welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Random News Stories of Note
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 804, 805, 806 ... 825, 826, 827  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1895
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
Samsally wrote:
Pretty sure it's legal to bar political protesters from telling politicians they're assholes in certain areas during certain events.

Not sure why telling people they can't heckle women outside abortion clinics is any different.


yeah, i was trying to make that point earlier; the difference is that the supreme court says it is OK to make it illegal for people to bother them (the supreme court). i guess they also extend that privilege to their political buddies, which is why protesters being sequestered well away from the politician they are protesting is legal, and so is people screaming in women's faces.

i would wait to hear Mindslicer's rage at the suppression of free speech by designated protest areas, but i have a life.

it's a balance of power thing. they have it, we don't.


Where did I support it? Personally I think it's an unconstitutional policy, but I merely attempted to explain their reasoning to you and why it's different than the MA law. I'm sure you and I would agree that the history of the Supreme Court is riddled with decisions based on dubious legal reasoning while disagreeing about the particulars, just as you and the Supreme Court seem to agree that First Amendment protections shouldn't be universally applied while disagreeing on exactly who deserves said protections.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1895
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
oh, Mindslicer noticed - completely failed to comprehend the concept, but some of his wiggling is fairly amusing. if you are amused by that sort of thing (i guess it is better to be amused than utterly frustrated, since no response seems to make a difference).


True, nothing you say is going to make me want to empower a bunch of government thugs to silence people with whom I disagree.

Sorry. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17432
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:

I'd understand that the first amendment still applies, and my opinion wouldn't change.


no - you _think_ it wouldn't change. in the actual event, you might realize that you can hear people just fine, even if they aren't within touching distance.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1895
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:

I'd understand that the first amendment still applies, and my opinion wouldn't change.


no - you _think_ it wouldn't change. in the actual event, you might realize that you can hear people just fine, even if they aren't within touching distance.


No, I'm sure it wouldn't change, because I already said I had no problem with the CO buffer zone law, and agreed with the reasoning behind the Supreme Court upholding it. So I'd have no reason to want something like the MA law when the CO law exists and has survived legal challenge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17432
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i am not sure how much i am convinced by their data, but i throw it out here anyway: some studies on the genetic basis of political beliefs
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

genetics do have some effect on politics in the sense that, in the ancestral environment, if you supported the wrong group you were killed

applying the hardcoded heuristics our species developed back then to modern politics is probably a bad thing
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1895
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NYT reports on the evolution of a refugee camp in Jordan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17432
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heretical Rants wrote:
genetics do have some effect on politics in the sense that, in the ancestral environment, if you supported the wrong group you were killed

applying the hardcoded heuristics our species developed back then to modern politics is probably a bad thing


that's one of the things i was wondering about. one set of authors is proposing that what they call the "traditional moral values triad" (authoritarianism, religiousness and conservatism) are genetically-based (or at least genetically-influenced). another group - well, easiest just to quote:
Quote:
concluded from their study comparing identical and fraternal twins that “the correlation between religious importance and conservatism” is “driven primarily, but usually not exclusively, by genetic factors.” The substantial “genetic component in these relationships suggests that there may be a common underlying predisposition that leads individuals to adopt conservative bedrock social principles and political ideologies while simultaneously feeling the need for religious experiences.”


so you don't inherit the political party, you inherit character traits that cause you to affiliate with a political party.

now, some of the things they are talking about, i can see being of value in different evolutionary contexts - both a desire for order, structure, dogmatism and discipline (for example, in harsh situations where it is important for a group to remain coherent and willing to follow a single leader) and an openness to new experiences and a tolerance for ambiguity and complexity (for example, in a nomadic group that may encounter many different types of habitats, as well as other people with really different ways of doing things - ones that you would do better learning from than fighting with). of course, people still retain flexibility (witness the number of hardcore republicans that the party has driven off) - but it has worrying implications for prospects of any sort of political agreement.

on the other hand, i have xkcd's beautiful poster of the history of partisan and ideological makeup of the U.S. congress - and clearly there is a lot of movement on a significantly less-than-evolutionary scale. so change is still possible.

but it does do a lot to explain some of those people you just can't argue with. it's not their fault, they are simply the product of their genes.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17432
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
NYT reports on the evolution of a refugee camp in Jordan.


now, this is the sort of thing i think is distinctly genetic - the human drive to form communities, to organize their environment and improve their lives.

now if only some of those political genes would learn the value of cooperation....
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1895
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In a move as futile and symbolic as Republican bills to defund and/or repeal Obamacare, House Democrats are set to propose a constitutional amendment to the First Amendment.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/campaign-finance-amendment-house-democrats-108877.html?hp=l1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1895
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Noted racist Glenn Beck is sending truckloads of food, clothing, and toys to migrants being held in detention centers in Texas.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Glenn-Beck-to-truck-supplies-to-migrants-on-border-5609275.php
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17432
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
In a move as futile and symbolic as Republican bills to defund and/or repeal Obamacare, House Democrats are set to propose a constitutional amendment to the First Amendment.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/campaign-finance-amendment-house-democrats-108877.html?hp=l1


you can't amend an amendment, you amend the Constitution. such an amendment may invalidate a previous amendment, but it's a separate thing.

and that news article makes no mention of the first amendment (which itself does not mention corporations having the same rights as actual people; that's just something the supreme court made up). they are proposing to give congress (and the states!) the power to regulate campaign spending, which, again, is not exactly silencing people. just limiting how loud they can shout.

but you are right that it doesn't have a chance of passing. house republicans won't pass _anything_. not that they need to even worry about actually being expected to go on record with a vote - they will just rely on boehner to refuse to even bring the bill up.

by the way - what is your stance on the speaker of the house unilaterally refusing even a vote on any legislation (all legislation!) that he and he alone decides he doesn't like? that seems a bit more restrictive of the rights of the people than restricting how close they can be to someone when they are yelling at them.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1895
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
In a move as futile and symbolic as Republican bills to defund and/or repeal Obamacare, House Democrats are set to propose a constitutional amendment to the First Amendment.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/campaign-finance-amendment-house-democrats-108877.html?hp=l1


you can't amend an amendment, you amend the Constitution. such an amendment may invalidate a previous amendment, but it's a separate thing.


An Amendment to the Constitution is a part of the Constitution, and as such can indeed be amended.

Quote:
and that news article makes no mention of the first amendment (which itself does not mention corporations having the same rights as actual people; that's just something the supreme court made up). they are proposing to give congress (and the states!) the power to regulate campaign spending, which, again, is not exactly silencing people. just limiting how loud they can shout.


The article doesn't need to mention the First Amendment; an informed reader would know that the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases reached the Supreme Court due to First Amendment challenges, and were accordingly decided. Corporations have always had the same rights as people, which is why they have, among other things, the right to due process, the same rights of privacy as people re: warrants, protections against quartering soldiers, and cruel and unusual punishment. Or do you think the government can just decide to imprison corporate employees and confiscate corporate property at will with no legal process necessary? Can Uncle Sam turn Google's headquarters into a military barracks on a whim? The founding fathers realized that people didn't become some other species when they formed into groups. Lastly, controlling how and when people can speak is indeed an abridgment of free speech.

Quote:
but you are right that it doesn't have a chance of passing. house republicans won't pass _anything_. not that they need to even worry about actually being expected to go on record with a vote - they will just rely on boehner to refuse to even bring the bill up.

by the way - what is your stance on the speaker of the house unilaterally refusing even a vote on any legislation (all legislation!) that he and he alone decides he doesn't like? that seems a bit more restrictive of the rights of the people than restricting how close they can be to someone when they are yelling at them.


On the one hand, I'm not a fan because I think bills that are introduced should go up for a vote. You should be aware that Harry Reid does the same thing in the Senate. Are you as outraged by his actions as Boehner's when the various and sundry defund Obamacare bills are not put to a vote in the Senate? I suspect not.

On the other hand, I'm so disgusted by both major parties that legislative gridlock is the best thing to hope for at this stage. Neither party is worthy of being fully in charge of the government.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9592

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

do you think both parties are equally bad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10626
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The conspiracy nut in me says that the two major parties are playing 'good cop' / 'bad cop' with the lives and livelihoods of the American peoples, although that could just be my brain just trying to rationalize some of the more heinous acts of the GOP, but I've become too cynical and paranoid to readily accept that. Confused
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 804, 805, 806 ... 825, 826, 827  Next
Page 805 of 827

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group