If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Dolt)   Study: Turns out John Roberts was a raging liberal all along. Just kidding. He still thinks 11 year olds should be arrested for eating a french fry on the subway. But he does have a liberal history on some issues...including gay rights   (thedailydolt.com) divider line 98
    More: Interesting, Reagan White House  
•       •       •

2220 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jul 2012 at 1:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-05 08:38:43 AM
Meh, kid had it coming.
 
2012-07-05 08:40:20 AM
So if he (possibly) has a liberal streak when it comes to gay rights, but he also tends to defer to Congress, then where does that leave DOMA?
 
2012-07-05 08:53:07 AM

Politicandy: So if he (possibly) has a liberal streak when it comes to gay rights, but he also tends to defer to Congress, then where does that leave DOMA?


Probably dead in the water for the same reason he has a conservative streak when it comes to election finance law but tends to defer to Congress.
 
2012-07-05 09:05:02 AM
To be fair, supporting marriage equality is should be considered a Conservative position.

On grounds of the First Amendment, and separation of church and state, and on grounds of equality under the law for all citizens.

Not all faiths or ministries hold homosexuality as a sin. Letting some ministries set public policy is asinine. Ministries can certainly withhold performing ceremonies in their own churches, but dictating what ceremonies other ministries perform is a violation of the freedom of religion. That is a fairly basic and Conservative position. Holding that all citizens are equal under the law is another fairly basic and Conservative position.

The idea that some churches' rites take precedence over others is a fairly radical interpretation. The idea that some citizens are more equal than others is another radical position. Marriage equality is not a matter of radicalism, but a matter of holding up the equality of citizens and their various faiths.

You want to deny folks marriage in your own churches, go for it. That is your right and no one is arguing that you will be forced to perform ceremonies that you don't believe in. It is akin to saying that everyone will be forced to perform a bris. Marriage equality is not about forcing any one to perform ceremonies or join folks in your own church, but about allowing ministries the freedom to choose if they will or will not. And not bind atheists to the beliefs of faiths that they don't hold to. Really, holding any of our citizens to faiths that they don't hold to.

Marriage equality won't affect any church that believes that their parishioners will go to Hell if they are homosexuals. No one's rights will be trammeled upon with marriage equality being made manifest, but we will shift to the idea that faiths don't hold the right to deny OTHER ministries to the beliefs of other ministries. It is about religious freedom, and fulfilling it. It is about holding all our citizens equal under the law.
 
2012-07-05 09:09:34 AM
The latest butthurt i heard from my republican friend is it was blackmail that made roberts turn to the dark side. No idea what he assumes obama has on roberts though...
 
2012-07-05 09:13:25 AM

ManateeGag: The latest butthurt i heard from my republican friend is it was blackmail that made roberts turn to the dark side. No idea what he assumes obama has on roberts though...


If Barack Obama had dirt on John Roberts, why wouldn't he have used it in Roberts confirmation hearing?
 
2012-07-05 09:27:23 AM

WhoIsWillo: ManateeGag: The latest butthurt i heard from my republican friend is it was blackmail that made roberts turn to the dark side. No idea what he assumes obama has on roberts though...

If Barack Obama had dirt on John Roberts, why wouldn't he have used it in Roberts confirmation hearing?


because he needed leverage because one day he knew he's be president and passing his law to indoctrinate us into his sekrit kenyan mooslim ways, and he knew if he could blackmail a sitting judge, he would have a better chance of forcing everyone to get abortions, including the men.
 
2012-07-05 09:32:19 AM

ManateeGag: indoctrinate


Holy shiat... Obama's workign for teh reapers!!!
 
2012-07-05 09:34:57 AM
Sorry subby, but Roberts doesn't support arresting 11-year olds. He supports arresting 12 year-olds. You were thinking of Scalia.
 
2012-07-05 09:39:22 AM

Politicandy: So if he (possibly) has a liberal streak when it comes to gay rights, but he also tends to defer to Congress, then where does that leave DOMA?


He believes that HCR gives him cover as an independent instead of the GOP shill he is, so he'll probably back DOMA against equal rights.

There's nothing liberal about the man. If he defers to 'authority' then he'd consider the actual Congressional law and not the Constitution the authority and back it.

Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.
 
2012-07-05 09:39:50 AM
Roberts worked at a law firm where the lawyers are expected to do pro bono work on civil liberties cases. And Roberts did a bunch, do everything from just preparing paperwork to actually arguing the cases himself, including a few he argued to the Supreme Court. Sure he said that a lawyer doesn't necessarily agree with a case he's presenting when he was up for his nomination, but keep in mind he chose to work for a law firm the requires lawyers to do pro bono civil liberties work.
 
2012-07-05 09:45:24 AM

ThatGuyGreg: ManateeGag: indoctrinate

Holy shiat... Obama's workign for teh reapers!!!


And yet it's Romney who comes across as the mindless husk. ;)
 
2012-07-05 09:47:24 AM

GAT_00: Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.


Kennedy is a libertarian. Apply this logic and almost all his rulings make sense.
 
2012-07-05 09:48:15 AM

hubiestubert: To be fair, supporting marriage equality is should be considered a Conservative position.

On grounds of the First Amendment, and separation of church and state, and on grounds of equality under the law for all citizens.

Not all faiths or ministries hold homosexuality as a sin. Letting some ministries set public policy is asinine. Ministries can certainly withhold performing ceremonies in their own churches, but dictating what ceremonies other ministries perform is a violation of the freedom of religion. That is a fairly basic and Conservative position. Holding that all citizens are equal under the law is another fairly basic and Conservative position.

The idea that some churches' rites take precedence over others is a fairly radical interpretation. The idea that some citizens are more equal than others is another radical position. Marriage equality is not a matter of radicalism, but a matter of holding up the equality of citizens and their various faiths.

You want to deny folks marriage in your own churches, go for it. That is your right and no one is arguing that you will be forced to perform ceremonies that you don't believe in. It is akin to saying that everyone will be forced to perform a bris. Marriage equality is not about forcing any one to perform ceremonies or join folks in your own church, but about allowing ministries the freedom to choose if they will or will not. And not bind atheists to the beliefs of faiths that they don't hold to. Really, holding any of our citizens to faiths that they don't hold to.

Marriage equality won't affect any church that believes that their parishioners will go to Hell if they are homosexuals. No one's rights will be trammeled upon with marriage equality being made manifest, but we will shift to the idea that faiths don't hold the right to deny OTHER ministries to the beliefs of other ministries. It is about religious freedom, and fulfilling it. It is about holding all our citizens equal under the law.


It's coming. It will be here soon. The more new-right youngins who are growing up are starting to believe in this way.
 
2012-07-05 10:00:05 AM

WhoIsWillo: GAT_00: Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.

Kennedy is a libertarian. Apply this logic and almost all his rulings make sense.


Well, the supposed theory behind libertarianism says he'd rule against DOMA. Libertarianism in practice says he'd vote for DOMA to remain.

This is the problem.
 
2012-07-05 10:01:47 AM

hubiestubert: separation of church and state


That's commie talk. Real Americans know Jesus fought the Decepticons at the Battle of Waterloo and freed the colonists from the Turks. That's why we celebrate Thanksgiving.
 
2012-07-05 10:04:38 AM

GAT_00: WhoIsWillo: GAT_00: Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.

Kennedy is a libertarian. Apply this logic and almost all his rulings make sense.

Well, the supposed theory behind libertarianism says he'd rule against DOMA. Libertarianism in practice says he'd vote for DOMA to remain.

This is the problem.


Are we going to have the True LibertarianTM debate again?
 
2012-07-05 10:12:27 AM

ManateeGag: The latest butthurt i heard from my republican friend is it was blackmail that made roberts turn to the dark side. No idea what he assumes obama has on roberts though...


Some Freepers think Obama threatened his family.
 
2012-07-05 10:14:07 AM

GAT_00: WhoIsWillo: GAT_00: Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.

Kennedy is a libertarian. Apply this logic and almost all his rulings make sense.

Well, the supposed theory behind libertarianism says he'd rule against DOMA. Libertarianism in practice says he'd vote for DOMA to remain.

This is the problem.


Anyone who supports DOMA is no libertarian. It goes against the core belief of equality for all.
 
2012-07-05 10:18:20 AM

mahuika: Some Freepers think


Hahaha, you're funny.
 
2012-07-05 10:26:42 AM
We take the no food or drink rule on the DC subway system very seriously. Or else the cars will look like this:

img.photobucket.com

img.photobucket.com

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-05 10:29:36 AM

ManateeGag: WhoIsWillo: ManateeGag: The latest butthurt i heard from my republican friend is it was blackmail that made roberts turn to the dark side. No idea what he assumes obama has on roberts though...

If Barack Obama had dirt on John Roberts, why wouldn't he have used it in Roberts confirmation hearing?

because he needed leverage because one day he knew he's be president and passing his law to indoctrinate us into his sekrit kenyan mooslim ways, and he knew if he could blackmail a sitting judge, he would have a better chance of forcing everyone to get abortions, including the men.


Ah yeah, Barry O'Bomber the godless wonder. The guy who can simultaneously fake his own birth certificate (and get hundreds of people to stay quiet about it), who can take out a global terrorist (but be an incompetent empty suit just following the military's lead) and who has his hand on the global banking industry so much (to pay off his chinese masters, but simultaneously to make gas prices rise and fall when its politically convenient)

What derp-aid do these people drink, and why hasn't it been declared a schedule-A drug yet.
 
2012-07-05 10:30:25 AM

Walker: We take the no food or drink rule on the DC subway system very seriously. Or else the cars will look like this:

[img.photobucket.com image 299x400]

[img.photobucket.com image 300x400]

[img.photobucket.com image 400x300]


Wanna know how I know you don't ride the green line?
 
2012-07-05 10:31:34 AM

cman: GAT_00: WhoIsWillo: GAT_00: Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.

Kennedy is a libertarian. Apply this logic and almost all his rulings make sense.

Well, the supposed theory behind libertarianism says he'd rule against DOMA. Libertarianism in practice says he'd vote for DOMA to remain.

This is the problem.

Anyone who supports DOMA is no libertarian. It goes against the core belief of equality for all.


And while that is the way things should be, it doesn't mean jack if there is nobody elected as a libertarian who actually does that.

It's like saying the USSR was communist, when by any definition of the word, it was nothing resembling communism. The existence of the government alone means it wasn't communist or anything resembling one. That doesn't stop people from saying the USSR was communist.
 
2012-07-05 10:33:05 AM

GAT_00: cman: GAT_00: WhoIsWillo: GAT_00: Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.

Kennedy is a libertarian. Apply this logic and almost all his rulings make sense.

Well, the supposed theory behind libertarianism says he'd rule against DOMA. Libertarianism in practice says he'd vote for DOMA to remain.

This is the problem.

Anyone who supports DOMA is no libertarian. It goes against the core belief of equality for all.

And while that is the way things should be, it doesn't mean jack if there is nobody elected as a libertarian who actually does that.

It's like saying the USSR was communist, when by any definition of the word, it was nothing resembling communism. The existence of the government alone means it wasn't communist or anything resembling one. That doesn't stop people from saying the USSR was communist.


That's quite the Godelian argument...
 
2012-07-05 10:36:04 AM

doyner: Walker: We take the no food or drink rule on the DC subway system very seriously. Or else the cars will look like this:

[img.photobucket.com image 299x400]

[img.photobucket.com image 300x400]

[img.photobucket.com image 400x300]

Wanna know how I know you don't ride the green line?


Or as it's come to be known, the fried chicken line. There must be a fried chicken restaurant somewhere near the entrance to a green line stop. I've seen so many people eating chicken on the metro my thought process actually went from "someone is eating on the metro" to "ANOTHER person is eating fried chicken on the metro!"

It's not like fried chicken is in that segment of fast food that's clean enough to eat while traveling. You're left with bones you have to do something with, and it's crazy greasy. Yet there people are, munching on it like they're sitting in a KFC.

After the 4th of July one year I saw an idiot with a propane grill try to make hot dogs on the train, but the metro police pulled him off at the next stop. He was drunk as hell.
 
2012-07-05 10:38:47 AM

doyner: Walker: We take the no food or drink rule on the DC subway system very seriously. Or else the cars will look like this:

[img.photobucket.com image 299x400]

[img.photobucket.com image 300x400]

[img.photobucket.com image 400x300]

Wanna know how I know you don't ride the green line?


Because only people with a death wish ride the green line?

/orange line FTW!
 
2012-07-05 10:39:53 AM

GAT_00: It's like saying the USSR was communist, when by any definition of the word, it was nothing resembling communism. The existence of the government alone means it wasn't communist or anything resembling one. That doesn't stop people from saying the USSR was communist.


There's your problem. There's some people who's definition of "communist" is "what the USSR was" and "socialist", of course, is "what Europe is, plus anything Barack Obama does."
 
2012-07-05 10:40:26 AM

Lsherm: Or as it's come to be known, the fried chicken line. There must be a fried chicken restaurant somewhere near the entrance to a green line stop. I've seen so many people eating chicken on the metro my thought process actually went from "someone is eating on the metro" to "ANOTHER person is eating fried chicken on the metro!"

It's not like fried chicken is in that segment of fast food that's clean enough to eat while traveling. You're left with bones you have to do something with, and it's crazy greasy. Yet there people are, munching on it like they're sitting in a KFC.

After the 4th of July one year I saw an idiot with a propane grill try to make hot dogs on the train, but the metro police pulled him off at the next stop. He was drunk as hell.


I don't doubt it. I'm amazed at the difference between the different lines on the DC metro. I recommend wearing a chem suit if you're riding any train that terminates in Prince Georges county.
 
2012-07-05 10:51:05 AM

doyner: Lsherm: Or as it's come to be known, the fried chicken line. There must be a fried chicken restaurant somewhere near the entrance to a green line stop. I've seen so many people eating chicken on the metro my thought process actually went from "someone is eating on the metro" to "ANOTHER person is eating fried chicken on the metro!"

It's not like fried chicken is in that segment of fast food that's clean enough to eat while traveling. You're left with bones you have to do something with, and it's crazy greasy. Yet there people are, munching on it like they're sitting in a KFC.

After the 4th of July one year I saw an idiot with a propane grill try to make hot dogs on the train, but the metro police pulled him off at the next stop. He was drunk as hell.

I don't doubt it. I'm amazed at the difference between the different lines on the DC metro. I recommend wearing a chem suit if you're riding any train that terminates in Prince Georges county.


I used to ride the green every day to Anacostia (worked at NRL) in the 90's. I thought maybe it had gotten better in the intervening years, but I rode it again last year for two months working on a contract and it was the same. That chicken store must still be open somewhere.

I did wonder if Metro had some grand conspiracy against poor neighborhoods, though. The cars on the green line seemed older, and their air conditioners never worked very well, either.

/now I want fried chicken
 
2012-07-05 11:10:11 AM

incendi: GAT_00: It's like saying the USSR was communist, when by any definition of the word, it was nothing resembling communism. The existence of the government alone means it wasn't communist or anything resembling one. That doesn't stop people from saying the USSR was communist.

There's your problem. There's some people who's definition of "communist" is "what the USSR was" and "socialist", of course, is "what Europe is, plus anything Barack Obama does."


The argument I'm making is saying what libertarianism supposedly actually cares about has little value when none of the people elected on it actually practice it.
 
2012-07-05 11:32:43 AM

Lsherm: I did wonder if Metro had some grand conspiracy against poor neighborhoods, though. The cars on the green line seemed older, and their air conditioners never worked very well, either.

/now I want fried chicken


Not to further derail (!) the thread, but you're not far off... although I wouldn't call it a "grand" conspiracy. Because lower income neighborhoods have less of an option when it comes to transportation, public transit companies put less effort into attracting their patronage than then do for more affluent neighborhoods.

We had a brouhaha here when one of the more affluent neighborhoods protested against a new bus rapid transit stop. Their sort of self serving argument was that the Light Rail line should be extended to service them, but the transit authority's BRT was being extended because it only served the poorer neighborhoods in the region. Based on the census data at the time, they had a point: LRT serviced upper income neighborhoods; BRT serviced low income neighborhoods.
 
2012-07-05 11:37:10 AM

GAT_00: cman: GAT_00: WhoIsWillo: GAT_00: Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.

Kennedy is a libertarian. Apply this logic and almost all his rulings make sense.

Well, the supposed theory behind libertarianism says he'd rule against DOMA. Libertarianism in practice says he'd vote for DOMA to remain.

This is the problem.

Anyone who supports DOMA is no libertarian. It goes against the core belief of equality for all.

And while that is the way things should be, it doesn't mean jack if there is nobody elected as a libertarian who actually does that.

It's like saying the USSR was communist, when by any definition of the word, it was nothing resembling communism. The existence of the government alone means it wasn't communist or anything resembling one. That doesn't stop people from saying the USSR was communist.


Well, stop saying the US is capitalist.

For similar reasons.

The USSR was, in fact, communist, because it (or some reasonable facsimile thereof) is what any and every attempt to implement communism has and will lead to.
 
2012-07-05 11:38:19 AM

Walker: We take the no food or drink rule on the DC subway system very seriously. Or else the cars will look like this:

[img.photobucket.com image 299x400]

[img.photobucket.com image 300x400]

[img.photobucket.com image 400x300]


Actually IMO this is about the only thing WMATA does right. The DC system is very clean, and in over 4 years of using at least 4 times a week, it I've never seen a rat, a mouse, or a cockroach. And that's a direct result of the draconian "no food or drink" rules they have.
 
2012-07-05 11:40:51 AM

SurfaceTension: Walker: We take the no food or drink rule on the DC subway system very seriously. Or else the cars will look like this:

[img.photobucket.com image 299x400]

[img.photobucket.com image 300x400]

[img.photobucket.com image 400x300]

Actually IMO this is about the only thing WMATA does right. The DC system is very clean, and in over 4 years of using at least 4 times a week, it I've never seen a rat, a mouse, or a cockroach. And that's a direct result of the draconian "no food or drink" rules they have.


Spoken like a true yellow-liner
 
2012-07-05 11:54:49 AM

Ricardo Klement: GAT_00: cman: GAT_00: WhoIsWillo: GAT_00: Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.

Kennedy is a libertarian. Apply this logic and almost all his rulings make sense.

Well, the supposed theory behind libertarianism says he'd rule against DOMA. Libertarianism in practice says he'd vote for DOMA to remain.

This is the problem.

Anyone who supports DOMA is no libertarian. It goes against the core belief of equality for all.

And while that is the way things should be, it doesn't mean jack if there is nobody elected as a libertarian who actually does that.

It's like saying the USSR was communist, when by any definition of the word, it was nothing resembling communism. The existence of the government alone means it wasn't communist or anything resembling one. That doesn't stop people from saying the USSR was communist.

Well, stop saying the US is capitalist.

For similar reasons.

The USSR was, in fact, communist, because it (or some reasonable facsimile thereof) is what any and every attempt to implement communism has and will lead to.


So, since you're accepting my premise, then libertarianism is about corporate cock sucking and taking away basic rights, since every attempt to implement it has lead to that.
 
2012-07-05 12:05:44 PM

cman: It's coming. It will be here soon. The more new-right youngins who are growing up are starting to believe in this way.


Though it's still more common among the liberals, even in the young. Contrariwise, the trend with age weakens as you groups get more conservative... such that the "extremely conservative" have no trend. Nohow, I suspect this is because the young realize this, and tend to stop identifying themselves as "extremely conservative" because of it.

The current generation doesn't care.

a.imageshack.us
carryabigsticker.com
 
2012-07-05 12:21:27 PM
Anyone have an explanation for the "super old" (born in the 1910s) being more "progressive" than people born in the next 2 decades? Or is it that probably that is so old (85+) that there were probably only around 10 in that age group polled?

Also, I've never seen any attribution to this poll... people just seem to paste it in threads. Not that I don't think the general trend is accurate, but, there is a [citation needed] here.
 
2012-07-05 12:55:09 PM

WhoIsWillo: GAT_00: Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.

Kennedy is a libertarian. Apply this logic and almost all his rulings make sense.


See. This is one of the reasons why so many have disdain for the court, no one needs to be more qualified that having a simple understanding of the Dewey decimal system.
 
2012-07-05 01:04:45 PM

GAT_00: Ricardo Klement: GAT_00: cman: GAT_00: WhoIsWillo: GAT_00: Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.

Kennedy is a libertarian. Apply this logic and almost all his rulings make sense.

Well, the supposed theory behind libertarianism says he'd rule against DOMA. Libertarianism in practice says he'd vote for DOMA to remain.

This is the problem.

Anyone who supports DOMA is no libertarian. It goes against the core belief of equality for all.

And while that is the way things should be, it doesn't mean jack if there is nobody elected as a libertarian who actually does that.

It's like saying the USSR was communist, when by any definition of the word, it was nothing resembling communism. The existence of the government alone means it wasn't communist or anything resembling one. That doesn't stop people from saying the USSR was communist.

Well, stop saying the US is capitalist.

For similar reasons.

The USSR was, in fact, communist, because it (or some reasonable facsimile thereof) is what any and every attempt to implement communism has and will lead to.

So, since you're accepting my premise, then libertarianism is about corporate cock sucking and taking away basic rights, since every attempt to implement it has lead to that.


I haven't seen more libertarian societies be anything other than what you described. But libertarianism has nothing standing in the way of greater social freedoms, while communism and capitalism both have economic realities standing in the way of their "pure" forms.

To answer the proposition you stated, however, I would say I have yet to see a "libertarian" in office who wasn't a corporate cock sucker who would stridently defend corporate "rights" while being at least willing, if not an active participant, in seeing personal rights diminished. That especially includes Ron Paul, who's willing to defend your personal rights to a limited degree - and EXCLUSIVELY at the federal level. States can do what they want.
 
2012-07-05 01:07:47 PM

WhoIsWillo: ManateeGag: The latest butthurt i heard from my republican friend is it was blackmail that made roberts turn to the dark side. No idea what he assumes obama has on roberts though...

If Barack Obama had dirt on John Roberts, why wouldn't he have used it in Roberts confirmation hearing?


obamatimemachine.jpg
 
2012-07-05 01:09:33 PM
Wuzza-wuzzup, loony libs? The funky fact of the matter is, you silly socialists got royally el-pwn3derino by Rockin' Roberts and the Supremes! You commie clowns think Obummer and his radicalizin', socializin' Obummercare passed the mustard at SCOTUS, but ya better be believin' that Rockin' Roberts pulled the fast one on you dorkus malorkuses if ya feel what Da Cool Coach is rip-rappin' at ya! What Obummer didn't realize is that his precious Obummercare is now a taxation without representation, ya dig? And it leaves the door open for Manic Mitt, the Rockin' Romney, to ride a SPREAD of CONSERVOMENTUM right into the White House! Chew on that, ya punks!

Badoodle-boo-yeah! You just got smacked around by Da Cool Coach! Urban out.
 
2012-07-05 01:10:44 PM
Onoes!!! A justice who will form his own independent opinion! I for one am against any conscious, rational thought by any individual. Why can't we have more conservative shills like Scalia?
 
2012-07-05 01:14:00 PM

SurfaceTension: Actually IMO this is about the only thing WMATA does right. The DC system is very clean, and in over 4 years of using at least 4 times a week, it I've never seen a rat, a mouse, or a cockroach.


They can't afford to ride, thanks to "Rush Plus" and only having paper farecards.
 
2012-07-05 01:15:24 PM

Lsherm: Wanna know how I know you don't ride the green line?

Or as it's come to be known, the fried chicken line


i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-07-05 01:17:09 PM
gay rights is not a "liberal" issue

gay rights is a civil rights issue
 
2012-07-05 01:17:24 PM

dletter: Anyone have an explanation for the "super old" (born in the 1910s) being more "progressive" than people born in the next 2 decades? Or is it that probably that is so old (85+) that there were probably only around 10 in that age group polled?

Also, I've never seen any attribution to this poll... people just seem to paste it in threads. Not that I don't think the general trend is accurate, but, there is a [citation needed] here.


Just a guess, but living through the Great Depression and WWII during your early adult years probably keeps your political focus on more economic/military concerns. The 1921-1930 group would have been children for most of it.
 
2012-07-05 01:18:53 PM

Tax Boy: Lsherm: Wanna know how I know you don't ride the green line?

Or as it's come to be known, the fried chicken line

[i3.kym-cdn.com image 100x100]


Meh, race doesn't have anything to do with it. EVERYBODY is eating fried chicken on the green line.

I still maintain there must be one hell of a chicken shop outside one of those stops.
 
2012-07-05 01:20:10 PM

GAT_00: WhoIsWillo: GAT_00: Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.

Kennedy is a libertarian. Apply this logic and almost all his rulings make sense.

Well, the supposed theory behind libertarianism says he'd rule against DOMA. Libertarianism in practice says he'd vote for DOMA to remain.

This is the problem.


That's not Libertarianism in practice. That's a social conservative paying lip service to libertarianism. The problem is we have not seen too much Libertarianism in practice in this country, we have mostly seen social conservatives paying lip service to libertarianism but then doing a 180.

Maybe that was the point you were making all along, I don't know. But I felt I had to interject with that.
 
2012-07-05 01:20:11 PM

Lsherm: dletter: Anyone have an explanation for the "super old" (born in the 1910s) being more "progressive" than people born in the next 2 decades? Or is it that probably that is so old (85+) that there were probably only around 10 in that age group polled?

Also, I've never seen any attribution to this poll... people just seem to paste it in threads. Not that I don't think the general trend is accurate, but, there is a [citation needed] here.

Just a guess, but living through the Great Depression and WWII during your early adult years probably keeps your political focus on more economic/military concerns. The 1921-1930 group would have been children for most of it.


Also, perhaps being so close to death's door means if it doesn't affect Medicare/Social Security - go ahead and let the gays marry.

// but god help you if you tax Medicare bennies for those who make over $250k/year!
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report