Page 59 of 67 FirstFirst ... 9495758596061 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 590 of 661

Thread: Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

  1. #581
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post





    most were democrats not community leaders, like abe from the ADL, and you had one fund raiser guy saying it was "totally out of line".... Not quite the magic matzoh you were looking for, Oi Vey!


    This is a total failure on your part.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #582
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    You can't pretend she didn't want to evoke associations with the historical persecution of Jews, when she said it, can you?


    You have proof she did?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  3. #583
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:04 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,484
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    You can't pretend she didn't want to evoke associations with the historical persecution of Jews, when she said it, can you?
    I am sure she knew damn well what it meant in all contexts. Using it was brilliant because once again she got under the left's skin, and they once again revealed how dim THEY are.

    The left really does fear Palin, not because she's stupid, but because she very clearly reveals what direction she would take the country. If she were a SCOTUS justice, she'd be an originalist. That freaks the left out, just as Reagan had.

    .
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  4. #584
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 06:57 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,198

    Re: Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    I am sure she knew damn well what it meant in all contexts. Using it was brilliant because once again she got under the left's skin, and they once again revealed how dim THEY are.

    The left really does fear Palin, not because she's stupid, but because she very clearly reveals what direction she would take the country. If she were a SCOTUS justice, she'd be an originalist. That freaks the left out, just as Reagan had.

    .
    By "originalist" do you mean she can't think of any decisions she disagrees with outside of Roe v Wade?
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  5. #585
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    By "originalist" do you mean she can't think of any decisions she disagrees with outside of Roe v Wade?

    here you go IT, Just for you....


    Eight Reasons to be an Originalist
    1. Originalism reduces the likelihood that unelected judges will seize the reigns of power from elected representatives.

    2. Originalism in the long run better preserves the authority of the Court.

    3. Non-originalism allows too much room for judges to impose their own subjective and elitist values. Judges need neutral, objective criteria to make legitimate decisions. The understanding of the framers and ratifiers of a constitutional clause provide those neutral criteria.

    4. Lochner vs. New York (widely considered to be a bad non-originalist decision).

    5. Leaving it to the people to amend their Constitution when need be promotes serious public debate about government and its limitations.

    6. Originalism better respects the notion of the Constitution as a binding contract.

    7. If a constitutional amendment passed today, we would expect a court five years from now to ask what we intended to adopt. [Can the same be said for a court 100 or 200 years from now?]

    8. Originalism more often forces legislatures to reconsider and possibly repeal or amend their own bad laws, rather than to leave it to the courts to get rid of them.


    Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

    Bet you disagree with all of them don't you?


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #586
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 06:57 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,198

    Re: Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    here you go IT, Just for you....





    Bet you disagree with all of them don't you?


    j-mac
    Interesting page. I like it.

    Eight Reasons to be a Non-Originalist
    1. The framers at the Convention in Philadelphia indicated that they did not want their specific intentions to control interpretation.
    2. No written Constitution can anticipate all the means that government might in the future use to oppress people, so it is sometimes necessary for judges to fill in the gaps.
    3. Intentions of framers are various, sometimes transient, and often impossible to determine. Text is often ambiguous and judicial precedents can be found to support either side. In such cases, why not produce the result that will best promote the public good? It's better than flipping a coin.
    4. Non-originalism allows judges to head off the crises that could result from the inflexible interpretation of a provision in the Constitution that no longer serves its original purpose. (The amendment process is too difficult and cannot be relied upon to save us.)
    5. Non-originalism allows the Constitution to evolve to match more enlightened understandings on matters such as the equal treatment of blacks, women, and other minorities.
    6. Brown vs Board of Education (on originalist grounds, it was decided incorrectly).
    7. Originalists lose sight of the forest because they pay too much attention to trees. The larger purpose--the animating spirit--of the Constitution was the protection of liberty, and we ought to focus on that.
    8. Nazi Germany: Originalist German judges did not exercise the power they might have to prevent or slow down inhumane programs.

    Theories of Constitutional Interpretation
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  7. #587
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    here you go IT, Just for you....





    Bet you disagree with all of them don't you?


    j-mac
    Personally, I agree with most of those, but there are some issues with 3 and 8.

    For 3, the fact that there was a lot of disagreement even back in the late 1700's regarding what the intent of the caluses were. There were essentialy two camps on it, even back then.

    Do Jefferson, Madison, and their side get pimacy in these deliberations of intent, or do Hamilton, Adams, and their side get primacy? (This is post-ratification. Hamilton's stances shifted to a more loose interpretation-friendly position compared to the ones he supported in the Federalist papers).

    Do they mix and match? If so, then it ends up being the same situation we have now, IMO.

    As far as 8 goes, I don't think that there will be any impetus to reconsider and/or repeal/ammend bad laws which are popular. The ultimate belief that one should have while supporting an originalist philosophy is that state and local law-makers will defintiely pass laws that one, personally, abhors. If it is a state or locality different form tehir own, they are left with two viable options: deal with it or support an ammendment disallowing those sorts of laws.


    My problem is that I have rarely encountered people who are truly originalist. Most people today who support this kind of approach are far more willing to allow for loose interpretations when the interpretations are in keeping with their own personal values on an issue, instead of taking the originalist philosophy even when it acts as a hindrance for some issue that they support.

    From what I've seen, Palin falls firmly into this inconsistent category.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #588
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Personally, I agree with most of those, but there are some issues with 3 and 8.

    For 3, the fact that there was a lot of disagreement even back in the late 1700's regarding what the intent of the caluses were. There were essentialy two camps on it, even back then.

    Do Jefferson, Madison, and their side get pimacy in these deliberations of intent, or do Hamilton, Adams, and their side get primacy? (This is post-ratification. Hamilton's stances shifted to a more loose interpretation-friendly position compared to the ones he supported in the Federalist papers).

    Do they mix and match? If so, then it ends up being the same situation we have now, IMO.

    As far as 8 goes, I don't think that there will be any impetus to reconsider and/or repeal/ammend bad laws which are popular. The ultimate belief that one should have while supporting an originalist philosophy is that state and local law-makers will defintiely pass laws that one, personally, abhors. If it is a state or locality different form tehir own, they are left with two viable options: deal with it or support an ammendment disallowing those sorts of laws.


    My problem is that I have rarely encountered people who are truly originalist. Most people today who support this kind of approach are far more willing to allow for loose interpretations when the interpretations are in keeping with their own personal values on an issue, instead of taking the originalist philosophy even when it acts as a hindrance for some issue that they support.

    From what I've seen, Palin falls firmly into this inconsistent category.

    Your own cynicism aside, are you saying that you are in favor of unelected judges making law?


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #589
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Your own cynicism aside, are you saying that you are in favor of unelected judges making law?


    j-mac
    It's not cynicism that leads me to those conclusions about those two reasons, but my knowledge of history and modern politics.

    And no, I'm not in favor of unelected judges making law.

    Unfortunately, some of the "originalists" listed on that link you provided support it themselvees when it occurs regarding issues they support.

    My problem is that very very few people are really originalists. There are always some issues that they support which are a product of legislating from the bench.

    I'd be in favor of true originalism.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #590
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,127

    Re: Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    I am sure she knew damn well what it meant in all contexts. Using it was brilliant because once again she got under the left's skin, and they once again revealed how dim THEY are.

    The left really does fear Palin, not because she's stupid, but because she very clearly reveals what direction she would take the country. If she were a SCOTUS justice, she'd be an originalist. That freaks the left out, just as Reagan had.

    .
    You are correct, we on the left do not fear her because she is stupid (I thought she was merely ignorant, until she made this You Tube video, which removed all doubt on her intellectual capacity), we fear her only because its beyond belief that people actually take her seriously.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 01-18-11 at 10:56 PM.

Page 59 of 67 FirstFirst ... 9495758596061 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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