot of the New Testament talking about it. Jesus sees that the pharisees are rules lawyering with the laws of Moses for their own advantage rather than following the purpose of the law, which is why he calls them hypocrites. The prophets explain repeatedly that the stuff about justice and helping people and loving God is more pleasing to God than the rules about what to do if you get mildew in your tent, for example. That's why Jesus says that the most important rule of the law of Moses is to "the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" and to "love thy neighbour as thyself".
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
KJV (We all know that the KJV is the ONLY valid one, right) Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. But those laws about homosexuality are still valid, of course. RonJeremysBalzac fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Lol wow are you wrong I'm curious; my country's constitution provides rights to everyone under its jurisdiction, citizen or no. Does the US'? I've heard the "citizens only" argument a few times but no rebuttal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
Trogdos! posted:I'm curious; my country's constitution provides rights to everyone under its jurisdiction, citizen or no. Does the US'? I've heard the "citizens only" argument a few times but no rebuttal. It's complicated. But the constitution doesn't provide rights if only limits the governments actions. Many of the limits placed on the gov are with respect to persons not just citizens .
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:50
|
|