The Democrat Thread

[Reddy]

a better one from Olson:

 

That guy is a supreme court justice.

 

mind-boggling

[Soxbadger]

My answer would be that it was unconstitutional in 1776, just that we were a socially backwards society that did not truly understand equality and thus were incapable of making rational laws/decisions.

 

Even though the constitution did not say blacks were equal in 1776, they were. Just like women were equal in 1776.

 

The law does not always reflect the truth. The law can be corrupted, the law can be wrong.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

Scalia is kind of a dick when it comes to family stuff.

 

This is by far one of the worst opinions of all time:

 

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftri...w/michaelh.html

 

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/family-...l-h-v-gerald-d/

 

Basically the natural father lost rights to another man who was married, because Scalia recognizes marriage over actually being the father.

 

Just hilarious.

 

(edit)

 

The case name is Michael H. v. Gerald D 504 U.S. 905

 

(edit 2)

 

And the reason I bring it up, is a lot of the argument was based on "history" and how historically the person married to the mother was considered the father. Even though today we can scientifically test who the father is.

 

Even worse, is that a man who is not married, but actually the father can be forced to pay child support, but yet the Supreme Court does not recognize that he should have father rights.

 

Nonsense.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

Scalia is kind of a dick when it comes to family stuff.

 

This is by far one of the worst opinions of all time:

 

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftri...w/michaelh.html

 

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/family-...l-h-v-gerald-d/

 

Basically the natural father lost rights to another man who was married, because Scalia recognizes marriage over actually being the father.

 

Just hilarious.

 

(edit)

 

The case name is Michael H. v. Gerald D 504 U.S. 905

 

(edit 2)

 

And the reason I bring it up, is a lot of the argument was based on "history" and how historically the person married to the mother was considered the father. Even though today we can scientifically test who the father is.

 

Even worse, is that a man who is not married, but actually the father can be forced to pay child support, but yet the Supreme Court does not recognize that he should have father rights.

 

Nonsense.

 

I could see problems if you were to just flat out declare that biological rights trump all others. What if the biological father showed up 10 years down the line? Is that really fair? Would that trump the married fathers' rights?

[Soxbadger]

I could see problems if you were to just flat out declare that biological rights trump all others. What if the biological father showed up 10 years down the line? Is that really fair? Would that trump the married fathers' rights?

 

Not trump, but the biological father has to have rights. Its his child.

 

Unless we are going to say that biological fathers have no obligations.

 

It cant be both ways, the biological father either has rights and obligations, or the biological father has no rights and no obligations.

 

Reverse the scenario. If 10 years after a child is born, the mother then wants child support, she would be entitled to it right?

 

So why cant the father 10 years later say he wants to be part of his child's life?

[Balta1701]

Not trump, but the biological father has to have rights. Its his child.

 

Unless we are going to say that biological fathers have no obligations.

 

It cant be both ways, the biological father either has rights and obligations, or the biological father has no rights and no obligations.

 

Reverse the scenario. If 10 years after a child is born, the mother then wants child support, she would be entitled to it right?

 

So why cant the father 10 years later say he wants to be part of his child's life?

The correct answer to this IMO is that there shouldn't be an answer. That should be up to the judge to determine, based on the child's living conditions, the reason for the decade long separation, the condition of both of the parents, and so forth. I could come up with scenarios on both sides, where the judge should say "No" and where the judge should say "yes".

[Soxbadger]

The correct answer to this IMO is that there shouldn't be an answer. That should be up to the judge to determine, based on the child's living conditions, the reason for the decade long separation, the condition of both of the parents, and so forth. I could come up with scenarios on both sides, where the judge should say "No" and where the judge should say "yes".

 

I actually agree to a certain extent that decisions should be based on specific facts and less on overarching broad decisions.

 

But thats why the Michael H case is so sick, the child lived with Michael for a portion of her first 3 years of life, Michael petitioned for parental rights within 1 year of her birth, the guardian ad litem (attorney appointed for the child), filed a petition asking the state to grant rights to BOTH fathers.

 

Yet the state and federal court said no, that just merely being married trumps everything else.

 

Thats wrong.

[Balta1701]

Today we sequestered a conference planning the future of Mars exploration.

 

Sigh.

[StrangeSox]

Waste! Fraud! Abuse!

[Jenksismyhero]

Not trump, but the biological father has to have rights. Its his child.

 

Unless we are going to say that biological fathers have no obligations.

 

It cant be both ways, the biological father either has rights and obligations, or the biological father has no rights and no obligations.

 

Reverse the scenario. If 10 years after a child is born, the mother then wants child support, she would be entitled to it right?

 

So why cant the father 10 years later say he wants to be part of his child's life?

 

I don't really view that as being inconsistent. If you father a child, you should be responsible for it, regardless of how involved you are. If you're the biological father but aren't involved, your parental rights should be considered waived.

 

If that guy in the SC case wanted to be involved immediately, then I agree the decision is wrong. But it seemed to me they were discussing the case in context with the California law so maybe it's a little more narrowed than you're letting on.

[Jenksismyhero]

Waste! Fraud! Abuse!

 

Zomg! We put it off for a couple of years!!! THE END OF THE EARTH IS NEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[StrangeSox]

Nah, it's just that people, including Congressmen, tend to vastly overestimate the amount of "waste, fraud and abuse" that's actually in the system.

[Jenksismyhero]

I actually agree to a certain extent that decisions should be based on specific facts and less on overarching broad decisions.

 

But thats why the Michael H case is so sick, the child lived with Michael for a portion of her first 3 years of life, Michael petitioned for parental rights within 1 year of her birth, the guardian ad litem (attorney appointed for the child), filed a petition asking the state to grant rights to BOTH fathers.

 

Yet the state and federal court said no, that just merely being married trumps everything else.

 

Thats wrong.

 

I get what you're saying and I agree to certain extent. But think about it from the non-biological father's point of view. You think that's your kid and you think that way for a year and then a stranger that knocked up your wife wants visiting rights. I'd be a little upset too. I can see both sides to that case.

[Jenksismyhero]

Nah, it's just that people, including Congressmen, tend to vastly overestimate the amount of "waste, fraud and abuse" that's actually in the system.

 

And people, including Congresspersons (sexist!) equally tend to vastly overestimate the amount of harm rolling back some programs to spending levels from 2 years ago will cause.

 

[DukeNukeEm]

Nah, it's just that people, including Congressmen, tend to vastly overestimate the amount of "waste, fraud and abuse" that's actually in the system.

That depends on your definition of waste, fraud and abuse. In your world giving a crackhead a living wage in the form of welfare checks isn't waste, others may not share that view...

[Balta1701]

Zomg! We put it off for a couple of years!!! THE END OF THE EARTH IS NEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The good news is, when you spend money to have people arrange and schedule an event, and then cancel that event, then put it on a year or a couple years down the road, the people who worked on it originally will work on it for free out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

Otherwise, delaying an event would make it cost 110 or 120% as much as just holding it, and thus delaying it in order to meet some arbitrary budget cutting amount in year one would be quite moronic.

 

Just like how when NASA gutted their education and outreach budget last week, they also decided to make sure that none of the kids they would have reached with those activities got any older.

[StrangeSox]

Trolling around the comments on an National Review Online post, I've discovered that marriage equality is really just a Leftist Marxist plot to destroy religion and family. I dunno, I thought I had decent exposure to American rightwing nuttery through the various blogs and websites I read that comment on or link to that stuff, but this is a whole different level.

[StrangeSox]

DOMA oral arguments transcript here:

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments...12-307_jnt1.pdf

 

(merits don't start until page 55, whole lot of standing discussion before that)

Edited March 27, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

So Clement's argument appears to boil down to that there's a rational basis for DOMA because some states allow SSM and others don't so this ensures that every SSM couple gets treated equally by the Federal government, i.e. equally has their rights denied. Otherwise, some gay couple in Texas would get treated differently by the Federal government than a married gay couple in NY, so best just to refuse to acknowledge any of them. I'm not sure how that doesn't apply to every marriage law deviation between the states though.

[Balta1701]

German company makes "Atheist" branded shoes.

 

Ships some of them to America.

 

Notices they're having delivery problems. Realizes their packaging says the word "Atheist" on it.

 

Ships 89 sets of shoes in packaging bearing the word Atheist, 89 pairs in packaging that doesn't have that word. Uses US Postal Service.

 

Atheist labeled packages found to go missing 10 times, compared to 1 for the control group. Atheist labeled packages take an average of 3 days longer to arrive when they do arrive.

[StrangeSox]

'Merica

 

edit: but also lol@"atheist" shoes

Edited March 28, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

'Merica

 

edit: but also lol@"atheist" shoes

Yeah, I figured it was best if I didn't ask why and just assumed it was fate.

[Balta1701]

Well, I may as well share this. I'm not sure the conspirators who insist the AR-15 was left in the car will believe it's anything but more police lies, but anyway. At least he had good gun safety information.

Search warrants from the second-worst school shooting in American history revealed that the home Lanza shared with his mother in Newtown, Conn., was a veritable arsenal: Authorities found at least nine knives, three Samurai swords, two rifles, 1,600 rounds of ammunition and a 7-foot, wood-handled pole with a blade on one side and a spear on the other.

 

Authorities also recovered a certificate in Lanza’s name from the National Rifle Association, seven of his journals, drawings that he made and books from the house, including books on living with mental illness.

 

.....

 

The books included “Look Me in the Eye: My Life with Asperger’s” and “Born on a Blue Day: Inside the Mind of an Autistic Savant.”

 

At the school, Lanza fired the 154 rounds from a Bushmaster .223-model rifle and the final bullet from a Glock 10mm handgun to take his own life, said Stephen Sedensky, the chief prosecutor investigating the shooting. Police recovered 10 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster that Lanza took to the school. Three of the magazines had a full 30 rounds still in them.

 

 

....

 

The warrants spelled out a vast inventory of weapons and other gun paraphernalia recovered from the Lanza home.

 

Among the items found were paper targets, gun manuals, earplugs, holsters, almost 40 types of ammunition, nine types of magazines, a bayonet, knives with blades as long as a foot and Samurai swords with blades as long as 2 feet 4 inches.

 

Authorities also found a starter’s pistol, a BB gun, an NRA guide to pistol shooting and an NRA certificate in Nancy Lanza’s name.

 

In a statement, the NRA said it had no record of a “member relationship” for the Lanzas, nor for someone with the same last name and their first initials.

 

“Reporting to the contrary is reckless, false and defamatory,” the statement said.

[Jake]

Seen on FB:

 

1. If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

 

2. If you have to get your parents permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

 

3. If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book, but not to vote, … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

 

4. If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt, you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

 

5. If, in our largest city, you can buy "two" 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

 

6. If an 80-year-old woman and 3 yr old child can be stripped searched by the TSA, but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

 

7. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

 

8. If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is cute, but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable, … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

 

9. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes…, you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

 

10. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

 

11. If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor buys iPhones, TVs and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

 

12. If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more safe according to the government,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

[Balta1701]

Why would you post random Facebook trash like that in here?