Politics' Official Eighteenth Thread

[Malcador]

Did they ever say what was on the cake ?

 

At least one amusing thing from is Trump's moron son proving he fails at ****posting

 

 

 

Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, reacted to the decision by mocking media coverage that described it as narrow. He tweeted: “I am reading about a 7 - 2 vote. Pretty sure that’s not narrowly... At least 2 dem leaning justices must have agreed.” But critics on Twitter quickly upbraided him, pointing out that it was the legal decision that was “narrow”, not the vote among the justices.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Malcador

[Bartimaeus]

*Picard face*

Edited June 4, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[smjjames]

@malcador: I don't think the cake itself was ever described, not as far as I know. Maybe in the case documents?

[Malcador]

@malcador: I don't think the cake itself was ever described, not as far as I know. Maybe in the case documents?

Will have to dig a bit when I have time/not busy listening to 90's rap at work. I guess it doesn't matter so much w.r.t the legal view, would be odd for a man to be offended by "Happy Marriage Adam & Steve", at least to me.

[Amentep]

Pretty sure that the story is they never got so far as to discuss what kind of design it'd be; the baker took the gentlemen to his book of samples and when they told him what it was for he said he couldn't make it, that he'd sell them anything else in the store but for religious reasons he couldn't accept a commission to bake a wedding cake for them.

[Guard Dog]

The article (and the SCOTUS statement) also makes note of the fact that the commission was pretty hostile towards the baker, which infuriated Justice Kennedy.

 

I can see a religious painter making their own choice (as opposed to a commission) to make a painting of the devil sodomizing the virgin mary to be satirical or make some kind of point because, well, art.

Yeah, they went in there looking to provoke that exact firestorm that happened. That was pretty clear.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

As you my melancholic assessment: "When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed"

 

Classy.

 

Do you think any of that is wrong?

 

 

 

I just think it's funny in light of an article I recently read, which argues that the ultimate goal of the same special interest groups who uphold Rand as an inspirational figure are also very keen on the Virginia school of economic thought, whose endgame - according to the article's author - is to create the exact situation described in the bolded part of the quote.

 

(Not that I trust any article from a random source - if you happen to know more about Buchanan's work and disagree with his characterization by the author, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.)

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

As you my melancholic assessment: "When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed"

 

Classy.

 

Do you think any of that is wrong?

 

 

 

I just think it's funny in light of an article I recently read, which argues that the ultimate goal of the same special interest groups who uphold Rand as an inspirational figure are also very keen on the Virginia school of economic thought, whose endgame - according to the article's author - is to create the exact situation described in the bolded part of the quote.

 

(Not that I trust any article from a random source - if you happen to know more about Buchanan's work and disagree with his characterization by the author, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.)

 

Concerning Rand I've said this before:https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63443-americans-renouncing-citizenship-to-become-british-over-taxes/page-4?do=findComment&comment=1314174

Read posts 62, 66, and 73.

 

Yes I still quote her. The funny thing about philosophy is you can take or leave as much of it as you like. It's ok to think someone was right about some things without buying into them on everything.

 

Now that article looks pretty interesting. I only skimmed it and it's not something I'd want to comment on until I really read it. I'll get back to you later on that one.

[smjjames]

A pregnant sentenced to death for crossing EU border

 

Ok, this is wierd. Come to EU illegally you will get money, leave EU illegally and get killed.

Fascist!

 

Did you deliberately leave out the word cow in your post?

 

Rest of your post aside (which sounds borderline baity, at least in the context of not having the word cow in the sentence) and the source being somewhat sensationalist, it is weird. The cow was returned to it's owner and theres no indication that the cow came into contact with other livestock and the cow transported itself. If you want to go by a more bizarre definition of transport, they could have just aborted the calf and then killed the calf because the cow was 'transporting' the calf.

 

So, yeah, it comes off as completely nonsensical to me and putting the cow down seems drastic as they could have put it in quarrantine (still nonsensical in this case, but at least the farmer doesn't lose a valuable cow) for a while, if it was healthy, fine, no harm done, if it's sick, then treat it.

Edited June 4, 2018 by smjjames

[aluminiumtrioxid]

A pregnant sentenced to death for crossing EU border

 

Ok, this is wierd. Come to EU illegally you will get money, leave EU illegally and get killed.

Fascist!

 

[smjjames]

I couldn't decide whether sharp_one was intentionally being baity or was using sarcasm in the context of the cow but accidentially left out the word 'cow' in the link.

 

edit: Can he even edit his posts while on probation?

Edited June 4, 2018 by smjjames

[Amentep]

 

A pregnant sentenced to death for crossing EU border

 

Ok, this is wierd. Come to EU illegally you will get money, leave EU illegally and get killed.

Fascist!

 

 

 

[Malcador]

Seems like something that should be on ESPN

[smjjames]

Heh amentep. In the context of the cow, he does come off as being sarcastic, just not sure if he intentionally left out the word cow in the link.

 

Also, I can't help but wonder if theres some Balkan thing going on between Bulgaria and Serbia, had to scan the article a few times to be sure it really was some EU law strangeness and not something between the two countries.

[HoonDing]

Thanx for reminding me Bulgaria is EU

[smjjames]

 

I find amusing how so many still don't understand that Trump is really different from everything that came before. Just his attitude towards trade, for instance, has clear potential to tank the country's economy in a way that would make the sub prime crisis look like a walk in the park.

Just an FYI on trade, the President does NOT have the constitutional power to impose tariffs. Congress does. The power to do that was given to the Executive by Congress with two laws. One during WWI that allowed the President to use tariffs as a incentive to nations doing business with an enemy of the US during war with that enemy. Then in 1977 another law was passed that extended that privileged to peace time to respond to a "national emergency".

 

Since the President only has that ability at the sufferance of the Congress the Congress can take it back at any time. Small chance of that happening however. Right now it's controlled by Republicans who won't screw their own President (probably). But even if the Democrats take over they won't because someday a Democrat will be President. Maybe even one of them. And they will want that power.

 

For me this is an object lesson in giving the President, or any part of any government a power they should not have. Someday a man like Trump was going to get elected. It was inevitable.

 

 

Spotted in an article (from last year) that what I was thinking of is the part of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 called Section 232. Is that what you meant to refer to? Just wondering if we were talking about the same thing since it sounded like you were talking about the usage of 'national security' as an excuse.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

As you my melancholic assessment: "When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed"

 

Classy.

 

Do you think any of that is wrong?

 

 

 

I just think it's funny in light of an article I recently read, which argues that the ultimate goal of the same special interest groups who uphold Rand as an inspirational figure are also very keen on the Virginia school of economic thought, whose endgame - according to the article's author - is to create the exact situation described in the bolded part of the quote.

 

(Not that I trust any article from a random source - if you happen to know more about Buchanan's work and disagree with his characterization by the author, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.)

 

I had never heard of Buchanan prior to this article. I'll see if the library has any of his books. I'd rather read the mans own words before commenting too much on him. It's obvious the articles author Lynn Parramor  is not out to inform but rather persuade so she will frame any quotes in a context that enables her to do that. I'll give Nancy Mclean's book a look as well. She was the article's primary source. Now as for the quotes in the context they were presented:

 

 

Buchanan, in contrast, insisted that people were primarily driven by venal self-interest. Crediting people with altruism or a desire to serve others was “romantic” fantasy: politicians and government workers were out for themselves, and so, for that matter, were teachers, doctors, and civil rights activists.  They wanted to control others and wrest away their resources: “Each person seeks mastery over a world of slaves,”

 

I don't entirely disagree with this. The very reason I argue that a government's power MUST be limited is because it is comprised entirely of the same selfish, narcissistic, greedy,  and self interested people that left ascribes to "business" people, or "capitalists" of the "rich" (imagine a sneer when you read those words). The difference is they have police powers. They can actually take things away from you. The richest man in the world could not take a single dollar from me that I didn't freely give him. The government if Tipton county right here in my home state, not 20 miles from me can take all of it. They can take my home, all my money and even kill me. So if the most powerful corporation wants my home and I won't sell they go to the government and offer the politicians donations and oh by the way, we really would like to develop this real estate. Next thing you know I lose everything and there is little I can do about it. Who is the bad guy here? The answer is always the one with a gun saying "give me what I want or else" That is what Rand was talking about.

 

 

In 1965 the economist launched a center dedicated to his theories at the University of Virginia, which later relocated to George Mason University. MacLean describes how he trained thinkers to push back against the Brown v. Board of Education decision to desegregate America’s public schools and to challenge the constitutional perspectives and federal policy that enabled it. She notes that he took care to use economic and political precepts, rather than overtly racial arguments, to make his case, which nonetheless gave cover to racists who knew that spelling out their prejudices would alienate the country.

All the while, a ghost hovered in the background — that of John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, senator and seventh vice president of the United States.

 

Notice how she does not actually quote Buchanan here? Just an opinion of a source who wrote a book with nothing to back it up. That of course does not mean the assertion isn't true. But this article is not about informing, it's about discrediting someone with a contrary view. Also notice how she invokes  John Calhoun who was not an economist, not in any way connected to Buchanan and who died 70 years before Buchanan was even born. It would have been no less ludicrous to compare him to Hitler. At least they were from the same century. Like I said, it does not mean she is wrong about Buchanan. But it pretty much ruins her credibility. 

 

Otherwise I agree with her that having a government that does favors for the "rich" is a fast track to oligarchy. But there IS no other kind of government. They all do it because to a man and woman they are venal, selfish, and exactly the kind of people they say they want to protect us all from. Only THEY have guns. By protecting ourselves from the government we are also protecting ourselves from the "evil rich".

 

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

Edited June 5, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Katphood]

Funny how Javad Zarif has a YouTube channel, yet his own people are prohibited from using YouTube.

 

How can I get your godsent messages when I can't even watch a 5 minute video on YouTube? Our government is rotten to the core. But hey, it's not our government anymore, it's China's backyard.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

The very reason I argue that a government's power MUST be limited is because it is comprised entirely of the same selfish, narcissistic, greedy,  and self interested people that left ascribes to "business" people, or "capitalists" of the "rich" (imagine a sneer when you read those words). The difference is they have police powers. They can actually take things away from you. The richest man in the world could not take a single dollar from me that I didn't freely give him. (...)

 

I agree with her that having a government that does favors for the "rich" is a fast track to oligarchy. But there IS no other kind of government. They all do it because to a man and woman they are venal, selfish, and exactly the kind of people they say they want to protect us all from. Only THEY have guns. By protecting ourselves from the government we are also protecting ourselves from the "evil rich".

 

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

 

 

 

I do, I just vehemently disagree with every word of it.

 

The very reason the rich can't take a dollar from you if you hadn't given it freely is that we have laws against that sort of thing, and a police to enforce them.

 

Also, consider this: we have a government which is supposed to safeguard the people's interests. The processes of this can be subverted, but assume we didn't - would anything be better? A weak government may not be subverted by those who would bend it to serve their will, but neither would it have the tools to oppose those people.

[Zoraptor]

Funny how Javad Zarif has a YouTube channel, yet his own people are prohibited from using YouTube.

 

He is the foreign minister though, not the interior minister. Whatever's on youtube is meant for us dirty foreigners and we've already been corrupted by cat videos/ Untergang parodies/ numnut D list celebs gawking at suicide victims/ badly translated Star Wars movies or whatever people use youtube for nowadays.

[Guard Dog]

Aluim a weak government is not no government. I am not an anarchist. A government that does not have eminent domain powers, and whose regulatory, taxation, and police powers curtailed to just their constitutionally defined limits can still enforce the law without having the ability to help one group or another. As long as the politicians in government have favors to sell there will be rich people there to buy them. That happens here no matter which political party is in control and it will never, ever, ever stop. The only logical choke point that people CAN effect is to take the government's power. Less power to do "good" (only as they government defines that you realize) but most importantly less power to do harm. I will trade that everyday of the week.

 

You and I are not going to come to any kind of agreement I get that. But now we each know what the other thinks. 

[Guard Dog]

Under Bush Big Brother was only watching "terrorists" or something. Under Obama it was watching all of us but especially Veterans, Libertarians, and people who owned guns. Under Trump Big Brother has added the media to it's special attention list in addition to all the rest: http://theweek.com/articles/766230/homeland-security-wants-monitor-journalists-time-sound-alarm

 

 

If you find yourself skeptical of this proposal of mass state monitoring of the press, consider yourself a bonafide member of the "tinfoil hat wearing, black helicopter conspiracy theorists," DHS representative Tyler Houlton said Friday.

[Ben No.3]

 

Under Bush Big Brother was only watching "terrorists" or something. Under Obama it was watching all of us but especially Veterans, Libertarians, and people who owned guns. Under Trump Big Brother has added the media to it's special attention list in addition to all the rest: http://theweek.com/articles/766230/homeland-security-wants-monitor-journalists-time-sound-alarm

 

If you find yourself skeptical of this proposal of mass state monitoring of the press, consider yourself a bonafide member of the "tinfoil hat wearing, black helicopter conspiracy theorists," DHS representative Tyler Houlton said Friday.

can we have a source that Obama specifically targeted libertarians; rather than libertarian being, more or less coincidentally, disproportionately affected due to often falling under other categories? For example, assuming what you’re saying is correct, a large number of libertarians might be gun owners; so targeting gun owners would also mean many libertarians were targeted without specifically targeting libertarians

[Guard Dog]

Here you go Ben. According to the Obama administration Veteran = Libertarian = Conservative = Gun Owner = Terrorist. It was targeting veterans for increased surveillance that really stung. No one, not even Barack Obama himself has ever done more for this country than the man or woman who volunteered to put their lives on hold and on the line to serve their country. And no one is less likely to come home and harm the country their friends and brothers and sisters in arms died or were wounded for than a veteran. That is something that small little man and his DHS could never comprehend.

 

 

Mr. Thompson’s letter said, “I am particularly struck by the report’s conclusion which states that I&A ‘will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.’ ” He demanded to know what types of activities the Homeland Security Department had planned for “the next several months.”

 

“Rightwing extremism,” the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

 

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks.

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/napolitano.apology/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-domestic-terror-warning-angers-gop/

Edited June 5, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Ben No.3]

Here you go Ben. According to the Obama administration Veteran = Libertarian = Conservative = Gun Owner = Terrorist. It was targeting veterans for increased surveillance that really stung. No one, not even Barack Obama himself has ever done more for this country than the man or woman who volunteered to put their lives on hold and on the line to serve their country. And no one is less likely to come home and harm the country their friends and brothers and sisters in arms died or were wounded for than a veteran. That is something that small little man and his DHS could never comprehend.

 

Mr. Thompson’s letter said, “I am particularly struck by the report’s conclusion which states that I&A ‘will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.’ ” He demanded to know what types of activities the Homeland Security Department had planned for “the next several months.”

 

“Rightwing extremism,” the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/napolitano.apology/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-domestic-terror-warning-angers-gop/

not a single report mentions libertarians, with or without capital L. I don’t think a, frankly, rather harmless bunch of Friedman-Nerds are cool enough to join the right-extremists-gang.

 

About that thing with state over fed, I doubt it’s a sole characteristic of right-wing extremists... were the feds going by that, they’d find it hard to differentiate between the KKK, the Republicans and left-wingers. It seems to me rather that this was now included, amongst other factors, as a further possible characteristic

Edited June 5, 2018 by Ben No.3