Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UNLV2001

Same Sex marriage vote

Recommended Posts

On 12/2/2022 at 7:03 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

I should? And how you measure this utility? How are you quantifying “less societal harm” by “forcing” private actors to perform work they don’t desire to do? The whole “nice bill of rights there, be a shame if something happened to it” argument isn’t persuasive in the least.

Politics isn't about persuasion, at least not of other political nerds and wonks. It's about leveraging power. Wise conservatives came to their senses about this particular constitutional battlefield starting in the 1960s. Either you bend or you break. If you want to enforce and interpret the Constitution like we are in the Redeemer Era South, there will be an equal and opposite reaction. 

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 4:30 PM, youngredbullfan said:

Politics isn't about persuasion, at least not of other political nerds and wonks. It's about leveraging power. Wise conservatives came to their senses about this particular constitutional battlefield starting in the 1960s. Either you bend or you break. If you want to enforce and interpret the Constitution like we are in the Redeemer Era South, there will be an equal and opposite reaction. 

The redeemer era south was the constitutional battlefield you allude to. The redeemers ignored the constitution to institute a legal framework that superseded the “paper” as you call it. It was unconstitutional tyranny ensconced in law that so called pragmatists went along with so long as they came out ahead. If pragmatism calls for surrender of the constitution then battle it shall be.

I think not though. The modern fire-eaters that see politics as the great conflict of their lives are pussies and poseurs. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 7:49 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

The redeemer era south was the constitutional battlefield you allude to. The redeemers ignored the constitution to institute a legal framework that superseded the “paper” as you call it. It was unconstitutional tyranny ensconced in law that so called pragmatists went along with so long as they came out ahead. If pragmatism calls for surrender of the constitution then battle it shall be.

I think not though. The modern fire-eaters that see politics as the great conflict of their lives are pussies and poseurs. 

No, the Redeemers reinstituted the spirit of constitutional law as it was practiced before the war. And, in their (not unfounded) view, they restored the law as it was originally interpreted by the founders. 

It was the abolitionists that originally pushed the issue and went full jihad on the constitution as it was understood. The Northern Conservative Doughfaces, who mostly agreed with the South's constitutional interpretations eventually went along with them once the Constitution was broken rather than bent via open war.

The Secessionist South, like you, was against Lincoln's pragmatism. They said that if pragmatism calls for surrender of constitutional law and precedent, then battle it shall be. Hell, they even fixed the inefficiencies of the original Constitution's silent protections of slavery and copied the document verbatim but with more blatant protections when they created the Confederacy. 

And even though they lost that battle, they found ways (ie "separate but equal") to ignore the "bending" of constitutional law that was the 13th-15th Amendments to revert back to a new version of originalism. Go figure.

Later, Southern Segregationists held the Bill of Rights closely to their hateful hearts as they justified their more developed regime of racial apartheid. 

You see, the Constitution itself was constructed by a society in which discrimination was a baked in, fundamental value. It protected and reflected discrimination and slavery. And judge after judge, law after law, precedent after precedent upheld those protections. 

Time after time, the Constitutional crisis surrounding slavery popped up its ugly head. The fire-eating abolitionists (lol) time and time again kept pushing the issue, formed political parties, attacked the Constitution.

When those conservatives refused to bend, refused to make yet another compromise, and refused to surrender the constitution, they found a battle. 

 

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 11:06 AM, Bob said:

Lol you think you're more enlightened than God and all of humanity since the beginning of time. Marriage is the harnessing of raw biology to the creation of families. If gays want all the legal protections that marriage affords other than pertaining to children then give them something else. Seems like powers of attorney could do it. I don't care what you think, it's a free country and wrong is wrong and I don't have to support it. kiss my butt

Sometimes I wanna get on TV and just let loose
But can't, but it's cool for Tom Green to hump a dead moose
"My bum is on your lips, my bum is on your lips"
And if I'm lucky, you might just give it a little kiss
And that's the message that we deliver to little kids
And expect them not to know what a woman's clitoris is
Of course they're gonna know what intercourse is
By the time they hit fourth grade
They've got the Discovery Channel, don't they?
We ain't nothin' but mammals, well, some of us, cannibals
Who cut other people open like cantaloupes
But if we can hump dead animals and antelopes
Then there's no reason that a man and another man can't elope
But if you feel like I feel, I got the antidote, women wave your panty hose…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 5:43 PM, youngredbullfan said:

No, the Redeemers reinstituted the spirit of constitutional law as it was practiced before the war. And, in their (not unfounded) view, they restored the law as it was originally interpreted by the founders. 

It was the abolitionists that originally pushed the issue and went full jihad on the constitution as it was understood. The Northern Conservative Doughfaces, who mostly agreed with the South's constitutional interpretations eventually went along with them once the Constitution was broken rather than bent via open war.

The Secessionist South, like you, was against Lincoln's pragmatism. They said that if pragmatism calls for surrender of constitutional law and precedent, then battle it shall be. Hell, they even fixed the inefficiencies of the original Constitution's silent protections of slavery and copied the document verbatim but with more blatant protections when they created the Confederacy. 

And even though they lost that battle, they found ways (ie "separate but equal") to ignore the "bending" of constitutional law that was the 13th-15th Amendments to revert back to a new version of originalism. Go figure.

Later, Southern Segregationists held the Bill of Rights closely to their hateful hearts as they justified their more developed regime of racial apartheid. 

You see, the Constitution itself was constructed by a society in which discrimination was a baked in, fundamental value. It protected and reflected discrimination and slavery. And judge after judge, law after law, precedent after precedent upheld those protections. 

Time after time, the Constitutional crisis surrounding slavery popped up its ugly head. The fire-eating abolitionists (lol) time and time again kept pushing the issue, formed political parties, attacked the Constitution.

When those conservatives refused to bend, refused to make yet another compromise, and refused to surrender the constitution, they found a battle. 

 

You bloviate a lot to get around saying what I said. It wasn’t bending. It was ignoring reconstruction amendments.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 4:03 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

I should? And how you measure this utility? How are you quantifying “less societal harm” by “forcing” private actors to perform work they don’t desire to do? The whole “nice bill of rights there, be a shame if something happened to it” argument isn’t persuasive in the least.

should they be allowed to discriminate based on race or gender based upon their "religious beliefs"?

why is this different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 9:30 PM, renoskier said:

should they be allowed to discriminate based on race or gender based upon their "religious beliefs"?

why is this different?

Bob Jones U lost their exemption in the 80s due to the public policy doctrine. The decision really leaves it up to interpretation though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 8:43 AM, SalinasSpartan said:

Then why were you making some dogshit lochneresque argument? 

KrgUaMXHbmtbFXtld88tUWYiJrijNoalnDxaDDw-

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 6:30 PM, renoskier said:

should they be allowed to discriminate based on race or gender based upon their "religious beliefs"?

why is this different?

Which religion discriminates based on race or gender?

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2022 at 3:50 PM, Bob said:

And marriage to animals. Why stop there? If marriage isn't between one man and one woman wtf cares who or what one marries?

Not good enough..... Marriage between man and woman seems to lead to marriage between man and man then man and animal. That is unacceptable. Better outlaw all marriages just to be safe..... Can't let that slope start slipping. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 6:59 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

Which religion discriminates based on race or gender?

Gender? Most of them, my own included. Race? Historically, the track record ain’t great, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 5:49 PM, MetropolitanCowboy said:

Sometimes I wanna get on TV and just let loose
But can't, but it's cool for Tom Green to hump a dead moose
"My bum is on your lips, my bum is on your lips"
And if I'm lucky, you might just give it a little kiss
And that's the message that we deliver to little kids
And expect them not to know what a woman's clitoris is
Of course they're gonna know what intercourse is
By the time they hit fourth grade
They've got the Discovery Channel, don't they?
We ain't nothin' but mammals, well, some of us, cannibals
Who cut other people open like cantaloupes
But if we can hump dead animals and antelopes
Then there's no reason that a man and another man can't elope
But if you feel like I feel, I got the antidote, women wave your panty hose…

I don’t know if you have a future in poetry….

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 9:00 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

Wasn’t asking historically.

Welp, we won’t see a female pope in our lifetime, either. Most major religions are awfully patriarchal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 6:59 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

Which religion discriminates based on race or gender?

:shrug: whatever freaking religion someone claims to be a part of...

are we going to have the "federal clergy committee", who interprets everyone's religion and determines who's claims are "valid"?

oh boy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 10:32 PM, renoskier said:

:shrug: whatever freaking religion someone claims to be a part of...

are we going to have the "federal clergy committee", who interprets everyone's religion and determines who's claims are "valid"?

oh boy

Oh but we do have such a federal clergy. Always have since the constitution was ratified.

689B68E8-E729-4C25-9836-6C7A9081F7A6.webp.cf5d6df3e6afad99f70e0d582f5103cc.webp
But that’s not the point I’ve been getting at. The nay votes are not without their merits. They lost because they don’t have a popular enough coalition but the problem remains. Nobody can answer a single question as to how to get around them without just trashing the first amendment entirely.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 10:24 PM, NVGiant said:

Welp, we won’t see a female pope in our lifetime, either. Most major religions are awfully patriarchal.

That’s only because Mary Kay Letourneau died before finishing her training :rimshot1:

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...