Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Tyrone was claiming there is no "hate".

I think I said I didn't hate. I don't speak for Michael Moore, hard as that may be for you to believe.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who are you talking about? The anarchist immigrants that club found a picture of?

He's probably talking about me. I do tend to ramble on a bit...

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
There is no myth about it. It's just that some Reps don't realize it, or don't care.

Ad(which are you?)der

Keep at it. The fact is, just because we are against more of the same policies that (a) have driven the minority population further into poverty and (b) haven't worked for the past 40 years, does not make us anti-minority. We just don't believe that government is the answer.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
BR(FWIW, I tend to agree with Slave (?) that the anti-gay bigotry is a generational thing more than an ignorance, fear, unfamiliarity, geographic or even religious thing. At least then I can hope the assholes who voted up those anti-gay laws will die off in sufficient numbers that I can see that shit reversed in my lifetime)C

I doubt it. Religious right christianity seems to be perpetuating and spreading its views. Say what you will, but the ideology is popular.

[sgtclub]

I was talking to a gay friend of mine this evening, and he was distraught over the election, mostly because he feared that the composition of the court would make him one of the persecuted. It got me thinking. Is this the main reason for the left being distraught this week? Is it that they think that somehow the reconstituted S.CT is going to allow the persecution of gays and otherwise strip our civil rights?

Help me understand, because I believe this is an unreasonable fear. I don't know much, but I do know that Scalia and Thomas have been two of the strongest protectors of free speech the court has known. As for gay rights, seems to me that permitting a ban on gay marriage is a long way from persecution. Abortion is a wild card, but in a worst case scenario, it will be kicked to the states to decide, so its not exactly a meltdown scenario.

So what exactly is the fear?

For those of you who recently migrated over here, this is what's known as an honest attempt at dialogue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Keep at it. The fact is, just because we are against more of the same policies that (a) have driven the minority population further into poverty and (b) haven't worked for the past 40 years, does not make us anti-minority. We just don't believe that government is the answer.

The conceit that welfare is bad for blacks would be more credible if the Republican party weren't furiously handing out welfare to well-connected corporate interests. Doesn't seem to be hurting them.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I suspect you're correct about this being the tipping point. Unfortunately a Supreme Court justice or two is probably going to be installed that reflects the attitudes at the apex of the movement. And these justices will probably be on the bench for the rest of our professional lives. I find this very disheartening.

Really. It won't be that bad. Generally conservatives are fans of stare decisis, so they won't roll back criminal rights and other dubious achievements of the liberal bench. Conservatives will just prevent the liberals from expanding these achievements. Liberals will simply be forced to win their victories in the voting room rather than the court room.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The conceit that welfare is bad for blacks would be more credible if the Republican party weren't furiously handing out welfare to well-connected corporate interests. Doesn't seem to be hurting them.

I'm not sure I follow this. Are you disputing that welfare has been net "bad" for blacks? And how are the two connected? I don't follow. And what corporate welfare are you referring to?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was talking to a gay friend of mine this evening, and he was distraught over the election, mostly because he feared that the composition of the court would make him one of the persecuted. It got me thinking. Is this the main reason for the left being distraught this week? Is it that they think that somehow the reconstituted S.CT is going to allow the persecution of gays and otherwise strip our civil rights?

Help me understand, because I believe this is an unreasonable fear. I don't know much, but I do know that Scalia and Thomas have been two of the strongest protectors of free speech the court has known. As for gay rights, seems to me that permitting a ban on gay marriage is a long way from persecution. Abortion is a wild card, but in a worst case scenario, it will be kicked to the states to decide, so its not exactly a meltdown scenario.

So what exactly is the fear?

For those of you who recently migrated over here, this is what's known as an honest attempt at dialogue.

Take a look at Justice Scalia's dissent in the Lawrence v. Texas case. He thinks states should be able to outlaw sodomy. Bush has said that he would appoint justices like Scalia, and the religious right clearly wants more Scalias, not Souters or O'Connors. Do you think the religious right would be satisfied to outlaw gay marriage? More generally, using gays as the target of the DOMA signals a willingness to target gays for political gain.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Really. It won't be that bad. Generally conservatives are fans of stare decisis, so they won't roll back criminal rights and other dubious achievements of the liberal bench. Conservatives will just prevent the liberals from expanding these achievements. Liberals will simply be forced to win their victories in the voting room rather than the court room.

I don't know what's in the water, but I find myself agreeing with you far too often these days.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Take a look at Justice Scalia's dissent in the Lawrence v. Texas case. He thinks states should be able to outlaw sodomy. Bush has said that he would appoint justices like Scalia, and the religious right clearly wants more Scalias, not Souters or O'Connors. Do you think the religious right would be satisfied to outlaw gay marriage?

I assume on federalism grounds? I disagree with the the government being in our bedrooms, but I'm not sure how, on its face, that view is anti-gay, though I recognize in could be applied as a proxy.

etft -- t.s.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm quite convinced you could win on the stem-cell issue nationally if you actually couched the question properly (and fairly).

There is no stem cell issue. If blue states want stem cell research, they just need to fund it. The federal government isn't stopping them; it just won't spend federal dollars to support them doing it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Really. It won't be that bad. Generally conservatives are fans of stare decisis, so they won't roll back criminal rights and other dubious achievements of the liberal bench. Conservatives will just prevent the liberals from expanding these achievements. Liberals will simply be forced to win their victories in the voting room rather than the court room.

Which conservatives are fans of stare decisis? Scalia and Thomas feel empowered to ignore Supreme Court decisions they see as unfaithful to the framers intent. I believe Thomas has said as much in about as many words. They would happily overturn Roe, e.g.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not sure I follow this. Are you disputing that welfare has been net "bad" for blacks? And how are the two connected? I don't follow. And what corporate welfare are you referring to?

Yes, I am disputing that welfare is bad for those receiving it, on the whole. I will not deny that it is not without bad aspects, but we assume that blacks, like the rest of us, are rationally self-interested profit maximizers, and they, like the rest of us, tend to accept checks when offered them.

[sgtclub]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041104/nyth186_1.html

Interesting reporting if true . . .