waterfield wrote:

http://www.pressreader.com/usa/los-angeles-times/20160629/281513635463127

Justice Scalia rolling over in his grave as I type this.

Another piece by professor Chemerinsky on the same issue.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-end-of-conservative-supreme-court-20160628-snap-story.html

He’s not rolling over in his grave.

He’s rotating.

The liberals who murdered him put him on a spit, and buried him in a grill.

wv wrote:

waterfield wrote:

I suppose when it comes to politics and religion we all become “dogmatic”. Nevertheless, I genuinely believe that those on the “left” and those on the “right” tend to follow what has been called a process of “group think”. Meaning there is a far greater consensus on political issues than one might find in a group of so called centrists. At it’s worst there can be the “let me know what my group thinks of this so I can be consistent and won’t ruffle the feathers of those I know”. By definition a “moderate” or “centrist” does not have a “group” to measure his views on issues. I suspect when it comes to abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control, etc there is far more divergence among moderates than you would find on the “left” and the “right”, especially as one approaches the polar ends of both these bodies.

As far as “socialism” goes-your right it’s far more complicated than what we give it. Growing up in the 50s words like “communism”, “socialism” were dirty words that few of us knew anything about other than these were the bad guys. Today with globalization we see bits and pieces of socialism everywhere including here in the U.S. The word doesn’t carry with it the stigma it once did-although talking to some of my friends my age you wouldn’t know that.
My problem with it is the ideology not the end game. To me the weakness in the system is in the “planners”. A collectivist planned economy means there must be central planners. And the only way that will work is if there is total commitment to the “plan”. And how does that exactly work in a society of free people. What do you do with the dissenters or those who disagree? Who will choose the planners and what plans take priority when there are competing legitimate interests? Who will make these decisions. And those dissenters cannot get in the way if the system is to work. Would there be debate or would that be looked upon as subversion? Would dissenters be eliminated? (not an entirely shocking expectation) Somewhere I read that collectivism and individualism are political oil and water.

==============

Agreed. Preachin to the choir comrad

w
v

I don’t agree at all, particularly with the first paragraph, but I’m not going to argue it.

Warren is my hope for 2020.

I will tell you what pisses me off about Hillary. She professes to represent me, and she doesn’t. I hate her foreign policy, and most of her domestic positions. Yet she tells me she represents me, and she (and her supporters) often are condescending and patronizing to my beliefs, and she tells me that I “need” to support her.

Trump doesn’t claim to represent me, so while I can’t stand the guy, he hasn’t insulted me and told me to grow up. So that’s why I “personally” dislike Clinton more than Trump. I feel insulted by her, patronized like a child, and taken for granted as a supporter.

And…she is no moderate. She has Neo-Cons supporting her. Neo-Cons. The PNAC people. Those are anti-democracy imperialists. She is philosophically aligned with George W. Bush. And purporting to represent me. It makes steam come out my ears, I will tell you.

I thought it failed because the London Monarchs voted to leave the league.

I’m afraid I see it in terms of what’s going on in the US today, and that worries me. Gary Younge’s take on the vote is informative. He talks about the incompetence of the Remain campaign, and how it was oblivious to the concerns of the people and set itself aside as the smart people who know better than you do, and never made a good case for remaining in the EU.

This is EXACTLY what went through my mind.

Trump is the irrational, racist, fear-mongering bull in the china shop that was supposed to fall aside after every incindiary comment, but never did.

Clinton, meanwhile, “knows better than we do,” she’s experienced, and has no case outside of that to be president.

Trump overcame the establishment and just kept winning. Clinton overcame her opposition by being smart and experienced and nothing else. I don’t see either one of them changing their gameplan.

Well, I would get rid of clips and semi-automatics. I agree with Billy. And I want training and licenses.

zn wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:

SF says they are fine at QB and they wouldn’t have drafted Goff, anyway.

Yeah that’s like me. If someone offered me a million dollars with no catch, I would turn them down. Not everyone wants to be rich. People don’t need to be rich. So I am actually glad that has never happened.

.

.

I hear you.

I’d like to add that I would certainly have no interest in advances from Salma Hayek, or the Modern Family babe. Who needs that?

nittany ram wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:

Is Jared Goff as ready to start as Russell Wilson was as a rookie?

The “NFL Total Access” crew compares Los Angeles Rams rookie quarterback Jared Goff and Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson. Is Goff as ready to start as a rookie as Wilson was?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap3000000670630/Goff-as-ready-to-start-as-Wilson-was-as-a-rookie

One of the guys says Goff is struggling? I haven’t heard that. I’m sure Goff is making rookie mistakes but from what I’ve read he’s about where you would expect a rookie to be thus far in his development. Struggling implies he’s doing worse than expected and I haven’t heard that from anyone.

Oh, you know, somebody researching the story (cuz they didn’t have anybody covering the OTAs themselves; they just read other people’s reports)…some intern guy read that Goff threw 5 interceptions the last day of practice, and voila. Goff is struggling.

Drought, you know. Brown is the new green in California.

This.

This is why I don’t allow argument papers on this topic.

It isn’t an actual argument that respects the rules of logic and rational argumentation as laid out by Aristotle. It is a religious argument with underlying realities that do not correspond. It isn’t an “argument.” It is a declaration of religious allegiance.

Okay. I can’t resist. This is the conversation that is happening, so here is my bit.

Arms are already restricted. Citizens cannot have anti-aircraft guns, right?

There are already lines drawn. So there is no debating that. There is only the debate about WHERE that line is drawn. I don’t have any affection for guns. I don’t really get the attraction myself, and if I could just push a button and be done with it, I’d just get rid of ownership of guns altogether because a gun’s purpose is to kill, and I just don’t really consider killing a recreational activity, and I don’t think guns are actually used for self-defense anywhere near as much as gun advocates would have us believe. That’s how I “feel” about guns.

But, having said that, I don’t “advocate” banning gun ownership anymore (I did 30 years ago) because I can sort of empathize with the “thrill of the hunt,” and I can’t see a moral distinction between hunting down a deer and a livestock slaughterhouse, and I like pepperoni. I also understand that there are some kind of legitimate issues surrounding population control of wild animals though I don’t know much about that. Handguns creep me out, but I’m content to live with you all owning them because I know I am not likely to be affected personally by those guns. You are much more likely to be affected by those guns – negatively, btw – but you are an adult, and you can run that risk if you want, and expose your family to that risk, I guess. I don’t think it is wise, but I don’t think it’s wise to get drunk and have unprotected sex with a stranger either, but go for it if you want.

Now I don’t know anything about guns to speak of. I don’t know what the exact classifications are, or anything really. But I haven’t heard any argument justifying citizen possession of AR-15s, and guns like that. They are bad news, and it amazes me they are legal. I would get rid of those in a second, and I would probably draw the line at clips bigger than 6 rounds or so.

And for the love of god – this I don’t understand – I would have a process for this. I mean we all have to take an education course and pass a test, then get trained and practice for months of driving before we get a license to drive a car. Why on earth do we not do that for the possession of a lethal device? I would mandate education on the care, use, storage, etc. of guns by a certified instructor, and require a written test. Then I would have training in a firing range and a test of a person’s ability to properly handle the weapon before granting a license for that gun. And I would require licenses for different categories of guns the same way there are different licenses for cars, motorcycles, big rigs, and so on. I seriously can’t believe anybody can walk into a Wal-mart and buy a gun. That is so completely ridiculous it boggles my mind.

You get a background check. You get educated. You get trained. You get a license. You go buy a gun.

So let it be written; so let it be done.