Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Presidency

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
    I don't even know where to start unpacking this false equivalency. If your understanding of the Hobby Lobby decision is boiled down to "corporations are people" then you need to spend more time reading the majority opinion/dissent in the case. The decision was not "corporations are people" it's that "corporations are comprised of people and in closely held corporations compelling owners to go against their religious beliefs violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

    Succinctly put from Wikipedia:


    So it's pretty simple. The court protected the Greens and Hahns -- not "Corporation X" -- under the RFRA... and it simply asked the Government to find another means of achieving their goal that didn't violate the Greens and Hahns rights under the law.
    I have the patience to unwind this for you. I prefer the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Hobby Lobby v Sebelius, since it additionally gives an idea about Judge Gorsuch's opinions.
    Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius - 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (Amer Bar Assoc)

    The key issue on appeal was whether or not a for-profit corporation may be considered a "person exercising religion" under RFRA. A five-member majority of the court concluded that for-profit corporations could be considered "persons exercising religion" under RFRA,...

    The case produced a number of dissenting opinions. In the most comprehensive dissent, Chief Judge Briscoe argued that the majority's holding was completely unprecedented and "nothing short of a radical revision of First Amendment law, as well as the law of corporations." Chief Judge Briscoe stated that the majority had "opened the floodgates to RFRA litigation challenging any number of federal statutes that govern corporate affairs."

    In a separate partial dissent, Judge Matheson cautioned judicial restraint on both sides of a question that would "profoundly affect potentially millions of businesses in our society in ways we can only begin to anticipate." While Judge Matheson was unwilling to extend RFRA protections to for-profit corporations on the record presented, he was similarly unwilling to categorically state that for-profit corporations could never benefit from RFRA protections. Citing the judicial canon that constitutional questions should not be addressed unnecessarily, and noting that the case could be resolved with regard to the private owners of the corporations rather than the corporations themselves, Judge Matheson urged the court to leave the difficult question of protecting for-profit corporations under RFRA unanswered for the time being.
    The government argued that the presence of narrow definitions of "person" in other statutes supported the application of a similarly narrow definition of "person" in the context of RFRA. The majority drew the opposite conclusion, finding the absence of such a narrowing definition to indicate that a broader definition was intended by Congress. Finally, analogizing to the recent decision in Citizen's United, the majority stated that "we see no reason why the Supreme Court would recognize protection for a corporation's political expression but not its religious expression."
    Chief Judge Briscoe (joined by Judge Lucero) concurred as to a small piece of the majority's analysis and dissented as to the bulk of it. Chief Judge Briscoe noted that there was no evidence on the record as to how Appellants (as corporations) "exercised religion" on a day-to-day basis. More fundamentally, Chief Judge Briscoe argued that there was a complete lack of precedent for the extension of RFRA rights to for-profit corporations - and that this lack of precedent indicated a Congressional intent to limit corporate religious exercise to non-profit religious organizations.

    Chief Judge Briscoe also balked at the degree to which individuals and corporations became interchangeable under the majority's RFRA analysis. Discussing the law of corporations, Chief Judge Briscoe stated that "it is simply unreasonable to allow the individual plaintiffs in this case to benefit, in terms of tax and personal liability, from the corporate/individual distinction, but to ignore that distinction when it comes to asserting claims under RFRA." All in all, Chief Judge Briscoe found the majority's holding "nothing short of a radical revision of First Amendment law, as well as the law of corporations," and stated that the majority had "opened the floodgates to RFRA litigation challenging any number of federal statutes that govern corporate affairs."

    Judge Matheson concurred in part and dissented in part. On the question of extending RFRA rights to for-profit corporations, Judge Matheson dissented, arguing that Appellants "did not meet their burden to show that RFRA applies to them" and stating that "[Appellants'] briefs lack[ed] adequate supporting precedent." Noting that the answer to this question would "profoundly affect potentially millions of businesses in our society in ways we can only begin to anticipate," Judge Matheson emphasized the importance of judicial restraint. Although he thought that the majority's extension of RFRA rights to for-profit corporations was unwarranted on the record presented, he thought that Chief Judge Briscoe's willingness to permanently deny RFRA rights to for-profit corporations was unwarranted as well. Judge Matheson agreed with Judge Gorsuch that the Greens likely had claims in the individual capacities, and he concurred with the majority in reversing the District Court's holding that the Green family's RFRA claims were not likely to succeed on the merits.
    Interestingly, case law may include Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King (a RICO case), in which the majority opinion written by Justice Breyer for a unanimous Supreme Court (2001) held that:
    "The corporate owner/employee, a natural person, is distinct from the corporation itself, a legally different entity."
    Last edited by Legacy; 03-16-2017, 03:23 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Whiskeyjack View Post
      It's a thread of 23 Tweets. I merely linked the first one. You'll have to click through to read his argument.



      This is addressed in the thread linked above. The courts only have power due to popular support, since have no truly independent enforcement mechanisms. That popular support is largely dependent on the appearance of political impartiality. When courts start issuing nakedly partisan opinions, popular support for their authority wanes, and the crucial role they play in resolving disputes without violence becomes jeopardized.

      I'm not a liberal, so I don't think judicial impartiality can ever truly be achieved. But in the context of our liberal political arrangement, judicial impartiality is crucial, so these sorts of opinions (regardless of the larger moral argument) are dangerous.



      I'd agree that wasn't a very liberal thing to do. Elected judges are also a great argument against democracy. Did you expect me to defend that practice?
      No. My perception is that you have a jaundiced eye towards our "liberal democracy". I do wonder if you see those two concepts as nearly synonymous, certainly intertwined.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Legacy View Post
        No. My perception is that you have a jaundiced eye towards our "liberal democracy". I do wonder if you see those two concepts as nearly synonymous, certainly intertwined.
        I think the popular vote can be an effective check on political elites, who have a natural tendency toward complacency and entitlement. But as an operative principle, direct democracy has a pretty terrible track record. See all the negative outcomes that flow from electing judges and pushing direct ballot initiatives. Hierarchy is inevitable; every society has an elite that curates culture and drives politics. The trick is in holding them accountable to the Common Good. And liberalism, with its focus on the individual, is uniquely bad at that.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Whiskeyjack View Post
          I think the popular vote can be an effective check on political elites, who have a natural tendency toward complacency and entitlement. But as an operative principle, direct democracy has a pretty terrible track record. See all the negative outcomes that flow from electing judges and pushing direct ballot initiatives. Hierarchy is inevitable; every society has an elite that curates culture and drives politics. The trick is in holding them accountable to the Common Good. And liberalism, with its focus on the individual, is uniquely bad at that.
          Did you just define the perceptions of and frustrations with the Trump Presidency?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Legacy View Post
            Did you just define the perceptions of and frustrations with the Trump Presidency?
            I just posted another typical Whiskeyjack #LongRead in the Liberalism & Conservatism thread that addresses this point. It argues that individualism and totalitarianism are mirrored errors, and that when a society tires of one, they're often tempted in the opposite direction.

            In his unfinished last novel, The Pale King, David Foster Wallace gives some hints about a third option apart from individualism and totalitarianism. He describes a group of tax bureaucrats stuck in an elevator, who are talking about the changes in the IRS brought about by the Reagan administration – changes aimed at running the IRS like a capitalist corporation. The idea it is that it is useless to treat the US citizen as a citizen as a part of a larger community with responsibility for the common good of that community; instead he has to be treated as a customer who receives certain services from the government and is required to pay for them. The bureaucrats see this change as being made possible the way in which US citizens have in fact come to see themselves:

            We’ve changed the way we think of ourselves as citizens. We don’t think of ourselves as citizens in the old sense of being small parts of something larger and infinitely more important to which we have serious responsibilities. […] Something has happened where we’ve decided on a personal level that it’s all right to abdicate our individual responsibility to the common good. and let government worry about the common good while we all go about our individual self-interested business and struggle to gratify our various appetites.
            The bureaucrats contrast this with what they see as the attitude of the American founding fathers:

            The fact is that [the founding fathers] cared more about the nation and the citizens than about themselves. […] They assumed their descendants would be like them—rational, honorable, civic-minded. Men with at least as much concern for the common good as for personal advantage.
            Wallace thus portrays them as trying to find a solution to individualism within the liberal tradition of the American founding itself. But Wallace himself notes a certain irony in any such attempt:

            It was in the 1830s and ’40s that states started granting charters of incorporation to larger and regulated companies. And it was 1840 or ’41 that de Tocqueville published his book about Americans, and he says somewhere that one thing about democracies and their individualism is that they by their very nature corrode the citizen’s sense of true community, of having real true fellow citizens whose interests and concerns were the same as his. This is a kind of ghastly irony, if you think about it, since a form of government engineered to produce equality makes its citizens so individualistic and self-absorbed they end up as solipsists, navel-gazers.
            One could phrase the problem as follows: Although there are elements of ancient republican common good thinking in the American founders, their thought contained individualistic elements as well, and that the individualistic elements were primary. They saw the purpose of political society as the safeguard of individual rights. Thus subordinating the common to the private. Thus I claim that the attempt to find a solution to the ills of individualism within the liberal tradition of the Enlightenment is doomed to failure. To really recover an adequate politics of the common good would be to reject modern liberal politics altogether.
            That's why I'm so critical of liberalism; it prevents us from pursuing a politics of the Common Good. And unless we're able to start thinking outside of the liberal framework, I fear we'll end up with totalitarianism instead.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Legacy View Post
              I have the patience to unwind this for you. I prefer the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Hobby Lobby v Sebelius, since it additionally gives an idea about Judge Gorsuch's opinions.
              You're far too obsessed with liberal talking points. The Supreme Court's decision clearly explains that it's not about the "corporation" it's about the people that comprise the corporation and their rights. It's patently obvious when you read the dissent how ludicrous the argument made by the dissenting minority is. That's why I said to read it... because it's a gasser to anyone trying to be objective. It can be equivocated to "fuck these people's rights, they forfeited them by starting a business." You have a few liberal judges pretending that rights shouldn't apply to Christian individuals just because no one before had tried to force their businesses to do something against their religious beliefs. "Unprecedented" case law exists because the ACA's mandates were "unprecedented" in how they tried to force businesses to do with regards to contraception.

              It's the same shit that the Government tried with the Little Sisters of the Poor and correctly lost (again).

              That's not judicial activism, that's correctly reading and apply the letter of our laws. If you can't see the difference between that decision and a judge saying "look, this guy obviously has bad intent because of quotes made outside of the written law, so I'm going to strike it down on the grounds of who wrote it and what their intent is".... well, then I'm not sure what else to say. You probably chose one of the worst analogies possible for the Trump ban decision. Judicial activism would've been literally the opposite of what happened (a close reading of the law and reasonable interpretation that there was a way to resolve the issue that didn't involve trampling on individuals rights under the RFRA).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by kmoose View Post
                It's not some antiquated idea. It is very pertinent in today's world. No one specified "first world powers". We could easily get embroiled in a war on the Korean peninsula, and then have something flare up in Afghanistan.
                It is an antiquated idea in that this two front strategy was specifically meant to address and is entirely predicated on facing two conventional powers in different hemispheres at the same time (see WW1 and WW2). As I stated before if that scenario arose today it would likely mean WW3 has broken out and having top of the line aircraft carrier fleets in the Pacific and Atlantic isn't going to do much good once the nukes are in the air. It's interesting that you brought up the Korean Peninsula because if war broke out there it would be over in about a week and the entire place would look like a moonscape. So, again I would think focusing on beefing up the State Department would be money better spent.

                Anyhow, this same debate was had in the 90's and that's when the military started to slowly move away from a force geared toward fighting large scale conventional wars on two fronts and began to focus on multiple asymmetrical scenarios.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                  You're far too obsessed with liberal talking points. The Supreme Court's decision clearly explains that it's not about the "corporation" it's about the people that comprise the corporation and their rights. It's patently obvious when you read the dissent how ludicrous the argument made by the dissenting minority is. That's why I said to read it... because it's a gasser to anyone trying to be objective. It can be equivocated to "fuck these people's rights, they forfeited them by starting a business." You have a few liberal judges pretending that rights shouldn't apply to Christian individuals just because no one before had tried to force their businesses to do something against their religious beliefs. "Unprecedented" case law exists because the ACA's mandates were "unprecedented" in how they tried to force businesses to do with regards to contraception.

                  It's the same shit that the Government tried with the Little Sisters of the Poor and correctly lost (again).

                  That's not judicial activism, that's correctly reading and apply the letter of our laws. If you can't see the difference between that decision and a judge saying "look, this guy obviously has bad intent because of quotes made outside of the written law, so I'm going to strike it down on the grounds of who wrote it and what their intent is".... well, then I'm not sure what else to say. You probably chose one of the worst analogies possible for the Trump ban decision. Judicial activism would've been literally the opposite of what happened (a close reading of the law and reasonable interpretation that there was a way to resolve the issue that didn't involve trampling on individuals rights under the RFRA).
                  I see you did not read the ABA's article. I still recommend it for the legal rationales and dissention by judges on both sides of the decision that it strays from precedents.

                  "Liberal talking points"? "Sisters of the Poor"? "You probably chose the worst analogies possible for the Trump travel ban"? "If you can't see the difference between that decision and a judge saying "look, this guy obviously has bad intent because of quotes made outside of the written law, so I'm going to strike it down on the grounds of who wrote it and what their intent is"...????

                  What are you talking about? I made no analogy to the Trump travel ban. When did I bring up Little Sisters? "Liberal talking points" seems to be a personal projection. Does your manufactured judge's statement have to do with the travel ban or what?

                  Again, from the decision I referenced and quoted above, very briefly:
                  Chief Judge Briscoe argued that the majority's holding was completely unprecedented and "nothing short of a radical revision of First Amendment law, as well as the law of corporations."
                  Chief Judge Briscoe stated that the majority had "opened the floodgates to RFRA litigation challenging any number of federal statutes that govern corporate affairs."
                  Isn't this your point? Judicial activism that are not based on precedent, will blur the legal lines and set precedents for all kinds of lawsuits.

                  Or as Scalia wrote when The United States Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) that a person may not defy neutral laws of general applicability[b] even as an expression of religious belief, citing the 1878 Reynolds v. United States decision
                  "To permit this would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
                  Last edited by Legacy; 03-16-2017, 05:59 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Rich Lowry just published an article in Politico titled "How the GOP Crackup Happens":

                    Less than two weeks after the unveiling of the GOP Obamacare replacement, the party is already staring into the abyss.

                    The bill has had the worst rollout of any major piece of legislation in memory, and failure is very much an option. If the proposal falters, it will be a political debacle that could poison President Trump’s relationship with Congress for the duration.

                    That relationship is awkward and tenuous. It is an uneasy accommodation between a GOP Congress that would find a more natural partner in a President Rubio, Cruz or Bush, and a President Trump who would, presumably, be happier to work with Speaker Dave Brat — the populist congressman from Virginia — than with Speaker Paul Ryan.

                    This is a product of how the Republican sweep of 2016 was won on separate tracks. Trump tore up many Republican orthodoxies and went out and found a different way to unlock the electoral map, winning in the industrial Midwest. Congressional Republicans more or less stuck with the usual script, kept Trump at arm’s length, and held their majorities in the House and the Senate.

                    As a result, there is no significant Trumpist wing in Congress. The faction most favorable to him, the House Freedom Caucus, is made up of ideological conservatives whose philosophy is at odds with Trump’s economic populism, even if they are drawn to his anti-establishmentarianism.

                    And there was no off-the-shelf Trump legislation that Congress could begin on immediately. In the campaign, Trump identified a constituency and a message, but the agenda was often symbolic (Mexico will pay for the wall) or nebulous (negotiating better trade deals).

                    The natural reflex, then, was to defer to the Republican leadership in Congress. Trump could have come roaring out of the gate with one of his distinctive proposals, the $1 trillion infrastructure plan, and wooed Democrats to support it and dared Republicans to oppose it. Instead, infrastructure has been put off to the second year, the polite way of saying it may not happen at all.

                    The congressional priorities are Obamacare repeal and tax reform, both of which could easily have been the first-year agenda items of the aforementioned hypothetical Presidents Bush, Rubio, or Cruz. They will have to be passed without Democratic votes and through the Senate reconciliation process that circumvents the filibuster. It is true that Trump promised to deliver on both, but neither was part of his core message or won over marginal Trump voters.

                    For now, it is in the interest of both Congress and Trump to make their shotgun marriage work. The speaker is pursuing replace simultaneously with repeal because that was Trump’s preference, and the president has been supportive of Ryan’s bill, while maintaining his flexibility.

                    This is sustainable so long as things are going smoothly; the time of testing is when things don’t go well. House leadership is counting on Trump to help to get its bill over the top, at the same time it realizes he may look for an offramp as soon as it looks like leadership is failing.

                    If the bill falters in the House, it will be the most fraught moment of GOP tension since the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape. Except the question won’t be whether congressmen and senators dump Trump, but whether Trump dumps them.

                    Even more than most politicians, Trump has no interest in owning failure. The explanation of the president and his supporters won’t be that he backed a flawed strategy and bill in the House and paid the price. It will be that he was stabbed in the back. He went along with a GOP establishment politics that doesn’t understand or care about Trump voters, and he can never make that mistake again.

                    There’s almost no question that Trump would win any blame game. He would have the larger megaphone, the more intense supporters and much sharper elbows. He could instantly define Paul Ryan as a creature of the Washington swamp and decide to triangulate away from the GOP Congress rather than work with it.

                    This would mean Trump would be a president not without a party necessarily, but without a Congress. It would make major legislative accomplishments impossible, although if Obamacare repeal and replace fails, that might be the reality regardless.

                    Some skeptics of the Ryan bill hope that its defeat will allow the party to quickly move on to tax reform. But tax legislation won’t be any easier. It, too, is highly complex and involves painful trade-offs. It, too, will disappoint populists when it emerges that the Republican template for reform cuts taxes for the rich without a lot of thought about working-class voters. It, too, will feature intense disagreements between the House and the Senate, with Ryan’s border adjustment tax even more unpopular in the Senate than his Obamacare replacement plan.

                    It is better for everyone that Obamacare repeal-and-replace succeed. Ryan should amend his bill to, among other things, get the coverage numbers up and make it a sturdier vessel for the turbulence ahead. The alternative is a defeat that may precipitate a nasty, perhaps enduring, split in a party desperate to paper over its divisions.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Legacy View Post
                      I see you did not read the ABA's article. I still recommend it for the legal rationales and dissention by judges on both sides of the decision that it strays from precedents.
                      I read everything you quoted, and I've read the actual Supreme Court dissent. I did not read the entire article you linked.

                      "Liberal talking points"? "Sisters of the Poor"? "You probably chose the worst analogies possible for the Trump travel ban"? "If you can't see the difference between that decision and a judge saying "look, this guy obviously has bad intent because of quotes made outside of the written law, so I'm going to strike it down on the grounds of who wrote it and what their intent is"...????

                      What are you talking about? I made no analogy to the Trump travel ban. When did I bring up Little Sisters? "Liberal talking points" seems to be a personal projection. Does your manufactured judge's statement have to do with the travel ban or what?
                      What does this even mean?

                      1. I made a post about Trump's travel ban... that I don't like the ban, but I also don't like some of the rationale used by the judge in his decision.
                      2. You bring in the Hobby Lobby decision (which has literally nothing to do with the Trump ban) and ask my opinion on it.
                      3. I explain why it has nothing to do with the Trump ban.
                      4. You post a wall of text ostensibly to explain how it relates to the travel ban (you said "I have the patience to unwind this for you." vis a vis it being a "false equivalency" to the travel ban)... but your wall of text does literally nothing to address my point that there is no parallel between the two legal cases.
                      5. I explain again how it's the polar opposite of what I'm talking about.
                      6. Then you say "I made no analogy to the Trump travel ban"... what? If you don't want to talk about the Trump ban, then don't quote my post on the Trump ban.
                      Last edited by IrishLax; 03-16-2017, 06:14 PM. Reason: removed snark

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Legacy View Post
                        "Liberal talking points" seems to be a personal projection. Does your manufactured judge's statement have to do with the travel ban or what?
                        And to circle back to this, here is a direct quote from the judge:
                        Despite these changes, the history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban.
                        In short: the law doesn't have textual problems as written anymore, but I'm still going to put a stay on it because of previously conveyed bad intent by the writer.

                        The judge even admits in his decision that they shouldn't be basing a decision on trying to interpret intent, but uses mental gymnastics to say:
                        The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts
                        should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government
                        decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart
                        of hearts.” Govt. Opp’n at 40 (citing McCreary, 545 U.S. at 862). The
                        Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry. For instance, there is nothing “veiled” about this press
                        release:
                        So literally his justification is for his decision is that "because this law came from Trump and Trump previously said X then we can invalidate the law." Taking such an absurd, activist opinion to logical conclusion would say that this judge doesn't believe that Trump can make any travel/immigration policy regarding any Muslim-majority country because of his campaign statements regardless of what that policy says.

                        The reason I brought up liberal talking points is that the "corporations are people" trope is extremely common in those circles and wholly inaccurate to the Hobby Lobby decision.

                        Comment


                        • OK, Lax. You want to talk about judicial activism on a temporary bans on travel. I prefer to make my points on decisions that make it to the Supreme Court. We each read the other's links.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by woolybug25 View Post
                            On another note, just read Trump's budget cuts all funding to PBS. cool
                            Well of course, why would the Republicans want any outlets out there that actually inform Americans? PBS/NPR viewers and listeners are the most informed of the bunch. Worth noting: Fox News viewers were less informed than people who didn't watch news at all.

                            Ya gotta eliminate the opposition to your agenda when you get the chance. It falls right in line with the constant "Fake News!" bullshit coming from the White House, a blatant attempt to discredit any and all reporting on his transgressions and incompetence and honestly a shameful step up from the usual "liberal mainstream media" boogeyman of yesteryear. It falls right in line with the general GOP position that we can't listen to studies and professors because they're ivory tower liberals who couldn't possibly get the workin' man, or how businesses function.

                            Hell what was the latest claim by prominent Republican, former Speaker of the House and known Trump talking head ol' Newt Gingrich: abolish the CBO. ""They should abolish the Congressional Budget Office. It is corrupt. It is dishonest." When you can't create a halfway decent health care bill and want to hide that you'll kick 24 million off of insurance...eliminate and discredit the opposition. Nobody is better at it than today's Republicans.

                            And I don't see a way out for the GOP. When you sell your soul and give in to the temporary benefit (ie election turn out) of a strategy of scaring and misinforming your base, you have to live with a more extreme base. They've gone down the road of global warming denial, terrorists and illegals are overrunning the country, trickle down is GOAT economics, crime is through the roof, national bankruptcy is in our near future if we don't cut aid to the poor and elderly, etc etc for 20-30 years now (depending on the topic) and it's hard to turn that ship around.
                            Last edited by Buster Bluth; 03-16-2017, 09:28 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                              Well of course, why would the Republicans want any outlets out there that actually inform Americans? PBS/NPR viewers and listeners are the most informed of the bunch. Worth noting: Fox News viewers were less informed than people who didn't watch news at all.

                              Ya gotta eliminate the opposition to your agenda when you get the chance. It falls right in line with the constant "Fake News!" bullshit coming from the White House, a blatant attempt to discredit any and all reporting on his transgressions and incompetence and honestly a shameful step up from the usual "liberal mainstream media" boogeyman of yesteryear. It falls right in line with the general GOP position that we can't listen to studies and professors because they're ivory tower liberals who couldn't possibly get the workin' man, or how businesses function.

                              Hell what was the latest claim by prominent Republican, former Speaker of the House and known Trump talking head ol' Newt Gingrich: abolish the CBO. ""They should abolish the Congressional Budget Office. It is corrupt. It is dishonest." When you can't create a halfway decent health care bill and want to hide that you'll kick 24 million off of insurance...eliminate and discredit the opposition. Nobody is better at it than today's Republicans.

                              And I don't see a way out for the GOP. When you sell your soul and give in to the temporary benefit (ie election turn out) of a strategy of scaring and misinforming your base, you have to live with a more extreme base. They've gone down the road of global warming denial, terrorists and illegals are overrunning the country, trickle down is GOAT economics, crime is through the roof, national bankruptcy is in our near future if we don't cut aid to the poor and elderly, etc etc for 20-30 years now (depending on the topic) and it's hard to turn that ship around.
                              You forgot voter fraud, family values, all lives matter, Southern strategy, money is speech, not having healthcare is for the poors.....lol

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cackalacky View Post
                                You forgot voter fraud, family values, all lives matter, Southern strategy, money is speech, not having healthcare is for the poors.....lol
                                And here's the real turn for the worst:



                                And really this is just the economic opinion of a group of people who suddenly don't value things like NATO or see the importance of a successful EU. Putin smiles.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post

                                  And I don't see a way out for the GOP. When you sell your soul and give in to the temporary benefit (ie election turn out) of a strategy of scaring and misinforming your base, you have to live with a more extreme base. They've gone down the road of global warming denial, terrorists and illegals are overrunning the country, trickle down is GOAT economics, crime is through the roof, national bankruptcy is in our near future if we don't cut aid to the poor and elderly, etc etc for 20-30 years now (depending on the topic) and it's hard to turn that ship around.
                                  The long play here is to ride the Trump wave, avoiding alienating his passionate followers. Let him display what is personally unique and almost desperate, displaying an apparent lack of ability to govern or work with others. You've infiltrated a Cabinet with a few who will report back to the establishment. You tag the popular legislation and philosophy and the platform goals that are achieved as party achievements. You draw a firm line when he exceeds reason, downgrades other essential parts of government, or attempts dominating Congress. Let him become further isolated, resorting to the diminishing loyal few, and frustrated in the job. Should murky dealings, uncrossable ethical lines, or a Senate majority of Democrats in 2018 emerge, the threat of articles of impeachment may lead to him abandoning the Presidency to return to a more prosperous business with Pence serving the remainder of his term - or, at the least, him limping into an unachievable second term so that the usual suspects can via for the Presidency in 2020, touting achievements tagged Republican, and failures as Trumpian or due to Democratic incalcitrance.
                                  Last edited by Legacy; 03-17-2017, 01:34 AM.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Bluto View Post
                                    It is an antiquated idea in that this two front strategy was specifically meant to address and is entirely predicated on facing two conventional powers in different hemispheres at the same time (see WW1 and WW2). As I stated before if that scenario arose today it would likely mean WW3 has broken out and having top of the line aircraft carrier fleets in the Pacific and Atlantic isn't going to do much good once the nukes are in the air. It's interesting that you brought up the Korean Peninsula because if war broke out there it would be over in about a week and the entire place would look like a moonscape. So, again I would think focusing on beefing up the State Department would be money better spent.

                                    Anyhow, this same debate was had in the 90's and that's when the military started to slowly move away from a force geared toward fighting large scale conventional wars on two fronts and began to focus on multiple asymmetrical scenarios.

                                    The modern "two war" scenario is NOT based on fighting two conventional powers in different hemispheres. It is based on one large conflict, and one or more smaller scale conflicts. And, actually......... the aircraft carriers are just what you need in your scenario. ICBMs such as North Korea is developing are meant to hit fixed ground targets: missile silos, Offutt Air Force Base, Whiteman AFB, Washington, DC, Cheyenne Mountain, etc. Once those land based targets are gone, our military might will be concentrated in and around those carriers. Despite what you may think, it is INCREDIBLY difficult to kill a carrier.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Veritate Duce Progredi View Post
                                      Except North Korea or Africa because oil....
                                      Yeah.......... look at all of the oil we got from the Bosnians and the Sudanese! Fucking oil is the root of ALL evil!

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                        And to circle back to this, here is a direct quote from the judge:

                                        In short: the law doesn't have textual problems as written anymore, but I'm still going to put a stay on it because of previously conveyed bad intent by the writer.

                                        The judge even admits in his decision that they shouldn't be basing a decision on trying to interpret intent, but uses mental gymnastics to say:
                                        So literally his justification is for his decision is that "because this law came from Trump and Trump previously said X then we can invalidate the law." Taking such an absurd, activist opinion to logical conclusion would say that this judge doesn't believe that Trump can make any travel/immigration policy regarding any Muslim-majority country because of his campaign statements regardless of what that policy says.

                                        The reason I brought up liberal talking points is that the "corporations are people" trope is extremely common in those circles and wholly inaccurate to the Hobby Lobby decision.
                                        I really have a hard time seeing how anyone can defend those positions by a judge. Kind of scary to me to see how much progress has been made by this whole "open border society" concept.

                                        I don't understand it, I would never expect I can just wander into some other country and claim to be entitled to live there if I want? The implication that a desire for LEGAL immigration processes to be enforced is anti-immigration is just so twisted and intellectually dishonest.

                                        I really don't care if we don't bring a single person into this country from Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia or Yemen - ever again in the course of human history. Why exactly should I? Not fair? Life's not fair, get a helmet.

                                        At the same point, exceptions can and would be made for people working for US interests in those countries - you know people that prove loyalty and desire to assimilate, not people we cannot prove are disloyal. Billions of people in the world and we can't fill our immigration rolls from friendlier locales? A negative consent process applied to lottery winners is not just lazy but dangerous.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by RDU Irish View Post
                                          I really have a hard time seeing how anyone can defend those positions by a judge. Kind of scary to me to see how much progress has been made by this whole "open border society" concept.

                                          I don't understand it, I would never expect I can just wander into some other country and claim to be entitled to live there if I want? The implication that a desire for LEGAL immigration processes to be enforced is anti-immigration is just so twisted and intellectually dishonest.

                                          I really don't care if we don't bring a single person into this country from Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia or Yemen - ever again in the course of human history. Why exactly should I? Not fair? Life's not fair, get a helmet.

                                          At the same point, exceptions can and would be made for people working for US interests in those countries - you know people that prove loyalty and desire to assimilate, not people we cannot prove are disloyal. Billions of people in the world and we can't fill our immigration rolls from friendlier locales? A negative consent process applied to lottery winners is not just lazy but dangerous.
                                          Assimilate?!?!? You frelling ehthnocentrist!
                                          Fan since Vagas Ferguson and Jerome Heavens!

                                          Comment


                                          • It's a stretch of that mindset and I don't personally agree with it because I lean textualist, but I don't see why this is seen as such an insane stretch. Judges (Justice Brennan most notably in my mind) have been practicing statutory intentionalism for years. If Judges can look to congressional discussions to determine a law's meaning and purpose without any blowback I don't see why the public statements of a President are so different when looking to an executive order.

                                            Funnier than you in 2012.

                                            Comment


                                            • Originally posted by greyhammer90 View Post
                                              It's a stretch of that mindset and I don't personally agree with it because I lean textualist, but I don't see why this is seen as such an insane stretch. Judges (Justice Brennan most notably in my mind) have been practicing statutory intentionalism for years. If Judges can look to congressional discussions to determine a law's meaning and purpose without any blowback I don't see why the public statements of a President are so different when looking to an executive order.

                                              Comment


                                              • Originally posted by greyhammer90 View Post
                                                It's a stretch of that mindset and I don't personally agree with it because I lean textualist, but I don't see why this is seen as such an insane stretch. Judges (Justice Brennan most notably in my mind) have been practicing statutory intentionalism for years. If Judges can look to congressional discussions to determine a law's meaning and purpose without any blowback I don't see why the public statements of a President are so different when looking to an executive order.
                                                Using your example - public statements of Congressfolk would be used to determine a law's meaning, not just "congressional discussions". Boy, if we like judicial activism now....

                                                At the end of the day - judges can do whatever they want and there is always some excuse they can find to back up their garbage.
                                                Last edited by RDU Irish; 03-17-2017, 09:14 AM.

                                                Comment


                                                • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                  And to circle back to this, here is a direct quote from the judge:

                                                  In short: the law doesn't have textual problems as written anymore, but I'm still going to put a stay on it because of previously conveyed bad intent by the writer.

                                                  The judge even admits in his decision that they shouldn't be basing a decision on trying to interpret intent, but uses mental gymnastics to say:
                                                  So literally his justification is for his decision is that "because this law came from Trump and Trump previously said X then we can invalidate the law." Taking such an absurd, activist opinion to logical conclusion would say that this judge doesn't believe that Trump can make any travel/immigration policy regarding any Muslim-majority country because of his campaign statements regardless of what that policy says.

                                                  The reason I brought up liberal talking points is that the "corporations are people" trope is extremely common in those circles and wholly inaccurate to the Hobby Lobby decision.
                                                  It also should be noted that the judge is a former college classmate of Obama's, appointed in 2012 by then President Obama. Also why did Obama make a surprise visit to Hawaii just 48 hours prior to the decision being handed down (another Clinton Phoenix Airport meeting?). According to Reddit users, Obama dined five minutes from the Courthouse. Conspiracy? Maybe or maybe not.

                                                  Comment


                                                  • Originally posted by RDU Irish View Post
                                                    Using your example - public statements of Congressfolk would be used to determine a law's meaning, not just "congressional discussions". Boy, if we like judicial activism now....
                                                    They could, or they could say that the lack of any formal "congressional discussions" for executive orders creates a unique situation solely for executive orders that justifies the use of public statements as being necessary to determine intent.

                                                    At the end of the day - judges can do whatever they want and there is always some excuse they can find to back up their garbage.
                                                    Yup.

                                                    Funnier than you in 2012.

                                                    Comment


                                                    • Originally posted by yankeehater View Post
                                                      It also should be noted that the judge is a former college classmate of Obama's, appointed in 2012 by then President Obama. Also why did Obama make a surprise visit to Hawaii just 48 hours prior to the decision being handed down (another Clinton Phoenix Airport meeting?). According to Reddit users, Obama dined five minutes from the Courthouse. Conspiracy? Maybe or maybe not.
                                                      How long does he have to be out of office before Obama stops being literally boogie-man to Republicans? It's amazing how someone so incompetent is, at the same time, responsible for everything.

                                                      Funnier than you in 2012.

                                                      Comment


                                                      • Originally posted by greyhammer90 View Post
                                                        It's a stretch of that mindset and I don't personally agree with it because I lean textualist, but I don't see why this is seen as such an insane stretch. Judges (Justice Brennan most notably in my mind) have been practicing statutory intentionalism for years. If Judges can look to congressional discussions to determine a law's meaning and purpose without any blowback I don't see why the public statements of a President are so different when looking to an executive order.
                                                        None of this is wrong. Personally, my problem was mostly with some of the language the judge used.

                                                        Ostensibly, saying "what is the purpose of this law? what was the intent of the drafters?" isn't crazy and I'm not a strict textualist. Context can be valuable.

                                                        But to me that's not what this judge did. He effectively said "I reserve the right to block a law that I don't like on the grounds that Trump said some stuff about a Muslim ban during the campaign." When you read the current travel ban, it's nothing close to a "Muslim ban" as it doesn't affect 90%+ of Muslims in the world nor does it permanently ban someone on account of their religion. Furthermore, the bigger problem is that when you take the judge's logic to its conclusion he's saying Trump is not allowed to make any kind of policy affecting travel from any Muslim majority country on account of his anti-Muslim campaign remarks. That's obviously ridiculous, but that's what the judge implies when talking about the revisions to this order vis a vis "realization of long-envisioned Muslim ban." He's saying it doesn't matter how the law is written or future ones are proposed, he'd still strike them down on account of Trump's "envisioned" ban.

                                                        A judge shouldn't be able to just make stuff up to strike down a law simply because he doesn't like the law. And that's what he did, and did laughable job of justifying it brazenly acknowledging he did not have textual ground to do so.

                                                        Comment


                                                        • In essence, I think there are things that are dumb/wrong and things that are illegal. I think Trump's travel ban is dumb/wrong. I don't think there's a legitimate case that his travel ban as written is illegal.

                                                          I don't think judges should be able to strike down dumb/wrong laws on account of them being dumb/wrong, because that's based on their subjective opinion. Judges are supposed to try to have an objective and impartial reading/interpretation of the law with no bias or prejudice.

                                                          Comment


                                                          • Using Texas as an example, I posted some facts on Texas' poverty, uninsurance, and costs to the uninsured for the state in the Healthcare thread.

                                                            Comment


                                                            • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                              In essence, I think there are things that are dumb/wrong and things that are illegal. I think Trump's travel ban is dumb/wrong. I don't think there's a legitimate case that his travel ban as written is illegal.

                                                              I don't think judges should be able to strike down dumb/wrong laws on account of them being dumb/wrong, because that's based on their subjective opinion. Judges are supposed to try to have an objective and impartial reading/interpretation of the law with no bias or prejudice.
                                                              https://media.giphy.com/media/1ube10l4xArN6/giphy.gif

                                                              Comment


                                                              • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                                None of this is wrong. Personally, my problem was mostly with some of the language the judge used.

                                                                Ostensibly, saying "what is the purpose of this law? what was the intent of the drafters?" isn't crazy and I'm not a strict textualist. Context can be valuable.

                                                                But to me that's not what this judge did. He effectively said "I reserve the right to block a law that I don't like on the grounds that Trump said some stuff about a Muslim ban during the campaign." When you read the current travel ban, it's nothing close to a "Muslim ban" as it doesn't affect 90%+ of Muslims in the world nor does it permanently ban someone on account of their religion. Furthermore, the bigger problem is that when you take the judge's logic to its conclusion he's saying Trump is not allowed to make any kind of policy affecting travel from any Muslim majority country on account of his anti-Muslim campaign remarks. That's obviously ridiculous, but that's what the judge implies when talking about the revisions to this order vis a vis "realization of long-envisioned Muslim ban." He's saying it doesn't matter how the law is written or future ones are proposed, he'd still strike them down on account of Trump's "envisioned" ban.

                                                                A judge shouldn't be able to just make stuff up to strike down a law simply because he doesn't like the law. And that's what he did, and did laughable job of justifying it brazenly acknowledging he did not have textual ground to do so.
                                                                Oh no doubt. I don't disagree it was a bad opinion, I just think the people who don't read much case law saying "An Opinion based on something outside the Text!? *Monocle falls out* Preposterous!" need to realize this is something that does happen. I don't like it, and I think it was a definite stretch, but the idea of looking outside the written order is a concept that absolutely exists in law and does have some good points.

                                                                Funnier than you in 2012.

                                                                Comment


                                                                • Originally posted by greyhammer90 View Post
                                                                  How long does he have to be out of office before Obama stops being literally boogie-man to Republicans? It's amazing how someone so incompetent is, at the same time, responsible for everything.
                                                                  Obama-appointed judges will always be Obama's responsibility just like Bush-appointed judges are Bush's responsibility. Lots of Republicans were blaming Bush for the Roberts opinion that upheld the ACA.

                                                                  Speaking of the ACA, it's 100% legitimate for Republicans to blame Obama for that shitshow from how until the end of time.

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • Restructuring Medicaid in the American Health Care Act: Five Key Considerations (Kaiser Family Foundation)

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • Originally posted by greyhammer90 View Post
                                                                      How long does he have to be out of office before Obama stops being literally boogie-man to Republicans? It's amazing how someone so incompetent is, at the same time, responsible for everything.
                                                                      grey, before I post this I do want to emphasize how much I like you and your posts over the years we have been on here together...but in response to this post...







                                                                      Please go to google and type blame Bush or Obama blames Bush or democrats blame Bush. You will find entries from 2017, 2016, 2015 and on back even though Bush left the White House in January 2009. President Obama has been out of office for less than 2 full months (and one of those was the shortest one of the year).

                                                                      I really do love and appreciate you grey, but you might want to reconsider this particular post
                                                                      Fan since Vagas Ferguson and Jerome Heavens!

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                                                                        Obama-appointed judges will always be Obama's responsibility just like Bush-appointed judges are Bush's responsibility. Lots of Republicans were blaming Bush for the Roberts opinion that upheld the ACA.

                                                                        Speaking of the ACA, it's 100% legitimate for Republicans to blame Obama for that shitshow from how until the end of time.
                                                                        Originally posted by connor_in View Post
                                                                        grey, before I post this I do want to emphasize how much I like you and your posts over the years we have been on here together...but in response to this post...

                                                                        Please go to google and type blame Bush or Obama blames Bush or democrats blame Bush. You will find entries from 2017, 2016, 2015 and on back even though Bush left the White House in January 2009. President Obama has been out of office for less than 2 full months (and one of those was the shortest one of the year).

                                                                        I really do love and appreciate you grey, but you might want to reconsider this particular post
                                                                        In response to both of you: I'm (I thought obviously) not talking about policies, natural consequences of his administration's work, or judge appointments. No freaking duh those carry over and can be used to discuss the current political climate. Obama obviously spoke for years about the mess he inherited from Bush and I don't expect the Republicans to do any different.

                                                                        I'm talking about the fact that the post I was responding to strongly suggests that Obama, in what can only be described as a shadow lord-esque move, visited Hawaii for the purpose of pressing his thumb down on a judge he has absolutely no power over, and influenced the judge's decision for the sole purpose of thwarting the Republican party. It's absurdity in the same vein as the people who said that Obama ordered the assassination of Scalia.

                                                                        The guy's administration couldn't get a freaking website to work properly, but according to some republican wackos he's Emperor Palpatine.

                                                                        To Connor specifically: One gif will do. Just pick one instead of turning the thread page into a bad tumblr post.
                                                                        Last edited by greyhammer90; 03-17-2017, 12:10 PM.

                                                                        Funnier than you in 2012.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • U.S. appeals to higher court over ruling against Trump's revised travel ban | Reuters
                                                                          Mar 18, 2017 | 12:40am EDT
                                                                          By Mica Rosenberg | NEW YORK

                                                                          The U.S. government took the legal battle over President Donald Trump's travel ban to a higher court on Friday, saying it would appeal against a federal judge's decision that struck down parts of the ban on the day it was set to go into effect.

                                                                          The Department of Justice said in a court filing it would appeal against a ruling by U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

                                                                          On Thursday, Chuang issued an emergency halt to the portion of Trump's March 6 executive order temporarily banning the entry of travelers from six Muslim-majority countries. He left in place the section of the order that barred the entry of refugees to the United States for four months.

                                                                          Another federal judge in Hawaii struck down both sections of the ban in a broader court ruling that prevented Trump's order from moving forward.

                                                                          In Washington state, where the ban is also being challenged, U.S. District Court Judge James Robart put a stay on proceedings for as long as the Hawaii court's nationwide temporary restraining order remained in place, to "conserve resources" and avoid inconsistent and duplicate rulings.

                                                                          The decisions came in response to lawsuits brought by states' attorneys general in Hawaii and refugee resettlement agencies in Maryland who were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center.

                                                                          Detractors argue the ban discriminated against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom. Trump says the measure is necessary for national security to protect the country from terrorist attacks.

                                                                          White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told a media briefing the government would "vigorously defend this executive order" and appeal against the "flawed rulings."

                                                                          The Department of Justice filed a motion late on Friday night seeking clarification of Hawaii’s ruling before appealing to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

                                                                          The 9th Circuit court last month upheld a decision by Judge Robart that halted an original, more sweeping travel ban signed by the President on Jan. 27 in response to a lawsuit filed by Washington state.

                                                                          The new executive order was reissued with the intention of overcoming the legal concerns.

                                                                          Trump has vowed to take the fight all the way to U.S. Supreme Court.

                                                                          The 4th Circuit is known as a more conservative court compared to the 9th Circuit, said Buzz Frahn, an attorney at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett who has been tracking the litigation nationwide.

                                                                          "The government is probably thinking that the 4th Circuit ... would lend a friendlier ear to its arguments," he said.

                                                                          Judges have said they were willing to look behind the text of the order, which does not mention Islam, to probe the motivation for enacting the ban, Frahn said. Trump promised during the election campaign to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

                                                                          The U.S. Supreme Court is currently split 4-4 between liberals and conservatives, with Trump's pick for the high court - appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch - still awaiting confirmation.

                                                                          Hans von Spakovsky, from the Washington D.C.-based Heritage Foundation, said the Department of Justice might want to time their appeals to reach the Supreme Court after Gorsuch is confirmed. He said the court would be likely to hear the case.

                                                                          "They will take it because of its national importance," Spakovsky said.

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • Eventually we'll be at the 90-day mark from the signing of the initial ban. The ban was so important because the administration wanted to review the immigration/entry processes. So after 90 days, shouldn't they be able to provide us their findings? Or was this just election promise PR?

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                                                              Eventually we'll be at the 90-day mark from the signing of the initial ban. The ban was so important because the administration wanted to review the immigration/entry processes. So after 90 days, shouldn't they be able to provide us their findings? Or was this just election promise PR?
                                                                              It could be both. They could get to 90 days and then their review determines that extending the ban is what's in the best interest of national security.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                                                                                It could be both. They could get to 90 days and then their review determines that extending the ban is what's in the best interest of national security.
                                                                                Sort of a rolling temporary travel ban???


                                                                                Donald Trump’s Constitution of One
                                                                                (National Review)

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                • Originally posted by Legacy View Post
                                                                                  Sort of a rolling temporary travel ban???


                                                                                  Donald Trump’s Constitution of One
                                                                                  (National Review)
                                                                                  If only we could be so lucky.
                                                                                  Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                  • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                                                                                    If only we could be so lucky.
                                                                                    So when would you like the ban to end? When those countries quit sending terrorists?

                                                                                    Ironic since the countries on the list don't send terrorists to the US. Guess no need right?
                                                                                    Originally posted by koonja
                                                                                    I'm making peace with Woolly in 2017.

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                    • Originally posted by woolybug25 View Post
                                                                                      So when would you like the ban to end? When those countries quit sending terrorists?

                                                                                      Ironic since the countries on the list don't send terrorists to the US. Guess no need right?
                                                                                      When those countries aren't a bunch of savages. Somalians in particular, suck.
                                                                                      Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                                                                                        When those countries aren't a bunch of savages. Somalians in particular, suck.
                                                                                        My brother lived in Atalanta for several years and a couple of his closest friends were/are Somali. They didn't "suck" and they weren't "savages". They're really cool and friendly.

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • Originally posted by Bluto View Post
                                                                                          My brother lived in Atalanta for several years and a couple of his closest friends were/are Somali. They didn't "suck" and they weren't "savages". They're really cool and friendly.
                                                                                          Yeah? Well we have them in my hometown, and we have them in my current town. The ones here suck. They turn entire parts of town into ghetto. They stab people in St Cloud malls, they hold women against their will for blowjobs in parking lots. I'm fine with them coming, as long as people in your neck of the woods will take them. Don't want them up here.
                                                                                          Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                                                                                            When those countries aren't a bunch of savages. Somalians in particular, suck.
                                                                                            If you just banned immigrants because you think "they suck" than your Irish ass wouldn't even be here. This country despised the Irish immigrants as much as any.
                                                                                            Originally posted by koonja
                                                                                            I'm making peace with Woolly in 2017.

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                                                                                              Yeah? Well we have them in my hometown, and we have them in my current town. The ones here suck. They turn entire parts of town into ghetto. They stab people in St Cloud malls, they hold women against their will for blowjobs in parking lots. I'm fine with them coming, as long as people in your neck of the woods will take them. Don't want them up here.
                                                                                              They literally said the same about the Irish:

                                                                                              They (the Irish) live on beasts only, and live like beasts. They have not progressed at all from the habits of pastoral living. ..This is a filthy people, wallowing in vice. Of all peoples it is the least instructed in the rudiments of the faith. They do not yet pay tithes or first fruits or contract marriages. They do not avoid incest.
                                                                                              — Giraldus Cambrensis
                                                                                              I am haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along that hundred miles of horrible country...to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black one would not see it so much, but their skins, except where tanned by exposure, are as white as ours.
                                                                                              — Cambridge historian Charles Kingsley, letter to his wife from Ireland, 1860
                                                                                              Marry those be the most barbaric and loathy conditions of any people (I think) under heaven...They [the Irish] do use all the beastly behaviour that may be, they oppress all men, they spoil as well the subject, as the enemy; they steal, they are cruel and bloody, full of revenge, and delighting in deadly execution, licentious, swearers and blasphemers, common ravishers of women, and murderers of children.
                                                                                              — Edmund Spenser, A View of the State of Ireland, 1596
                                                                                              Originally posted by koonja
                                                                                              I'm making peace with Woolly in 2017.

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • Originally posted by woolybug25 View Post
                                                                                                If you just banned immigrants because you think "they suck" than your Irish ass wouldn't even be here. This country despised the Irish immigrants as much as any.
                                                                                                Someone needed to farm the land. Not my fault that my folks came while there was a need for farmers.

                                                                                                I don't have a beer with well educated immigrants. Willing to compromise. PhD's and engineers welcome.
                                                                                                Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                                                                                                  Yeah? Well we have them in my hometown, and we have them in my current town. The ones here suck. They turn entire parts of town into ghetto. They stab people in St Cloud malls, they hold women against their will for blowjobs in parking lots. I'm fine with them coming, as long as people in your neck of the woods will take them. Don't want them up here.
                                                                                                  I know lots of Caucasians that have done those very same things and much worse. See how easy that was. I think the issue is one more of concentrating poverty (which creates problems irregardless of race and or national origin) and our nations ability to churn out violent, antisocial, sociopaths at a much higher rate when compared to other first world countries.

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                  • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                                                                                                    Someone needed to farm the land. Not my fault that my folks came while there was a need for farmers.

                                                                                                    I don't have a beer with well educated immigrants. Willing to compromise. PhD's and engineers welcome.
                                                                                                    So you're just gonna resort to humor to avoid the obvious hypocrisy here? So you're okay that your ancestors came here with the same vitriol that you are spilling, simply because you imagine them as kind farmers? The reality is the vast majority of early Irish immigrants didn't assimilate well. Nor did the Italians, the Greeks or Chinese. They created poor burroughs where they communed with their own. They couldn't find work because of people with your mindset, so many resorted to crime. Eventually good overcame, as it tends to do, and those people ended up on the wrong side of history. Just like your viewpoint eventually will.

                                                                                                    My great grandmother (yaya) never spoke one word of English. She didn't interact with non greeks. She was typical of other greek immigrants in her community. But she gave her children opportunity. She gave them hope. That's why I have the opportunities that I have today. So I am grateful that she persevered over your mindset. You should try to have some respect for those that did that for you.
                                                                                                    Last edited by woolybug25; 03-18-2017, 02:06 PM.
                                                                                                    Originally posted by koonja
                                                                                                    I'm making peace with Woolly in 2017.

                                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                                    • Originally posted by Bluto View Post
                                                                                                      I know lots of Caucasians that have done those very same things and much worse. See how easy that was. I think the issue is one more of concentrating poverty (which creates problems irregardless of race and or national origin) and our nations ability to churn out violent, antisocial, sociopaths at a much higher rate when compared to other first world countries.
                                                                                                      I'm not blaming race... we have Bosnians here too that cause problems.

                                                                                                      Also, I'd be interested in hearing about crimes worse than terrorizing a shopping center or raping people.

                                                                                                      I just don't buy into the "give me your tired, poor" stuff. I don't think it's valid anymore. Bring in only the best. Preferably educated, skilled folks. Easier to avoid concentrating them in poverty if you are bringing in doctors, scientists, and engineers.
                                                                                                      Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      Adsense

                                                                                                      Collapse
                                                                                                      Working...
                                                                                                      X