-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
who are you
Someone might have just given away their alt account...
Oh snap. Was wondering why Jack was banned...?
benjipwns
Banned
I think C4Lukins is a conservative, or leans that way, I've seen him in a few political threads before. Had a negative take on Obama that lined up with conservative views on whatever issue.
He might have been responding to the earlier discussion about getting more conservatives in this thread?
He might have been responding to the earlier discussion about getting more conservatives in this thread?
The alt would have been banned as well, he got the hit for something else. A mod probably thought he was getting too heated and decided to give him a time out.
I don't get the colonial empire bit. Is he saying Obama thinks we're a colonial empire where other whiter presidents didn't? Weirdly worded.
benjipwns
Banned
I think it's supposed to be "head" not "hand" and this is a rehash of the old conservative argument that "liberals" feel ashamed of America doing good in the world and fighting evil and see it as a evil imperialist that needs to be brought down as Marx demanded. And Rudy is saying that he didn't get the feeling that Bush or Clinton or even Carter felt that way, that they knew and believed in America's god-given mission. While Obama hates it and wants to punish it for its non-existent crimes.
Not necessarily because he's black but because he's been steeped in the Marxism of academia and Europe that constantly indoctrinates people to believe America is an evil empire. Probably by Bill Ayers.
Not necessarily because he's black but because he's been steeped in the Marxism of academia and Europe that constantly indoctrinates people to believe America is an evil empire. Probably by Bill Ayers.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/south-dakota-state-rep-planned-parenthood-is-worse-than-isis/
It's too late/early for a snarky comment. So just point and laugh.
Yeah the black part was only my own quip wasn't trying to look into his purpose there. The sentence was kinda hard to parse though. I guess we need to bust some Iranian skulls to fix all this.
benjipwns
Banned
It doesn't necessarily have to be Iranians, just as long as they're brown we should be good.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152700998&postcount=9659
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's a pretty blatant case of media propaganda, reminiscent of the breathless coverage Iraq/Saddam received leading up to that war. It's clear the war drums are being beaten. Over a group of fanatics that poses no threat to our country, and could not withstand a decisive attack from a decent military. There are plenty of such forces in the Middle East; perhaps they should do something.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I haven't suggested otherwise.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
MO Secretary of State Jason Kander has announced he's running for senate in 2016 to challenge Roy Blunt.
Kander barely won his race in 2012 but I think he has the profile of a credible challenger. Young, war veteran, etc.
Blunt machine is strong though
Kander barely won his race in 2012 but I think he has the profile of a credible challenger. Young, war veteran, etc.
Blunt machine is strong though
RustyNails
Member
This is my stance as well. The scaremongering by media is reminiscent of mushroom cloud hysteria from 2003, especially the part about ISIS sympathizers coming back to US.
It's middle east's war, despite our gargantuan fuck up. The most we should do is provide intelligence and air support.
If Bush wins, you can expect a ground war before he has a chance to put an ass dent in his chair in the oval office.
I've seen it too. It feels like all the media channels are just yip yipping the war drum.
I'm generally anti-war, as a disclaimer, and I swear to god they use the dramatic phrasing on each channel/outlet. Stop riling people up for the sake of ratings, media, you're going to get our soldiers killed to win sweeps.
I'm generally anti-war, as a disclaimer, and I swear to god they use the dramatic phrasing on each channel/outlet. Stop riling people up for the sake of ratings, media, you're going to get our soldiers killed to win sweeps.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Indeed.
I will admit that it's possible a small scale attack could happen here, but that has always been the case and always will be. It's not hard to grab a gun and shoot up a restaurant or grocery store. And my fear is that something like that could happen and tip us into a large scale conflict and ruin Obama's presidency ("he wasn't focused on terror, now it's at our doorstep").
Poodlestrike
Banned
I'm going to say something unpopular: I think we should play a large part in fighting ISIS. Not just because their rise is... largely our fault, and certainly not because they're some sort of threat to us (they're not), but because we have the power to stop them, so we should.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Seeing as he's already putting together a crew that consists of mostly the same people as his brother, I don't know how anyone would expect anything different.
Coriolanus
Banned
Didn't Bams ask for congressional approval against Daesh? What happened to that?
Yes, but Republicans didn't think it was severe enough or something.
EDIT: actually, they are sitting on it for the moment, deciding if they are going to debate it.
What is the most effective way of doing that? I think the coalition with our air support is the best method because it doesn't allow them to conveniently label the situation as a U.S. war on Islam and legitimize their Islamic State.
Sounds like they're going to try and sit on it until Daesh does something big against an American target overseas, and then say "WHERE WAS THE MILITARY ACTION WE TOLD YOU SO."
There's no incentive for them to pass it. It's basically a formal request to keep doing what we're already doing, which they've loudly and publicly rejected as the wrong strategy (even though it's clearly had an effect on the ground). They want a war authorization that includes triggers or conditions for a ground invasion, not one that explicitly prohibits one.
This is how most ISIS fighters are leaving Kobani thanks to US airstrikes,
Poodlestrike
Banned
Of course we shouldn't go in full cowboy, Iraq/Afghanistan style. But I don't think that we should necessarily be ruling out an increased US presence alongside the other members of the coalition.
cooljeanius
Member
Is any of PoliGaf paying attention to the West Coast Port strike thread over on gaming-side? Good to see that people seem to be slightly more respectful of unions here on GAF than other places that I've seen this story reported...
Poodlestrike
Banned
NPR did a bit on it earlier. Was pretty good. The arbitrators being the sticking point is interesting.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't think he'll win but it's nice to have a credible challenger in every race we can. I also wouldn't count his 2012 near-loss against him - it was an open seat in a state that went heavily for Romney. Not everyone can run against Todd Akin.
Nasty surprise for Scott Walker, when the national media starts reporting on his Wisconsin antics the kids' gloves come off (to an extent).
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
A few items of interest:
(1) The challengers' reply brief in King has been filed. I especially liked the following two paragraphs:
This is the same point I made in my response to eBay Huckster:
(2) White House Struggles on Immigration Ruling:
This apparent lack of preparation is a bit surprising, according to Prof. Josh Blackman:
(3) National Review's Ed Whelan calls on Justice Ginsburg to recuse herself from the same-sex marriage case:
In a follow-up post, he writes:
(4) Southern Tier towns looking to cut NY ties:
(1) The challengers' reply brief in King has been filed. I especially liked the following two paragraphs:
Reply Brief said:
This is the same point I made in my response to eBay Huckster:
(2) White House Struggles on Immigration Ruling:
NYTimes said:
This apparent lack of preparation is a bit surprising, according to Prof. Josh Blackman:
Josh Blackman said:
(3) National Review's Ed Whelan calls on Justice Ginsburg to recuse herself from the same-sex marriage case:
Ed Whelan said:At her Supreme Court confirmation hearing in 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly explained that the judicial obligation of impartiality required that she give no hints, no forecasts, no previews about how she might vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. As she declared in her opening statement:
RBG said:
...
Ginsburgs public comments provide ample reason to question her impartiality. Indeed, its no surprise (but still appalling) that the Human Rights Campaign is using Ginsburgs comments to solicit signatures for the amicus brief that it will be submitting to the Court in the pending marriage cases:
...
We will soon see whether Justice Ginsburg is intellectually honest enough to know that [she] slipped and to recuse herself from the pending marriage cases.
In a follow-up post, he writes:
Ed Whelan said:
(4) Southern Tier towns looking to cut NY ties:
RustyNails
Member
Actually they will bomb Iran before ISIS. Republicans must be kept as far away from the red button as possible.
I'm really hoping Obama can strike a deal with Iran and forever remove that possibility from the table for any president in future. GOP uses Iran as a football to see how far the candidates can kick it in every election. Of course you also have shitstains like democratic senator Menendez.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
It's not the entire basis, but--and this shouldn't surprise you--it turns out that words have meanings, and different words mean different things.
Is it really an opinion as much as it's stating a fact? "People have come out, and thus more people have accepted marriage equality" is the crux of what she stated. Any pollster could tell you that, regardless of their position on the issue.
Of course it is, what did you expect? Their case doesn't exactly lend itself to a bevy of novel arguments. Every single facet of their argument goes back to simple grammatical (not legal) construction. They don't bother explaining how Congress intended the overall statutory scheme to accomplish it's goals without the subsidies in question, or how federal exchanges without subsidies make any sense at all, because that would require critical thought and a real nuanced view. Lacking that, it focuses on things it's supporters can easily comprehend, like meanings of 3-4 letter words.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I understand you disagree, but there is no substantial difference to me in its meaning and its application. At best, it's slightly obtuse, which means that we should err on the side of what the government/IRS says that it intended, along with the intention by Congress when it was passed -- something that has been well documented.
(Still reading), but so far, I find this reply brief -- to use their words -- laughably unpersuasive in its attempt to use logical hoops to constrict words and meaning to say that the law does something completely different than what is written. Not to mention have an application that is completely different than the authors of the law intended.
And those 3-4 letter words, by themselves, don't even lend themselves to their own arguments.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Will Hispanic support for democrats collapse in light of the administration's lack of preparation for challenges to the deportation executive action? This could doom Hillary.
RustyNails
Member
I highly doubt the administration went with the order without realizing that a challenge is inevitable.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Yeah, I don't think Whelan's right. Ginsburg's comments don't really have to do with the merits of the question, but with how society might react to a ruling striking down same-sex marriage bans. Contrast that with Scalia's recusal in the pledge-of-allegiance case a few years ago, wherein Scalia (according to Slate) suggested the 9th Circuit opinion was wrong. Those are quite different sorts of statements.
On the other hand, the HRC's use of Ginsburg's statement to drum up support for its "People's Brief" is clearly untoward. But that can't really be pinned on Ginsburg.
Out of curiosity, what is this distinction you're drawing between grammatical and legal construction? What would be an argument based on legal but not grammatical construction? I suspect your complaint is that the challengers are unwilling to make a policy argument, but I'd like for you to clarify before I respond to that notion.
Of course they do. You later even quote the portion of their brief addressing just this question, though missing its significance. They write:
Reply Brief said:
Stated differently, the King challengers argue that the lack of credits on FFEs was to serve as an inducement to states to take on the task of establishing their own Exchange. Elsewhere, the challengers point out that this reading makes the most sense of 1311's use of the mandatory "shall" when discussing states establishing Exchanges:
Reply Brief said:
You and I have discussed this already, but it has been awhile, and you've probably slept since then. If you don't feel like a stroll down Memory Lane, though, here's the King challengers saying much the same as I said:
Reply Brief said:
What do you mean in distinguishing between "meaning" and "application"? And where do you see the challengers using "logical hoops to constrict words and meaning to say that the law does something completely different than what is written"? I think the challengers' argument is the only one that permits the law to operate precisely as written, so I'm curious what leads you to disagree.
Coriolanus
Banned
"Hey guys, the democrats botched immigration reform. Let us vote for the other party, cuz those guys harbor a well-known love for immigrants."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked