Merged Scalia is dead

[DavidJames]

Gee, that's a mighty high moral position you're advocating there. That should enable America to feel so proud of itself.

I recall struggling trying to make the point to my children that their goals should be the highest possible, not simply a little better then the worst of the lot.

Thankfully, unlike many others, for the most part they've learned.

 

[Cain]

You haven't explained how that's undemocratic.

Funny, most everyone else seems to understand. The problem, as usual, is you. I can attempt to explain it six ways to Sunday, but I predict you will repeatedly counter ("counter") that I have not answered your question.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[Tony Stark]

Actually, he never said gays were immoral, and he never said that it was OK to execute an innocent person. You just don't understand his arguments with respect to these issues.

He argued that it is OK to ban sodomy simply because people don't like it. He even compared it to murder. He was probably very careful to avoid explicitly saying that he hated gays but if you actually believe that he didn't have a bias against gays, you are highly delusional.

 

[Jules Galen]

So...Scalia is dead.

I wish I could buy a beer for the Grim Reaper.

 

[Shalamar]

Does anyone else recall the various stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans who were recently bitching and complaining about how “Obama leads from behind” and yet these same stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans demand that the Scalia seat remain vacant for at least another year just in case some other stupid, idiotic, lying Republican wins the election.

Ugh!

Regardless if Obama 'leads from behind', or leads from the front, at least he IS leading.

The Republicans aren't interested in leading. They're instead throwing a temper tantrum like a spoiled 5 year old 'it's not fair that the President of the United States gets to appoint a new Justice! Waaaaa!'

Pull up your damn pants and LEAD.

 

[Belz...]

Funny, most everyone else seems to understand.

Good for them, but my understanding isn't linked to theirs. I know why you think it's unfair. But that isn't my question.

The problem, as usual, is you. I can attempt to explain it six ways to Sunday, but I predict you will repeatedly counter ("counter") that I have not answered your question.

Stop stalling. Either explain why it's undemocratic or admit that you have no clue.

 

[Tony Stark]

Good for them, but my understanding isn't linked to theirs. I know why you think it's unfair. But that isn't my question.



Stop stalling. Either explain why it's undemocratic or admit that you have no clue.

LOL. Republicans claim Obama in most everything he does is going against the will of the American public (ie undemocratic). Even though he is literally the ONLY person in office that the majority of the American voters have voted for (well if you want to be super pedantic you could maybe include Biden). Twice.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Obama has tried, probably too hard, to work with the Republicans in congress. Being blunt, the Affordable Care Act is more or less a Republican program.

Nixon's Health Care program actually in many ways would have been more liberal than what had pass.

Of course if you have to go to a blatant communist like him, I mean why else did he go to china? Clearly it was to defect.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Good for them, but my understanding isn't linked to theirs. I know why you think it's unfair. But that isn't my question.



Stop stalling. Either explain why it's undemocratic or admit that you have no clue.

You can go through the wikipedia article on democracy. While equal weight to a vote isnt a requirement, it covers the philosophies where it is seen as a factor.

Really, I'm one of the biggest advocates f keeping the Senate as is and I ave no problem conceding the general understanding it is undemocratic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, he never said gays were immoral, and he never said that it was OK to execute an innocent person. You just don't understand his arguments with respect to these issues.

True he compared them to catholic priests(ie child molesters and those who support them) many times and as a good catholic knows that this makes them moral superior to heterosexuals.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You can go through the wikipedia article on democracy. While equal weight to a vote isnt a requirement, it covers the philosophies where it is seen as a factor.

Really, I'm one of the biggest advocates f keeping the Senate as is and I ave no problem conceding the general understanding it is undemocratic.

Well d'uh. You're in the minority and you are over-represented. But don't pretend you value democracy or the Constitution.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You haven't explained how that's undemocratic.

Would giving people more votes based on net worth be a more or less democratic system than what is in place now? Why everyone can still vote and if they just worked harder they would earn more of a say. It would be the perfect system.

 

[Tony Stark]

I just want to say that sunmaster is right. At least in my case. I do think that the Republican Party is evil. About as evil as a major party in a first world country could be.

They are bigots. They are warmongers. They seek to advance the interests of rich people over poor people. They want America to be a theocracy.

Most of them probably think that they are doing the right thing. But that certainly does not mean they are. I'm sure that the Nazis thought they were doing the right thing too, down to Hitler himself. Doesn't mean they were not evil.

Not saying that Republicans are as bad as Nazis (they aren't), just trying to say how a big party could easily be evil without its members down to its leader understanding that it is evil.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well d'uh. You're in the minority and you are over-represented. But don't pretend you value democracy or the Constitution.

What are you talking about?

 

[theprestige]

I thought that the point of the Senate was to ensure that each State had an equal voice in the running of the country, regardless of how sparsely or densely populated it was. Thus the focus of the Senate on matters regarding the nation as a whole, while the House focuses on matters regarding the governance of each citizen (and thus is proportional where the Senate isn't).

It probably made more sense before the Civil War shifted authority substantially towards the federal government and away from the states. I sometimes wonder if any of the colonies would have ratified the Constitution, if they suspected it would lead to the kind of over-arching federal authority we have today.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I thought that the point of the Senate was to ensure that each State had an equal voice in the running of the country, regardless of how sparsely or densely populated it was. Thus the focus of the Senate on matters regarding the nation as a whole, while the House focuses on matters regarding the governance of each citizen (and thus is proportional where the Senate isn't).

It probably made more sense before the Civil War shifted authority substantially towards the federal government and away from the states. I sometimes wonder if any of the colonies would have ratified the Constitution, if they suspected it would lead to the kind of over-arching federal authority we have today.

As I always say....I am an Arizonan before I am an American.

 

[Sherman Bay]

And so it starts:

The conspiracy theories surrounding the death run the gamut. In an "emergency transmission" posted on Facebook, Infowars' Alex Jones said, "The question is was Anthony (sic) Scalia murdered?" while the site Harddawn.com speculated that "the Illuminati" might have been responsible, calling Leonard Nimoy — who died last year — "the wild card in this equation." And a number of sites have made reference to a so-called "heart attack gun," a secret CIA weapon that could, per their claims, have been used to kill Scalia.

The Illuminati! Of course! Don't they control everything?

There has to be a reason. People don't die without a reason. Or a conspiracy. If it wasn't for the Illuminati, we'd all live forever.

 

[Belz...]

You can go through the wikipedia article on democracy. While equal weight to a vote isnt a requirement, it covers the philosophies where it is seen as a factor.

Really, I'm one of the biggest advocates f keeping the Senate as is and I ave no problem conceding the general understanding it is undemocratic.

I do. It's like saying that representative democracy is undemocratic because you don't vote directly for everything. It's just one form of democracy.

Again, I understand why Cain thinks its unfair, or that he'd prefer another solution, but to call it undemocratic is to say that there is only one form of democracy: the one Cain agrees with.

Here's a question: within a single state, say New York, is voting proportional?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What are you talking about?

You answered your own question:

As I always say....I am an Arizonan before I am an American.

You don't care about the Constitution or the principles of democracy. You are content with having a larger voice than your fellow Americans. So we pay more into the federal government and you take more out.

Arizona gets $1.47 back for every dollar paid into the the federal government. The liberal states you have disdain for are subsidizing your state.

So d'uh, of course you like the status quo.

 

[Tony Stark]

I thought that the point of the Senate was to ensure that each State had an equal voice in the running of the country, regardless of how sparsely or densely populated it was. Thus the focus of the Senate on matters regarding the nation as a whole, while the House focuses on matters regarding the governance of each citizen (and thus is proportional where the Senate isn't).

It probably made more sense before the Civil War shifted authority substantially towards the federal government and away from the states. I sometimes wonder if any of the colonies would have ratified the Constitution, if they suspected it would lead to the kind of over-arching federal authority we have today.

No doubt the worthless Confederate states would not have agreed to be a part of the US if they knew it would have led to the end of slavery in the US and later the end of segregation.

Boohoo. **** those scumbags.