Redfive wrote:Cool, thanks for holding your nose and posting here amongst the unwashed, uneducated masses.
*insert the giant rollyeyes projectile vomiting a million more rollyeyes*
I've got to take my daughters to dance class and figure out another way to keep those pesky minorities from getting a leg up in life. In the mean time FB, please imagine me two inches from your face holding up a copy of today's decision and screaming 'SCOREBOARD!' at the top of my lungs.
Have a great night.
Wow, Luke really changed after that first Death Star run.
I guess. The content of my post above has much less to do with how I feel about the SCOTUS decision itself and much more to do with how I feel about the tone of his posts.
It's usually pretty easy to keep the Dark Side at bay, instead of getting angry--I usually just don't acknowledge the sweeping generalizations about conservatives, Texas, the 'worthless South', etc.
I spoke up today mostly because I posted up thread the other day.
Exodor wrote:Why are we so concerned with solving a voter fraud problem that doesn't actually, you know, exist?
Busloads of dirty immigrants are destroying our way of life. CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!
We have a ton of laws that prevent drunk driving too, but we don't have a ton of drunk drivers all over the place.
And it's illegals we are talking about, plus people inclined to vote multiple times. You can fuck yourself for your insinuation that people in favor of verifying citizenship to vote are racist though.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
How about the outright statement that some of the people that are pushing for voter ID laws are motivated by wanting to make it harder for people to vote for the opposing candidate, which, in certain areas, tends to come with the added baggage that those people are of a different race that is, or has been historically, disadvantaged and marginalized?
Last edited by Isgrimnur on Tue Jun 25, 2013 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
msduncan wrote:This voter suppression bullshit you are hearing out of Fireball and Democrats is just that -- bullshit.
All you have to do to see the depth of the complete ignorance of your claim is to look at Texas voting maps or many other voting maps in the south. They are ridiculous. I agree that some of *BOTH* sides arguments are sometimes over the top but the gerrymandering is plain as day. It is indisputable. And if you follow that up with whose "voice" is minimized by it...you have to wonder why the maps were drawn the way they were.
The Sunday Globe had a great story about gerrymandering using Asheville, NC, as its example. I presume that my link is paywalled.
Asheville has long carried the distinction of being an island of Democratic blue in a sea of Republican red. For six years, the largest city in western North Carolina was represented in the US House by a moderate Democrat who embodied the party’s playbook for the conservative region: a former NFL quarterback named Heath Shuler.
But Shuler decided against seeking reelection last year after the playing field shifted beneath him.
A state Legislature controlled by Republicans redrew his district — splitting liberal Asheville in two and diluting the city’s voting power. Shuler stood little chance of winning another term under the redrawn map.
With his decision to retire, another moderate had been purged from the ranks of Congress. Shuler’s successor is a freshman Tea Party Republican who, during a campaign rally last summer, advocated sending President Obama “home to Kenya or wherever it is.”
This story was part of an ongoing series called "The Broken City", which examines all of the reasons that Congress no longer works.
Despite winning 51 percent of the votes in the 2012 House races, North Carolina Democrats only won four of the state’s 13 House seats, compared with seven before redistricting. Nationally, Democratic contenders for the House won 1.4 million more votes in 2012, but Republicans retained control of the House by a 234 to 201 margin – a historic aberration that some experts say could have only occurred as a result of redistricting. It was only the second time since World War II that one party won more votes while the opposing party won more seats.
Redistricting, which occurs every 10 years after the national census, contributed to the election of many more conservative Republicans and also some liberal Democrats, political scientists say — resulting in fewer competitive seats, wiping out moderates from both parties, and making dealmaking on issues such as the budget, gun control, and even the farm bill all but impossible.
Exodor wrote:Why are we so concerned with solving a voter fraud problem that doesn't actually, you know, exist?
Busloads of dirty immigrants are destroying our way of life. CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!
We have a ton of laws that prevent drunk driving too, but we don't have a ton of drunk drivers all over the place.
And it's illegals we are talking about, plus people inclined to vote multiple times. You can fuck yourself for your insinuation that people in favor of verifying citizenship to vote are racist though.
Now this is the SECOND time that I know of that someone told a forum member in no uncertain terms to fuck off. It was not tolerated then and it CERTAINLY will not be tolerated now. Make your arguments without resorting to this sort of nonsense. If any forum member feels the urge to start telling folks to fuck off then step away a bit. I don't want to be bringing this up again.
"Who's going to tell him that the job he's currently seeking might just be one of those Black jobs?"
-Michelle Obama 2024 Democratic Convention
Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
The answer is simple -- mandatory National Healthcare/Concealed Carry cards for all citizen, non-felons. They would also serve as voter registration/NSA RFID purposes.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in alcohol-related collisions, representing 40% of total traffic deaths in the US. NHTSA states 275,000 were injured in alcohol-related accidents in 2003.[1] The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that in 1996 local law enforcement agencies made 1,467,300 arrests nationwide for driving under the influence of alcohol, 1 out of every 10 arrests for all crimes in the U.S., compared to 1.9 million such arrests during the peak year in 1983, accounting for 1 out of every 80 licensed drivers in the U.S.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "all over the place"
But considering that's about 17,000 times more incidents of drunk driving deaths than confirmed cases of voter fraud (and that's comparing a single year of drunk driving to ~12 years of voting) I think it's safe to say drunk driving is a little bit more common.
So I ask again - why are we so concerned with eliminating something that doesn't really exist?
In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in alcohol-related collisions, representing 40% of total traffic deaths in the US. NHTSA states 275,000 were injured in alcohol-related accidents in 2003.[1] The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that in 1996 local law enforcement agencies made 1,467,300 arrests nationwide for driving under the influence of alcohol, 1 out of every 10 arrests for all crimes in the U.S., compared to 1.9 million such arrests during the peak year in 1983, accounting for 1 out of every 80 licensed drivers in the U.S.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "all over the place"
But considering that's about 17,000 times more incidents of drunk driving deaths than confirmed cases of voter fraud (and that's comparing a single year of drunk driving to ~12 years of voting) I think it's safe to say drunk driving is a little bit more common.
So I ask again - why are we so concerned with eliminating something that doesn't really exist?
Aren't there already laws against voter fraud anyway? We don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the ones we already have. Plus, criminals don't obey laws anyway, or so I'm told
But I hope for your sake, for the sake of justice, and the sake of so many more like you that the SCOTUS rules convincingly in your favor today. I'd rather not see a divided ruling on this.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
Thanks. I'm hopeful about today's decisions. I'll be on the steps of the Supreme Court this morning waiting for them.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
Whoo!! Tax breaks for same sex married couples!! A 5-4 ruling despite the basis on state's right to define marriage and domestic relations. Roberts and Scalia write separate dissents that DOMA was Constitutional and the Court lacked jurisdiction. Roberts expressly wants to limit the decision to DOMA.
Last edited by Zarathud on Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
malchior wrote:I can't wait to read the dissent. I'm sure it'll be chock full of vitriol.
Although I agree with the decision, it's tacky and classless to think this way. We are never going to bridge the widening gap between the two sides when the winner always displays poor sportsmanship, or the loser always rants and raves and accuses the victorious of ill gotten gains.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
I'm disappointed it wasn't an overwhelming decision so it could be put to bed and silence the opposition.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
In addition to having implications for Social Security benefits, child care rights and retirement planning, the high court's ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional might mean a check from Uncle Sam. Couples may be able to amend prior years' tax returns to receive bigger refunds now that their marriages are recognized by the federal government. Income tax filing has been frustrating for many couples, some of whom had to file as many as four separate returns because of the conflicting state and federal rules. And since they were unable to file joint returns, same-sex couples lost out on some of the deductions and credits allowed for heterosexual couples, such as breaks offered to those selling a home and child-related tax credits.
Last edited by LawBeefaroni on Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Scalia is PISSED in his dissent and trolls the majority opinion. He even mortons (aka FTFY) its reasoning.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
Scalia in dissent: "We have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation."
/boggle
Scalia today: "We have no business invalidating a law passed by Congress!"
Scalia yesterday: "We don't care that Congress passed law repeatedly and recently. It's gone."
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
msduncan wrote:Although I agree with the decision, it's tacky and classless to think this way. We are never going to bridge the widening gap between the two sides when the winner always displays poor sportsmanship, or the loser always rants and raves and accuses the victorious of ill gotten gains.
Oh yeah, this guy is totally going to change his thinking and move towards bridging a gap. We should totally strive to not marginalize his viewpoints or ridicule is ridiculousness with our over the top celebrations.
msduncan wrote:Although I agree with the decision, it's tacky and classless to think this way. We are never going to bridge the widening gap between the two sides when the winner always displays poor sportsmanship, or the loser always rants and raves and accuses the victorious of ill gotten gains.
Oh yeah, this guy is totally going to change his thinking and move towards bridging a gap. We should totally strive to not marginalize his viewpoints or ridicule is ridiculousness with our over the top celebrations.
Wow, he really doesn't understand the rulings.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
msduncan wrote:Although I agree with the decision, it's tacky and classless to think this way. We are never going to bridge the widening gap between the two sides when the winner always displays poor sportsmanship, or the loser always rants and raves and accuses the victorious of ill gotten gains.
Oh yeah, this guy is totally going to change his thinking and move towards bridging a gap. We should totally strive to not marginalize his viewpoints or ridicule is ridiculousness with our over the top celebrations.
I really wish it had been more of a decisive ruling so this segment of the population would realize it's a dead issue.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
msduncan wrote:I really wish it had been more of a decisive ruling so this segment of the population would realize it's a dead issue.
It could have been a unanimous decision against DOMA and people would still believe we're now all required to gay marry aardvarks and use the tax credits to fund abortions or some other such ridiculousness.
In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in alcohol-related collisions, representing 40% of total traffic deaths in the US. NHTSA states 275,000 were injured in alcohol-related accidents in 2003.[1] The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that in 1996 local law enforcement agencies made 1,467,300 arrests nationwide for driving under the influence of alcohol, 1 out of every 10 arrests for all crimes in the U.S., compared to 1.9 million such arrests during the peak year in 1983, accounting for 1 out of every 80 licensed drivers in the U.S.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "all over the place"
But considering that's about 17,000 times more incidents of drunk driving deaths than confirmed cases of voter fraud (and that's comparing a single year of drunk driving to ~12 years of voting) I think it's safe to say drunk driving is a little bit more common.
So I ask again - why are we so concerned with eliminating something that doesn't really exist?
People drive every day 24x7x365. Voting is rather rare in comparison.
Rip wrote:Not that voting really means that much anymore as whomever gets elected will be more beholden to contributors than their constituents anyway. Votes don't win elections anymore anyway money and propaganda does.
You have clearly never worked in politics. Your cynical view of what we do is far afield from reality.
Out of curiousity, how does that reconcile with your belief of Citizen's United?
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
msduncan wrote:I really wish it had been more of a decisive ruling so this segment of the population would realize it's a dead issue.
It could have been a unanimous decision against DOMA and people would still believe we're now all required to gay marry aardvarks and use the tax credits to fund abortions or some other such ridiculousness.
The woman outside my office has spent the morning loudly proclaiming to anyone who will listen that this ruling means that the government just "made it illegal to be a traditional family".
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Skinypupy wrote:The woman outside my office has spent the morning loudly proclaiming to anyone who will listen that this ruling means that the government just "made it illegal to be a traditional family".
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
"When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with 'whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter,'" he wrote. "Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it 'demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,' ante, at 23 -- with an accompanying citation of Lawrence.
Smoove_B wrote:I can't believe Scalia actually wrote this:
"When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with 'whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter,'" he wrote. "Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it 'demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,' ante, at 23 -- with an accompanying citation of Lawrence.
(emphasis mine)
Depends what the language of Lawrence is.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
at bay, instead of getting angry--I usually just don't acknowledge the sweeping generalizations about conservatives, Texas, the 'worthless South', etc.
