Octopus Overlords

Exodor wrote:

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.

malchior wrote:

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!

noxiousdog wrote:

malchior wrote:

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.

Gerrymandering isn't just a south issue.

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.”

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.

msduncan wrote:

malchior wrote:

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.

msduncan wrote:

Exodor wrote:Why are we so concerned with solving a voter fraud problem that doesn't actually, you know, exist?

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.

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.

Exodor wrote:

msduncan wrote:

Exodor wrote:Why are we so concerned with solving a voter fraud problem that doesn't actually, you know, exist?

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.

Really?

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?

AWS260 wrote:DOMA is struck down, according to SCOTUSblog.

malchior wrote:I can't wait to read the dissent. I'm sure it'll be chock full of vitriol.

Scalia in dissent: "We have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation."

malchior wrote:I can't wait to read the dissent. I'm sure it'll be chock full of vitriol.

Zarathud wrote:Whoo!! Tax breaks for same sex married couples!!

Same-sex couples: Celebrate, then call a CPA

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.

Scalia in dissent: "We have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation."

Fretmute wrote:

Scalia in dissent: "We have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation."

/boggle

Fretmute wrote:

Scalia in dissent: "We have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation."

/boggle

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.

Smoove_B wrote:

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.

Smoove_B wrote:

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.

Fireball1244 wrote:

Fretmute wrote:

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."

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.

Exodor wrote:

msduncan wrote:

Exodor wrote:Why are we so concerned with solving a voter fraud problem that doesn't actually, you know, exist?

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.

Really?

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?

Fireball1244 wrote:

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.

stessier wrote:So Prop 8 was also struck down 5-4 because there was no standing to appeal, right?

Smoove_B wrote:

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.

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".

"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)