Justice Kennedy Retires

[Ibanez]

Or immense social issues.

Indeed. Trying to compare today's issues with the desperate reality of late 19th century America is to show a lack of historical understanding of late 19th century America. Given the poor status of history education in America today, though, it's expected that some folks will make that mistake and think to connect the two eras.

Let's not forget where the term came from - Mark Twain. The master of satire.

[kalm]

Sure. My point (and I apologize for not being more succinct) is that our motivation wasn’t profit.

Well, one could argue, if seen as a zero sum game, that our motivation was to a point about profit - any profit that Germany and, to more of an extent for the USA, Japan captured, would be profit that we couldn't obtain or that we were losing. Remember, Japan didn't attack us until we started putting up roadblocks to prevent them from securing more oil to fuel their war effort. We certainly had motivations that went much past profit, but we were also fighting for a world order, that you've railed against by the way, that protects American profits. I think we were far more altruistic with regards to fighting Germany, and certainly a lot that Japan had done in Manchuria in the 30's was enough to take the moral high road against Japan, but to some extent we were concerned about profits.

Fair enough.

Question: should we be looking to privatize the military?

[GannonFan]

Well, one could argue, if seen as a zero sum game, that our motivation was to a point about profit - any profit that Germany and, to more of an extent for the USA, Japan captured, would be profit that we couldn't obtain or that we were losing. Remember, Japan didn't attack us until we started putting up roadblocks to prevent them from securing more oil to fuel their war effort. We certainly had motivations that went much past profit, but we were also fighting for a world order, that you've railed against by the way, that protects American profits. I think we were far more altruistic with regards to fighting Germany, and certainly a lot that Japan had done in Manchuria in the 30's was enough to take the moral high road against Japan, but to some extent we were concerned about profits.

Fair enough.

Question: should we be looking to privatize the military?

Cynically (a little), haven't we already done that to an extent? The amount of private industry that exists solely to provide our government with the weapons and means to wage war is staggering.

[css75]

Telling a state govt to take an action (forcing to recognize gay marriage) vs continuing an inaction (not recognizing) isn’t govt staying out of peoples lives- it is the opposite. It actually increases govt involement.
Decreasing govt involvement would be getting out of the marriage business.
And I didnt see it as discrimination- any man could marry any women & vice versa. States’ rights. If its not a power granted to the fed in the Constitution then it should be left up to the states.

As far as Roe, no reason the states’ shouldnt be able to decide for themselves. States’ rights. If its not a power granted to the fed in the Constitution then it should be left up to the states.

Who do you want deciding on issues that arent mentioned in the constitution- your local stae govt, or politicians in DC?

1) The gov't should be out of the marriage business, 100%. Gay or straight, get out. But since it won't, you need to treat people equally. I've said that for years. Hell, I think marriage licenses should be renewed. There may be an argument for "easier" and quicker divorces if a couple just had to wait for their license to not be renewed (of course there's much more involved - money, assets, children - but it's just a thought.) You also might see couple split up sooner b/c they don't feel locked in.

2) Roe is about access to healthcare. I set my views on abortion aside - this is about access to quality healthcare.

Why shouldn't a woman, facing a difficult decision, have the ability to have a safe and clean procedure? you have to stop thinking that only people with your political/religious perspective have a say in this country. We aren't the United States of Republican Americans or Democratic Americans.

We have to consider the minority - they are still citizens and deserve to be heard, even if they aren't in power.

Just one question about the abortion issue: Does not the child inside the woman get a chance to live or just be slaughtered?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[css75]

The motivation for WWII was profit?

I get what CID is saying and it's correct in a way, but that doesn't mean that profit should (CID must have missed that word while he was typing butthole) be the motivation or that military spending should be privatized or profit driven. But yes, it is.

CID the Bulldog and Ivy the Terrier....

phpBB [video]

Yes, WWII at its root had for-profit causes

And profit isn't the motivation today... credible fear is - you will say it is created by Northrop Grumman, but it is created by the reality that our adversaries are continually trying to outspend us. .... for some strange peaceful reason, I guess

so that sphere of influence politics (China, Russia) can get a leg up on consensus, globalist politics

and now, adjusted for the fact that China's military industrial complex is state owned and state controlled, they spend more on their military combined with Russia than we do

we either play their game and maintain our illusionary edge (illusionary because we lack martial will and they dont) or we dont play their game and they control the sea lanes AND the markets

we maintain military superiority within a capitalist system - it isn't perfect but you offer no viable alternatives other than

McDonnell Douglas = BAD

the alternative is fascism (private ownership, state control) or communism (state ownership, state control)

so which are you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How was the root cause of WWII primarily money? Sure it had a part, but imho Hitler’s dream of the super race (a lot of his ideas came from Margaret Sanger) and total hatred of the Jews and his general craziness and charisma was the primary cause. Also, key to it were the total unreasonable terms of WWI surrender.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

^^^This era will be known as the Second Gilded Age.

Your era will be known as the Gelded Age.....................

[kalm]

Fair enough.

Question: should we be looking to privatize the military?

Cynically (a little), haven't we already done that to an extent? The amount of private industry that exists solely to provide our government with the weapons and means to wage war is staggering.

Indeed. It’s almost as if we wage war just for their profit.

[Ivytalk]

Cynically (a little), haven't we already done that to an extent? The amount of private industry that exists solely to provide our government with the weapons and means to wage war is staggering.

Indeed. It’s almost as if we wage war just for their profit.

Ike Eisenhower was right.

[CAA Flagship]

Indeed. It’s almost as if we wage war just for their profit.

Ike Eisenhower was right.

So was Patton. Should have taken on the Ruskies while we were already mobilized.

[Ivytalk]

Ike Eisenhower was right.

So was Patton. Should have taken on the Ruskies while we were already mobilized.

Patton was foolish about that. Ike properly ignored him. The Russians killed a lot more Nazis than we did, and the Red Army was a potent force in ‘45. Besides, Patton didn’t say anything about the military-industrial complex.

[BDKJMU]

How the **** can a minority have complete control? By definition that isn't possible. John - have you suffered a stroke recently? You aren't making sense.

Read the post and check the data. It is happening. It's not impossible "by definition" at all. The how? I don't know for sure. I do think that historically people who are Republican or lean Republican are more likely to vote.

But it's pretty well established that more people in this country are Democrat or lean Democrat yet the President, the Senate, and the House are all controlled by the Republicans. It is what it is. Also, it's pretty well established that a minority of the people in the country are Republican or lean Republican.

I don't see how you can suggest that a minority can't be in control when we have a President that got 46% of the vote.

And conks control not only the POTUS & both houses of Congress, but about 2/3 of governorships & state houses, and a majority of local offices. There may be more donks than conks in the US, but conks have apparently done a better job with the largest group, independents, and have a better track record of voting, esp in off year elections.

So what. Bill Clinton was elected with 38% of the vote.

[BDKJMU]

There are certain things that should be non profit, like war. We are a mixed economy and a mixed form
of government. Capitalism AND socialism. A democratic republic. We’re both.

The true argument lies only in the matter of degree.

Jefferson struggled with the idea of the Louisiana Purchase fitting with the original intent of government. He wrote the check anyway. Could you imagine if he hadn’t?

Talk about stupid.

War is now and has always been for profit ever since we started sharpening the first pointy sticks. It is the ultimate for profit endeavor

Why don't you say buttholes shouldn't smell bad? Just as pertinent

[BDKJMU]

So how many Democrats senators vote for the nominee? Manchin, Tester, Heitkamp all are up for re-election in Trump states. Will they have to vote for the nominee to try and save their seats?

Like I said in the donk party thread, donks defending 24 of 33 Senate seats up for election, including 10 in states won by Trump, versus conks only defending 1 seat in a state won by Clinton. These donk senators running for relection in deep red states:
-Joe Manchin (Trump won WV 68% to 26%)
-Heidi Heitkamp (Trump won ND 63%-27%).
-Jon Tester (Trump won MT 56%-36%).
-Claire McCaskill (Trump won MO 57%-38%).
-Joe Donnelly (Trump won IN 57%-38%).

[BDKJMU]

Telling a state govt to take an action (forcing to recognize gay marriage) vs continuing an inaction (not recognizing) isn’t govt staying out of peoples lives- it is the opposite. It actually increases govt involement.
Decreasing govt involvement would be getting out of the marriage business.
And I didnt see it as discrimination- any man could marry any women & vice versa. States’ rights. If its not a power granted to the fed in the Constitution then it should be left up to the states.

As far as Roe, no reason the states’ shouldnt be able to decide for themselves. States’ rights. If its not a power granted to the fed in the Constitution then it should be left up to the states.

Who do you want deciding on issues that arent mentioned in the constitution- your local stae govt, or politicians in DC?

1) The gov't should be out of the marriage business, 100%. Gay or straight, get out. But since it won't, you need to treat people equally. I've said that for years. Hell, I think marriage licenses should be renewed. There may be an argument for "easier" and quicker divorces if a couple just had to wait for their license to not be renewed (of course there's much more involved - money, assets, children - but it's just a thought.) You also might see couple split up sooner b/c they don't feel locked in.

2) Roe is about access to healthcare. I set my views on abortion aside - this is about access to quality healthcare.

Why shouldn't a woman, facing a difficult decision, have the ability to have a safe and clean procedure? you have to stop thinking that only people with your political/religious perspective have a say in this country. We aren't the United States of Republican Americans or Democratic Americans.

We have to consider the minority - they are still citizens and deserve to be heard, even if they aren't in power.

Where in the Constitution does it say gays have a right to marry and women have a right to abortion?

Again, as with almost every power thats not expressly granted to the fed govt in Constitution, let the states decide.

[Skjellyfetti]

Again, as with almost every power thats not expressly granted to the fed govt in Constitution, let the states decide.

Wrong.

It's semantics (but Constitutional argument isn't?)- but, an important distinction. They purposefully left out "expressly" to prevent exactly what you describe.

It was in the Articles of Confederation.

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

But, they realized they done fucked up... so rewrote it when in the Constitution.

He extended his motion also, to add the word "expressly," so as to read "the powers not expressly delegated by this Constitution."

Mr. Madison objected to this amendment, because it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the Constitution descended to recount every minutia. He remembered the word "expressly" had been moved in the convention of Virginia, by the opponents to the ratification, and, after full and fair discussion, was given up by them, and the system allowed to retain its present form.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... ndXs6.html

[BDKJMU]

So was Patton. Should have taken on the Ruskies while we were already mobilized.

Patton was foolish about that. Ike properly ignored him. The Russians killed a lot more Nazis than we did, and the Red Army was a potent force in ‘45. Besides, Patton didn’t say anything about the military-industrial complex.

Sure they were potent, but the Soviets had also shot their wad manpower wise by May 1945 in terms of reserves. They were scrapping bottom of the barrel.

[JohnStOnge]

Is this poor soul Dback or Trip?

The left is so **** evil they have made it so I kinda dont care if people are ACTUALLY Nazis. I love where they are right now mentally and I hope a lot of them end the problem for us.

Enjoy it while you can. They will win in the end. And what's going on right now will make them win sooner.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

The left is so **** evil they have made it so I kinda dont care if people are ACTUALLY Nazis. I love where they are right now mentally and I hope a lot of them end the problem for us.

Enjoy it while you can. They will win in the end. And what's going on right now will make them win sooner.

Im not even going to post a response but you will know it when it happens. We will always win

[JohnStOnge]

Enjoy it while you can. They will win in the end. And what's going on right now will make them win sooner.

Im not even going to post a response but you will know it when it happens. We will always win

I think you really know better. The trends are just way too obvious. Even now the only reason Republicans are in power is due to a system that allows for a minority to prevail. But the minority is getting smaller and smaller. The dam will inevitably break.

Now, if the Republicans were doing something to change the sentiment among the demographic groups that are growing it might be different. But they're not. And rallying behind Trump is about the worst thing they could've done if they are interested in long term viability.

[Chizzang]

Im not even going to post a response but you will know it when it happens. We will always win

I think you really know better. The trends are just way too obvious. Even now the only reason Republicans are in power is due to a system that allows for a minority to prevail. But the minority is getting smaller and smaller. The dam will inevitably break.

Now, if the Republicans were doing something to change the sentiment among the demographic groups that are growing it might be different. But they're not. And rallying behind Trump is about the worst thing they could've done if they are interested in long term viability.

Meh...
The Republicans are doing everything they can to gerrymander the boundaries



They know they can't continue losing the popular elections and still get presidents in office

[BDKJMU]

Again, as with almost every power thats not expressly granted to the fed govt in Constitution, let the states decide.

Wrong.

It's semantics (but Constitutional argument isn't?)- but, an important distinction. They purposefully left out "expressly" to prevent exactly what you describe.

It was in the Articles of Confederation.

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

But, they realized they done **** up... so rewrote it when in the Constitution.

He extended his motion also, to add the word "expressly," so as to read "the powers not expressly delegated by this Constitution."

Mr. Madison objected to this amendment, because it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the Constitution descended to recount every minutia. He remembered the word "expressly" had been moved in the convention of Virginia, by the opponents to the ratification, and, after full and fair discussion, was given up by them, and the system allowed to retain its present form.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... ndXs6.html

Even if you remove ‘expressly’ it doesnt change the point that there’s no right to abortion or gay marriage granted by the Constitution..

[Ibanez]

1) The gov't should be out of the marriage business, 100%. Gay or straight, get out. But since it won't, you need to treat people equally. I've said that for years. Hell, I think marriage licenses should be renewed. There may be an argument for "easier" and quicker divorces if a couple just had to wait for their license to not be renewed (of course there's much more involved - money, assets, children - but it's just a thought.) You also might see couple split up sooner b/c they don't feel locked in.

2) Roe is about access to healthcare. I set my views on abortion aside - this is about access to quality healthcare.

Why shouldn't a woman, facing a difficult decision, have the ability to have a safe and clean procedure? you have to stop thinking that only people with your political/religious perspective have a say in this country. We aren't the United States of Republican Americans or Democratic Americans.

We have to consider the minority - they are still citizens and deserve to be heard, even if they aren't in power.

Just one question about the abortion issue: Does not the child inside the woman get a chance to live or just be slaughtered?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Let me ask you a question- are you going to care for the kid once it’s born or just bitch about a woman that keeps getting pregnant? Or what if the woman was raped? What if to save the woman you have to terminate the pregnancy?

I already stated my position here regarding abortion.

I understand the dilemma, but what’s the alternative? Backdoor abortions that endanger the mothers life as well? Not all women getting abortions are sluts that can’t stop fucking. What you see as a living thing, some just see as a collection of cells.

The fetus isn’t viable until 22,23 weeks( approx, I could be off a week or two).

It’s a tight line to walk, I know. I’m anti-abortion personally but I think the overall healthcare of women who don’t share my views shouldnt suffer.



What’s your view of the death penalty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

1) The gov't should be out of the marriage business, 100%. Gay or straight, get out. But since it won't, you need to treat people equally. I've said that for years. Hell, I think marriage licenses should be renewed. There may be an argument for "easier" and quicker divorces if a couple just had to wait for their license to not be renewed (of course there's much more involved - money, assets, children - but it's just a thought.) You also might see couple split up sooner b/c they don't feel locked in.

2) Roe is about access to healthcare. I set my views on abortion aside - this is about access to quality healthcare.

Why shouldn't a woman, facing a difficult decision, have the ability to have a safe and clean procedure? you have to stop thinking that only people with your political/religious perspective have a say in this country. We aren't the United States of Republican Americans or Democratic Americans.

We have to consider the minority - they are still citizens and deserve to be heard, even if they aren't in power.

Where in the Constitution does it say gays have a right to marry and women have a right to abortion?

Again, as with almost every power thats not expressly granted to the fed govt in Constitution, let the states decide.

Where does it give heterosexual couples the right? It doesn’t, yet here we are.
And what’s the harm with two loving adults behind joined together? Is it the Union, gays or the use of the word, “marriage” that bothers you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Yes, WWII at its root had for-profit causes

And profit isn't the motivation today... credible fear is - you will say it is created by Northrop Grumman, but it is created by the reality that our adversaries are continually trying to outspend us. .... for some strange peaceful reason, I guess

so that sphere of influence politics (China, Russia) can get a leg up on consensus, globalist politics

and now, adjusted for the fact that China's military industrial complex is state owned and state controlled, they spend more on their military combined with Russia than we do

we either play their game and maintain our illusionary edge (illusionary because we lack martial will and they dont) or we dont play their game and they control the sea lanes AND the markets

we maintain military superiority within a capitalist system - it isn't perfect but you offer no viable alternatives other than

McDonnell Douglas = BAD

the alternative is fascism (private ownership, state control) or communism (state ownership, state control)

so which are you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How was the root cause of WWII primarily money? Sure it had a part, but imho Hitler’s dream of the super race (a lot of his ideas came from Margaret Sanger) and total hatred of the Jews and his general craziness and charisma was the primary cause. Also, key to it were the total unreasonable terms of WWI surrender.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It was a war for resources as much as domination. Go back and read the history of why Japan and Germany went after certain countries and regions first- it was all about resources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Just one question about the abortion issue: Does not the child inside the woman get a chance to live or just be slaughtered?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Let me ask you a question- are you going to care for the kid once it’s born or just bitch about a woman that keeps getting pregnant? Or what if the woman was raped? What if to save the woman you have to terminate the pregnancy?

I already stated my position here regarding abortion.

I understand the dilemma, but what’s the alternative? Backdoor abortions that endanger the mothers life as well? Not all women getting abortions are sluts that can’t stop ****. What you see as a living thing, some just see as a collection of cells.

The fetus isn’t viable until 22,23 weeks( approx, I could be off a week or two).

It’s a tight line to walk, I know. I’m anti-abortion personally but I think the overall healthcare of women who don’t share my views shouldnt suffer.

What’s your view of the death penalty?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All that is irrlevelant to the question at hand. It is whether or not, per the Constitution, it an issue that should be left up to the states to decide.

I don’t believe it is something based on an originalist reading of the Constitution, judges should be taking away from the states’ rights to decide. Hopefully Roe v Wade will be overturned (decent chance). If it is, it wont all of a sudden make abortion illegal anywhere. Every state will thrm get to make its own abortion laws.

Personally, I would want:
-parental consent. It is a medical operation. Minors have to have parental consent for medical operations.
-no partial birth
-no taxpayer funding

But I want my state deciding, not a bunch of DC politicians and/or judges.