|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 15, 2016 17:20:03 GMT -5
Jeff, your comments in the last two posts are good examples of how after years of talking to you and others here, I never understood the reasoning behind the CU ruling. Then I watched two minutes of an interview with Scalia and understood it perfectly.
I’m starting to think you guys aren’t really conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 15, 2016 17:20:54 GMT -5
"Freedom of the press" means nothing if the government gets to decide who is "the press". ![](http://img12.deviantart.net/7416/i/2006/238/1/9/press__press__pull_by_johnflaherty.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Feb 15, 2016 17:22:55 GMT -5
Back to the speech thing you were talking about somewhere earlier. It's fine for Jeff (example) to communicate with you (example) here to try to get you to vote for those things that are the best interest of .......... I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. That it’s okay for Jeff to try to persuade me on the Soundhole to vote for the guy who will make us all buy more binders? I’m okay with that. That it’s okay for Jeff to use every legal method at his disposal to advocate for his business, including running political ads? From a constitutional/ free speech standpoint, I’m okay with that too. That Jeff’s extreme wealth (generated not by his binder business, but by his huge dick), should be used to corrupt the democratic process? That I object to. Note that the last two are the same thing, but looked at from a different perspective. I like that, Jim. But aren't 1 and 2/3 the same thing just a difference in scale. And does scale make a difference in how you see them? I think scale does make a difference. I know how to fix that but it's a different thread. But I don't know how you draw line on the scale that isn't arbitrary under any current system. And arbitrary I object to. (I don't think that's good grammar either when you used it or when I used it. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) )
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Feb 15, 2016 17:23:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 15, 2016 17:32:15 GMT -5
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. That it’s okay for Jeff to try to persuade me on the Soundhole to vote for the guy who will make us all buy more binders? I’m okay with that. That it’s okay for Jeff to use every legal method at his disposal to advocate for his business, including running political ads? From a constitutional/ free speech standpoint, I’m okay with that too. That Jeff’s extreme wealth (generated not by his binder business, but by his huge dick), should be used to corrupt the democratic process? That I object to. Note that the last two are the same thing, but looked at from a different perspective. I like that, Jim. But aren't 1 and 2/3 the same thing just a difference in scale. And does scale make a difference in how you see them? I think scale does make a difference. I know how to fix that but it's a different thread. But I don't know how you draw line on the scale that isn't arbitrary under any current system. And arbitrary I object to. (I don't think that's good grammar either when you used it or when I used it. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) ) Not really. The first one doesn’t cost anything. We are all equal. We can speak up as much or as little as we please. Nobody has an advantage. But when you introduce money into the equation, the rich, the corporations, the unions, and other monied interests are able to operate on a scale that none of us could hope to even dabble in. It is inherently unfair, and can result in a government that caters to their money sources rather than the people as a whole. And again, as a free speech issue, everything and anything goes. Just because somebody’s rich doesn’t mean that he or she shouldn’t be able to advocate for themselves using every means at their disposal. To deny them that right in the name of equity, you’d have to ban newspapers, unions, churches, charities, faux charities, and every other organization the right to speak up.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 15, 2016 17:35:54 GMT -5
I’m starting to think you guys aren’t really conservatives. It is a category error to describe Scalia as "conservative".
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Feb 15, 2016 17:36:24 GMT -5
Every one has some money. And some people have an advantage. You have an advantage over someone who doesn't have a computer. So isn't it just a matter of scale. For it not to cost anything it would have to include only speaking face to face with someone.
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 15, 2016 17:36:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 15, 2016 17:39:35 GMT -5
I’m starting to think you guys aren’t really conservatives. It is a category error to describe Scalia as "conservative". Because he made sense?
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 15, 2016 17:41:05 GMT -5
Every one has some money. And some people have an advantage. You have an advantage over someone who doesn't have a computer. So isn't it just a matter of scale. For it not to cost anything it would have to include only speaking face to face with someone. If you like. I think it’s a stretch, but if you want to consider computers as an entry fee, then I’ll agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Feb 15, 2016 17:44:44 GMT -5
It is a category error to describe Scalia as "conservative". Because he made sense? In his words he was an originalist. He would be the first one to say that Obama should nominate someone because that's what the constitution says. And because the constitution does say anything about how the senate should go about "advise and consent" it's up to the senate to work that out.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 15, 2016 17:54:16 GMT -5
In his words he was an originalist. He would be the first one to say that Obama should nominate someone because that's what the constitution says. And because the constitution does say anything about how the senate should go about "advise and consent" it's up to the senate to work that out. There has been more Scalia talk over the last few days than there was in the whole 30 years he sat on the bench. From what I gather, he was respected not so much for his conservative views, although many on the right liked him for that alone, but because he adhered to what he thought was the original intent of the constitution. And he readily admitted that doing so sometimes produced stupid results, like forcing an eleven year old girl who was sexually assaulted to face her attacker in court rather than confronting him on videotape. It’s hard to dislike someone like that.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Feb 15, 2016 18:17:30 GMT -5
You'll never see a Democrat here refer to Schumer's statement. You won't see it on network news either. Took a little digging to find it but it's a dead wringer for Mcconnell's point of view. Schumer replaces Reid next year so they may as well be in the same position. Just proves it's not a Republican issue. The Democrats do the same in this circumstance. That's not a good reason, just a fact.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Feb 15, 2016 18:20:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Feb 15, 2016 18:40:21 GMT -5
You'll never see a Democrat here refer to Schumer's statement. You won't see it on network news either. Took a little digging to find it but it's a dead wringer for Mcconnell's point of view. Schumer replaces Reid next year so they may as well be in the same position. Just proves it's not a Republican issue. The Democrats do the same in this circumstance. That's not a good reason, just a fact. Odd, I could swear I heard about it yesterday somewhere other than here. Maybe I only dreamed it--I sleep with the radio on. Oh, and the CBS website ran this today: www.cbsnews.com/news/what-mitch-mcconnell-and-chuck-schumer-used-to-say-about-judicial-nominees/
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 15, 2016 18:45:24 GMT -5
If you're looking for high-minded, strict adherence to principle, consequences be damned, you'll have to ask the dead guy.
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 15, 2016 18:45:49 GMT -5
Dead wringer. ![http://www.roycroftauctions.com/files/cache/e067eab6ab7be7b4ca45b59a49891af1_f4960.jpg](http://www.roycroftauctions.com/files/cache/e067eab6ab7be7b4ca45b59a49891af1_f4960.jpg)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 19:09:29 GMT -5
None, and nor should any.
I'd have no problem if that's how it actually worked. My issue is with a corporation, or anyone else, giving money directly to the public servants. There is quid pro quo implicit in the exchange, and I don't like that.
There is a difference between an entity giving money to a public servant and a newspaper endorsing the same. Words are not money, and money is not "speech."
That's just the way I look at it, and my vision is colored by all sorts of baggage.
Getting back to the original post, I figured the moment I heard Scalia died it would happen, but I reckon I'm not overly fond of folks dancing on the guy's grave in the netosphere. He gave the vast majority of his adult life to providing service the public.
Here we have Justice Ginsburg saying Scalia was her "best buddy" and there we see a raft full of butt nuggets posting they are glad he is dead. One an example of class, and the other not. Fooey. I hope they wake up with crabs.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Feb 15, 2016 19:17:14 GMT -5
You'll never see a Democrat here refer to Schumer's statement. You won't see it on network news either. Took a little digging to find it but it's a dead wringer for Mcconnell's point of view. Schumer replaces Reid next year so they may as well be in the same position. Just proves it's not a Republican issue. The Democrats do the same in this circumstance. That's not a good reason, just a fact. Odd, I could swear I heard about it yesterday somewhere other than here. Maybe I only dreamed it--I sleep with the radio on. Oh, and the CBS website ran this today: www.cbsnews.com/news/what-mitch-mcconnell-and-chuck-schumer-used-to-say-about-judicial-nominees/I just heard it on FOX tonight too. Fox may dwell on it but I doubt the others will. In any case it should kill the argument's value as a partisan issue.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Feb 15, 2016 19:21:28 GMT -5
|
|