Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 82
  1. #71
    2beersTommy's Avatar
    2beersTommy is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,764

  2. #72
    Minniman's Avatar
    Minniman is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by drewlovs View Post
    Since the SCOTUS decision you seem to be referring to actually allowed grass-root organizations the ability to become non-profits the way unions and other organizations have enjoyed since I have been alive, I don't see that as big a threat as you do.
    It is not just Citizens United; there have been several high profile cases that have been ruled in favor of corporations. The SCOTUS and DC Court were stacked with corporate friendly judges during the G.W.Bush years, and the Senate Republicans have been blocking Obama from filling vacancies in courts for more than a full presidential term. That is unprecedented in the history of the United States of America.

    This is not about grass roots; it never was. It is about huge corporate and wealthy donors being allowed to feed billions of dollars into political campaigns. That is billions of dollars that the grass roots cannot compete with.

    What bothers me more regarding SCOTUS is our chief justice being more worried about how he is treated at the DC parties he goes to. It doesn't make for a lot of faith in ANY part of our government when a man that powerful tries to bend over backwards "finding" taxes that don't exist so he is popular when wined and dined.
    Those points are bad, and the situation is worse than that. These justices fly to events all over the United States, get paid for speaking engagements, and take gifts. They do not recuse themselves from judgments that have direct impact on their own well being, included Justice Thomas and his PAC wife, and change centuries of precedent to rule in favor of corporate interests, big brother government, and right wing special interests.

    Are we being protected? This is what Justice Scalia had to say about internment camps of American citizens:
    " ... you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again… That’s what was going on – the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That’s what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification, but it is the reality.”
    So much for the Constitution protecting the minority from the majority.

    As for gay marriage, where the heck does the US Government find the right to have ANY say in marriage? At this point, they should mandate states to issue Civil Union licenses, and leave the definition of "marriage" to the states.
    The United States has the obligation to protect citizens on civil rights cases. Any constitutional issue is under the authority of the federal government.

    In my opinion, states should not be able to issue marriage licenses at all. All the state should issue is a certified civil union certificate. Churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples can issue whatever they want for marriage, but the state needs not be involved for protection under the law.

    If all federal regulations and laws regarding marriage were changed to civil unions, this issue would die as a national problem ... Better yet, they could get their CU just like my wife and I did, then go to their church that doesn't frown on homosexuality and marry like we did.
    That is pretty much it. The government went about this backwards. All of the government issued certificates should be for civil union instead of all being issued for marriage. It would have made this a lot easier.

    I support Kluwe standing up for civil rights. This is no different then white players on the Dodgers standing up for Jackie Robinson.

    As a representative of the Minnesota Vikings, Kluwe did need to be careful with his statements, and he did not need to get into the Ray Guy issue either. It made him look like he was looking for issues rather than responding to issues, even though his gay marriage remarks came as a response to other NFL players anti-gay remarks.
    Last edited by Minniman; 02-07-2014 at 11:37 AM.

  3. #73
    drewlovs's Avatar
    drewlovs is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    592
    You and I agree about SCOTUS problems, but from slightly different view-points. Obama's nominees have real problems recusing themselves as well, and for more obvious conflicts of interest, but the only people these days who seem to care about THAT angle are republicans and libertarians like myself. I don't have as big a problem with Thomas as others do, only because I also do not tie people together due to being married. That goes for Bill to Hillary as well. They are different people with different ideas, and marriage does NOT constitute agreement! Just ask my wife...

    As far as the "...the Senate Republicans have been blocking Obama from filling vacancies in courts for more than a full presidential term. That is unprecedented in the history of the United States of America." The rules the republican senators used to block Obama here were first used prolifically by Harry Reid, as the filibuster was used extremely sparingly to block appointments before W came into office. So the only president we can use as a bellwether to see if Obama is being treated unfairly IS W. Some of those appointments Obama is trying to fill are left over from the W administration, where HE could not fill them due to democrats and their filibuster threats. My point is, what was done to W was unprecedented, and continued to be used against Obama to an even greater extent.

    Judges are a sore spot with any libertarian, because we don't want one point of view to dominate the courts and block the will of the people, which a heavily biased court system always does.

    Gay marriage is inevitable, and I hope the courts can stay out of the discussion as much as possible. If we could get the government out of the marriage business and into the civil union camp, the courts could remain blissfully silent and let the states figure out where they stand according to their own populations. When we get to the point where we are spending 100s of millions of dollars over what the definition of "marriage" is, we have reach the state of lunacy.
    Men are moved by two levers only: fear and self interest.

    ~Napoleon Bonaparte on Politics

  4. #74
    Minniman's Avatar
    Minniman is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by drewlovs View Post
    As far as the "...the Senate Republicans have been blocking Obama from filling vacancies in courts for more than a full presidential term. That is unprecedented in the history of the United States of America." The rules the republican senators used to block Obama here were first used prolifically by Harry Reid, as the filibuster was used extremely sparingly to block appointments before W came into office. So the only president we can use as a bellwether to see if Obama is being treated unfairly IS W. Some of those appointments Obama is trying to fill are left over from the W administration, where HE could not fill them due to democrats and their filibuster threats. My point is, what was done to W was unprecedented, and continued to be used against Obama to an even greater extent.
    I am not certain where your source is for that information, but it is false.

    Politifact.com did the research:

    "By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147."

    That is 68 total nominees for all presidents combined (since 1949 when filibuster could be used to block nominees) prior to Obama, with 86 filibusters during that time.

    That is 79 total nominees being blocked during Obama's term with 82 filibusters of nominees during that time.

  5. #75
    drewlovs's Avatar
    drewlovs is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Minniman View Post
    I am not certain where your source is for that information, but it is false.

    Politifact.com did the research:

    "By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147."

    That is 68 total nominees for all presidents combined (since 1949 when filibuster could be used to block nominees) prior to Obama, with 86 filibusters during that time.

    That is 79 total nominees being blocked during Obama's term with 82 filibusters of nominees during that time.
    Politifact does NOT refute what I told you; in fact, they did a good job covering up the fact that this a a apples to oranges comparison. Here is politifact's source information:

    "Until 1968, cloture was moved on no nominations, and from then through 1978, it was moved on only two. Even thereafter, in no single Congress from the 96th through the 102nd (1979 through 1992) was cloture sought on more than three nominations, and in no Congress from the 104th through the 107th (1995 through 2002) was it sought on more than five. Between these last two periods, however, the 103rd Congress (1993-1994) foreshadowed a more recent pattern, with cloture action on 12 nominations. Most recently, in every Congress of the past decade (2003 through 2012) except the 110th, cloture has been attempted on at least 14 nominations. The same five Congresses that saw cloture action on 12 or more nominations are those in which the Senate minority was of the party opposite that of the President. "

    In other words, this tactic was never used as it is now before the W and Obama administrations. Clinton had the 3rd most with TWELVE. W didn't get hit by it as often as Obama has, but remember, Reid was not the minority leader for part of W's tenure and thus did not have to use these tactics.

    Note the exception of 110th congress; that was when the democrats took control of the senate.
    Last edited by drewlovs; 02-07-2014 at 12:50 PM.
    Men are moved by two levers only: fear and self interest.

    ~Napoleon Bonaparte on Politics

  6. #76
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1
    OK, this thread is officially derailed...

    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  7. #77
    drewlovs's Avatar
    drewlovs is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    592
    Reading deeper, I think we can actually blame the republicans of '93-'94 for the origins of this tactic, since they were the first to ramp it up against Clinton. But even THAT undermines the case that it is being done against Obama for more insidious reasons (such as race, which is the motive usually attached to this).
    Men are moved by two levers only: fear and self interest.

    ~Napoleon Bonaparte on Politics

  8. #78
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139
    Quote Originally Posted by RK. View Post
    Not very PC of you Caine. Maybe you could become a Vikings assistant coach with that attitude.
    I'm fairly certain that my twat comment cost Kluwe all of his remaining respect...


    ...I'll probably get a summons soon.

    Caine

  9. #79
    PInfante97 is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    The Jersey Shore, Twitter - @pinfante97
    Posts
    136
    the vikings have a right to fire any employee for any reason. end of story.

    nobody likes a mouthy punter

  10. #80
    Minniman's Avatar
    Minniman is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by drewlovs View Post
    Reading deeper, I think we can actually blame the republicans of '93-'94 for the origins of this tactic, since they were the first to ramp it up against Clinton. But even THAT undermines the case that it is being done against Obama for more insidious reasons (such as race, which is the motive usually attached to this).
    It is not race; it is corporate power.

    Perhaps we could continue in the clubhouse if we want to get into details.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •