LawTalkers
Page 57 of 126 « First 7475556 57 585967107 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Waiting for Fitzgerald (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=704)

taxwonk 10-07-2005 05:20 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
WEll, it's his point, he can cite it. Until I see it, I ain't buying it.
From the GOP's :

Quote:
We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that
fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor
bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to
marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is
best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father
anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the
accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special
union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human
experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most
fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage.
Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences
throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the
Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges.
On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The
Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the
American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously
defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by
85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to
recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.

Hank Chinaski 10-07-2005 05:22 PM
I guess Hans Blix was busy
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
So the standard for winning is not-quite-complete-abject failure?

I guess that's a step up from the standard when Arafat won which was "mass murdering baby killer".
Maybe part of the oil for food bribes was a "Nobel Peace Prize to be named later?"

Hank Chinaski 10-07-2005 05:23 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
From the GOP's :
DOMA? Clinton signed the DOMA- try agian.

Spanky 10-07-2005 05:24 PM
She will be confirmed
 
Miers will be confirmed.

If she is not W. will throw up someone the conservatives like even less. Someone with a known record they don't like.

Spanky 10-07-2005 05:26 PM
These Bozos Don't understand Bush...
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Plus -- The base would like it, but talk about a nuclear war over a nominee!

S_A_M
I don't think Bush ever liked Ashcroft. I think he was happy to see him go.

taxwonk 10-07-2005 05:28 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
The problem here is the demographics are working against them (hispanics, hi Spanky!), the dim leadership has no values, or cultural and moral clarituy to offer the electorate, which essentially what the article is saying that they need to do and who they need to appeal to (families, people with religious values). Instead the dims want God out of the public square, mock the babyjesi and want a society of moral relativism (Wonk, you may not want me and my superior morals governing, but moral clarity plays to the electorate and its why the Rs win national elections).
I'm still waiting for you to show me any sense of moral clarity, Penske. You keep talking in circles on the specific moral points, and every time I point out that you havew contradicted yourself or that the Republican leadership has failed to follow your specific moral points, you try to blow smoke up my ass.

Answer the questions, Penske.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 10-07-2005 05:33 PM
BOARD POLL
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
can't he just make a recess appointment?
What good does that do anyone? It puts her there until the end of 2006. So you fight all spring 2007 over a nominee, with a new senate that might not be as favorable. By some time in 2007, the stalling really begins for the presidential election.

eta: I say she gets confirmed.

Replaced_Texan 10-07-2005 05:34 PM
Heh. From Divisadero:
Quote:
. . .This leads me to ask the question: What happened to the indomitable Republican spin machine?*

Possible Theories and Football Metaphors:

(1) Karl Rove is like Terrell Owens this season. The Administration doesn't have much time left and hasn't made the spin-master a suitable offer--i.e., grand emperor of the GOP with plenary power to summarily execute all dissidents (Joseph Wilson, John McCain, etc.). So, unitl they come through for him, he's gonna pout on the sidelines and let his team go to crap.

(2) Karl Rove is like Terrell Owens last season. For most of the season, he was hot shit and nobody could touch his spin-magic. Unnecessary wars and nonexistant weapons of mass destruction became democratization projects for American security. Then, suddenly, just like TO was taken out by Roy Williams, Rove has been taken out by the Valerie Plame investigation.

(3) The Republicans are like the New England Patriots. They've both had their day in the sun (3 Super Bowls in 4 years/successful elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004), got too big headed (too many obnoxious commercials/tried to foist far-right legislation/foreign policy on a politically moderate populace), and have been figured out by their opponents (2-2 this season/Donkeys getting media-savvy?). The media, once the proud proponents of these never-do-wrong patriot-darlings, has since grown tired of them.

(4) We've been living in the Bizarro World of Politics much like the Bizarro World of the NFL from 1999- 2005. During this period, black was white and white was black. Kurt Warner was the best quarterback in the league, Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson won Super Bowls, and historically shitty teams like the Bucs, Patriots, Rams, and Ravens (/Browns) ruled the league. Perhaps that period is at an end and reality is back.

taxwonk 10-07-2005 05:48 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why would you not think perjury is wrong? Why can't the left admit its wrong? Is perjury legal in IL?
I said I think perjury is wrong. Now, why won't you answer my question?

taxwonk 10-07-2005 05:48 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
I believe intelligent design is a powerful force.
Once again, why won't you answer the question?

taxwonk 10-07-2005 05:50 PM
Calling Penske out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
God is not a moral relativist. He has absolute power. He makes the rules. It's sad that you would denigrate his authority with such mockery.
Then you admit that Bush is either (i) lying or (ii) delusional in saying that God Spoke to him?

andViolins 10-07-2005 05:52 PM
Calling Penske out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Then you admit that Bush is either (i) lying or (ii) delusional in saying that God Spoke to him?
Actually, the White House is denying that Bush made these statements to the Palestinians.

aV

Penske_Account 10-07-2005 05:55 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
From the GOP's :
Where's the part about homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of the Lord?

taxwonk 10-07-2005 05:55 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
You asked me a question that was based on something that I doubt is true. I am asking you for a cite on the basis of your question.
Okay, I've given you your cite. The GOP platform is anti-gay. You had earlier said that homosexuality is not an absolute wrong. So, if, as you claim, the Republican message is not based at least in part on moral relativism, how can they have this in their platform?

I believe I've proven you wrong on at least two counts now, the GOP's anti-gay stance, and their support of killing.

Penske_Account 10-07-2005 05:56 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm still waiting for you to show me any sense of moral clarity, Penske. You keep talking in circles on the specific moral points, and every time I point out that you havew contradicted yourself or that the Republican leadership has failed to follow your specific moral points, you try to blow smoke up my ass.

Answer the questions, Penske.
Gods disapproves of the sinful liberals sinful ways, all other answers flow from there.

taxwonk 10-07-2005 05:58 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
DOMA? Clinton signed the DOMA- try agian.
We aren't discussing Clinton's political philosophy here, Hank. We're discussing Penske's political philosophy with respect to relativsim versus absolutism.

Penske_Account 10-07-2005 05:59 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Okay, I've given you your cite. The GOP platform is anti-gay. You had earlier said that homosexuality is not an absolute wrong. So, if, as you claim, the Republican message is not based at least in part on moral relativism, how can they have this in their platform?

I believe I've proven you wrong on at least two counts now, the GOP's anti-gay stance, and their support of killing.
It's not anti-gay, its just against gay marriage, following the bible, the word of God.

The Iraq war was okayed by God. He told W so.

Penske_Account 10-07-2005 06:01 PM
Calling Penske out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Then you admit that Bush is either (i) lying or (ii) delusional in saying that God Spoke to him?
Why would he need to be either. Just because God wouldn't speak to one who mocks his word, doesn't mean he wouldn't speak to a man of faith, like W.

Penske_Account 10-07-2005 06:02 PM
Calling Penske out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by andViolins
Actually, the White House is denying that Bush made these statements to the Palestinians.

aV
McCellan is a liar, the liberals told me so.

Penske_Account 10-07-2005 06:02 PM
BOARD POLL
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What good does that do anyone? It puts her there until the end of 2006. So you fight all spring 2007 over a nominee, with a new senate that might not be as favorable. By some time in 2007, the stalling really begins for the presidential election.

eta: I say she gets confirmed.
Tally so far:

Yes: 2
No: 2
Other: 1

Replaced_Texan 10-07-2005 06:03 PM
Calling Penske out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
McCellan is a liar, the liberals told me so.
Nah, he's just the White House protocol droid.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-07-2005 06:06 PM
BOARD POLL
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Will Miers be confirmed, yes or no?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes.

Spanky 10-07-2005 06:09 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Okay, I've given you your cite. The GOP platform is anti-gay. You had earlier said that homosexuality is not an absolute wrong. So, if, as you claim, the Republican message is not based at least in part on moral relativism, how can they have this in their platform?

I believe I've proven you wrong on at least two counts now, the GOP's anti-gay stance, and their support of killing.
Just because Penske thinks that the Republican platform is not in line with Gods law does not mean that it is based on moral relativism. Both the Republicans that wrote the platform and Penske believe in absolute right and wrong they just disagree with what things are right and wrong. In other words they disagree with what is right and wrong, but they both believe there is a universal right and wrong.

That is a far cry from thinking that right and wrong change with the cultural and with circumstances. If both Penske and the people that wrote the platform believed in moral relativism there would be no argument because the two of them could just agree that certain morals apply to one and not the other.

A person that is a moral relativist does not really believe in right or wrong, or Just or unjust.

Penske_Account 10-07-2005 06:11 PM
BOARD POLL
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes.
Yes: 3
No: 2
Other: 1

taxwonk 10-07-2005 06:14 PM
A Question of Divine Inspiration
 
Quote:
Originally posted by andViolins
Actually, the White House is denying that Bush made these statements to the Palestinians.

aV
I find that plausible. Of course, even if he actually did say it, I'd expect the White House to deny it too.

Penske_Account 10-07-2005 06:15 PM
A Question of Divine Inspiration
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
I find that plausible. Of course, even if he actually did say it, I'd expect the White House to deny it too.
Bush moral clarity comes from his guidance from the Lourde.

Spanky 10-07-2005 06:16 PM
Our whole countrys legal system is based on the idea that there is a universal moral code and there is no moral relativism. It was clearly illegal for the colonies to declare independence from England. To justify it Jefferson did not say, well it may be illegal but we are going to declare independence anyway because it is in our interest to do so. Jefferson said that there is a higher law, that the creator gives all men rights, and if a government violates those rights (violates gods law, or the universal moral code) then people have the legal right, under the Creators laws, to declare themselves independent of those laws.

The whole idea of Justice assumes there is no moral relativism. If you argue in equity you are saying that something may be illegal but it is still OK. Then you are saying that although something you are arguing is not in line with the law, but is in line with a higher law. The concept of Justice (where Justice is different from legal) implies a higher absolute law.

taxwonk 10-07-2005 06:17 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Where's the part about homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of the Lord?
That was the argument underlying the plank. If you want to research the rhetoric that went into adopting the plank, go ahead. You may as well, since you aren't spending any time giving simple honest answers to questions about your stated beliefs.

taxwonk 10-07-2005 06:21 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Gods disapproves of the sinful liberals sinful ways, all other answers flow from there.
I believe he disapproves more of those who take his name in vain. In any event, Penske, it is apparent that you are unwilling and unable to even state with any specificity any political philosophy, because every time you try, you find it frought with inherent inconsistencies and contradictions.

This is not, in an absolute sense (pun definitely intended), a bad thing. But it is sort of fatal when you refuse to admit or cannot accept anything but absolutes. Clear lines drawn in easy to mimic black and white, even if those lines cross over each other so many times as to blend into an incoherent mess.

I tire of this.

Not Bob 10-07-2005 06:26 PM
BOARD POLL
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Tally so far:

Yes: 2
No: 2
Other: 1
Yes.

Penske_Account 10-07-2005 06:27 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
That was the argument underlying the plank. If you want to research the rhetoric that went into adopting the plank, go ahead. You may as well, since you aren't spending any time giving simple honest answers to questions about your stated beliefs.
I did give an answer, its just not one you are open to.

Penske_Account 10-07-2005 06:27 PM
BOARD POLL
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
Yes.
Yes: 4
No: 2
Other: 1

Gattigap 10-07-2005 06:28 PM
BOARD POLL
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yes: 4
No: 2
Other: 1
Yes.

taxwonk 10-07-2005 06:29 PM
It's not ALL relative
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Just because Penske thinks that the Republican platform is not in line with Gods law does not mean that it is based on moral relativism. Both the Republicans that wrote the platform and Penske believe in absolute right and wrong they just disagree with what things are right and wrong. In other words they disagree with what is right and wrong, but they both believe there is a universal right and wrong.

That is a far cry from thinking that right and wrong change with the cultural and with circumstances. If both Penske and the people that wrote the platform believed in moral relativism there would be no argument because the two of them could just agree that certain morals apply to one and not the other.

A person that is a moral relativist does not really believe in right or wrong, or Just or unjust.
You're incorrect. I am a moral relativist and I not only believe in right and wrong, but I believe in some absolute rights and wrongs. However, unlike Penske, I am willing to put them up for debate, and I also believe I can reconcile them into a coherent whole.If I couldn't, I wouldn't waste my time here, because I would not be able to do anythhing but troll. And that is an insult to anybody who believes that honest debate can create an atmosphere of change.

taxwonk 10-07-2005 06:31 PM
Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Our whole countrys legal system is based on the idea that there is a universal moral code and there is no moral relativism. It was clearly illegal for the colonies to declare independence from England. To justify it Jefferson did not say, well it may be illegal but we are going to declare independence anyway because it is in our interest to do so. Jefferson said that there is a higher law, that the creator gives all men rights, and if a government violates those rights (violates gods law, or the universal moral code) then people have the legal right, under the Creators laws, to declare themselves independent of those laws.

The whole idea of Justice assumes there is no moral relativism. If you argue in equity you are saying that something may be illegal but it is still OK. Then you are saying that although something you are arguing is not in line with the law, but is in line with a higher law. The concept of Justice (where Justice is different from legal) implies a higher absolute law.
I disagree. If this were true, then why would we need a Bill of Rights to protect the right to dissent and to prevent the tyranny of the majority?

Penske_Account 10-07-2005 06:31 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
I believe he disapproves more of those who take his name in vain. In any event, Penske, it is apparent that you are unwilling and unable to even state with any specificity any political philosophy, because every time you try, you find it frought with inherent inconsistencies and contradictions.
Dissent. There is a clear path if you want to follow it. If you want to dumb everything down into the murk of your moral relativism where there is no right or wrong, you get the liberals system of cultural and moral ruination, where rape, murder, perjury and racism exist as excusable behaviours of their leaders.

Penske_Account 10-07-2005 06:33 PM
Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
I disagree. If this were true, then why would we need a Bill of Rights to protect the right to dissent and to prevent the tyranny of the majority?
To empower our ability to protect our natural rights, with the 2nd Amendment.

Spanky 10-07-2005 06:58 PM
A Question of Divine Inspiration
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Bush moral clarity comes from his guidance from the Lourde.
Give me a break........

Spanky 10-07-2005 07:00 PM
It's not ALL relative
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
You're incorrect. I am a moral relativist and I not only believe in right and wrong, but I believe in some absolute rights and wrongs. However, unlike Penske, I am willing to put them up for debate, and I also believe I can reconcile them into a coherent whole.If I couldn't, I wouldn't waste my time here, because I would not be able to do anythhing but troll. And that is an insult to anybody who believes that honest debate can create an atmosphere of change.
How can you be a moral relativist but believe in absolute right and wrong?

Spanky 10-07-2005 07:07 PM
Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
I disagree. If this were true, then why would we need a Bill of Rights to protect the right to dissent and to prevent the tyranny of the majority?
The whole point of the legal system is to constantly change it so it conforms to a higher law. "We change the laws all the time so they can conform close do our idea of justice. Our rights come from our creator, but we need the government to enforce them. Some criticism of the Bill of Rights was that if you write them down, someone will assume that what you right down is all there is when there are clearly more.

When someone says that a law is unjust, they are saying that the law does not conform to what is right and wrong. It does not conform to the concrete universal code that we all assume exists. We expose our beliefe in this universal right and wrong when we say a law is unjust so it needs to be changed. We don't say it is wrong so it needs to only apply to some people and not others. We always argue that law should be applied equally to all men and women and that such laws should be just. In other words conform to the universal moral code.

Are you arguing that against the idea that Jefferson invoked the universal moral code when he justified our separation from England?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:01 PM.
Page 57 of 126 « First 7475556 57 585967107 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com