Perhaps we should differentiate between explicit and implicit conspiracies. Generally in the popular conception of conspiracy, the conspirators actually conspire together. Meaning, they get together to discuss plans to achieve their ends, and then carry out those plans. That is an explicit conspiracy, and TheMeuge was hypothesizing that perhaps the interested parties here never needed to sit down and discuss plans together. Perhaps they were all acting individually, in an implicit conspiracy. In fact, this type of 'conspiracy' is far more common. Very few people are comfortable believing they are the bad guy. Explicit conspiracies require some kind of an acknowledgment from the conspirators that they are engaging in a conspiracy. Because implicit conspiracies require no active conspiring, people engaged in them don't even need to admit to themselves that they are doing so. The oppression of the lower classes by the owning class is an example of such an implicit conspiracy. Far from having to admit to themselves or each other that they are oppressing the lower classes, the owning class has the privilege of believing they are in fact helping them.
Well, I have to agree that 'it is what it is' (I hope that's what he meant by 'it it was it is') is a pretty clear and funny example of a logical tautology.
First, which statement of mine has a redundancy? I think you may be confusing me with dmacleaod808.
I even gave you a link to the definition. What's the first definition of tautology listed? A redundant use of words, right? ALL tautologies are essentially meaningless, which makes a 'meaningless tautology' a tautology. Sheesh.
My Dineh friends here in Albuquerque believe the theory of evolution and the big bang. Two are atheists and the rest are Christian. I wonder how accurate these polls really are? Nobody I know doubts these things.
I would guess your mix of family and friends are fairly well educated? Not a random sample then. There is a dangerous strain of anti-intellectualism loose in America these days. A belief that common sense beats book learning, too much of which will in turn kill common sense. It amounts to a pride in ignorance.
Unfortunately not. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is locked away in an insane asylum because he talks about things no one else can even conceive of.
Wrong. They asked the questions and did not like the embarrassing answers America gave. Like our child mortality rate, our scientific literacy rate is not something to be proud of. The majority of American do not believe in the big bang or evolution. You may, but most do not, whereas in the rest of the first world, most people do believe in these things.
Where are you getting 'asshat within the White House' from? The National Science Foundation is not located in the White House. Why blame the President for this? This was not an editing error. The questions were asked, but the answers were deliberately omitted.
That's a good one too: the Supreme Court has ruled against all violations of the Constitution that have come before it. Because They Say So.
And telling the Massachusettes legislature what to do about gay marriage isn't making new laws. Again, because They Say So. And spun is easily fooled.
I give up on you, bro.
The Constitution demands that the Supreme Court rule against all violations of the Constitution. That is one of it's two major purposes.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional under Massachusetts law to allow marriage only to heterosexual couples. That is not making a law, that is striking down an unconstitutional law. That is what the state and federal Supreme Courts are for. Without such a check and balance system, the Constitution becomes meaningless and any state could, for example, pass a law allowing slavery again.
If you give up on an argument, you've lost the argument. That's pretty much contained in the definitions of 'to give up' and 'to lose.'
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to harass others with your speech. Freedom is much more complicated than "You aren't the boss of me and I'll do whatever I want!"
It's pretty clear nothing will change this sociopathic felon's attitude, so keeping him out of our hair for as long as possible seems a good backup plan. Are you seriously defending this guy? Do you know anything about him, or is this just a knee-jerk attack against 'The Man?'
The difference being, an amicus brief is official and public, an email, letter, flier, or conversation outside the court is not. Do you not understand why one is permitted and the other is not?
If electronic communication with a judge via email is not an official channel and not permitted, perhaps technical measures to enforce said policy should be in place, no? Otherwise, it comes down to "Whhhaaaaa, they're not supposed to do that".
Does it? Because it sure looks like it comes down to "You're going to jail for being a dick, Kevin" to me. That seems to be a pretty decent enforcement mechanism and a far cry from "Whhaaaa, they're not supposed to do that." It seems more like, "Bitch, sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up," to me. Extra jail time. Now THAT is just the bitch-slap this sociopath needs.
Please explain how 'overturn unconstitutional laws' is the same thing as 'create laws.'
The amicus brief is on the record, and judges aren't even required to read them. That is a lot different than lobbying.
Please explain how the Supreme Court has exceeded its Constitutional mandate. You are making extraordinary claims, and those require extraordinary proof. All you've given so far are unsourced assertions.
Saying "I'm laughing at you" does not help your argument.
The first ammendment applies to everyone. But it does not give you the right to attempt to influence a judge regarding an ongoing trial outside of the proper channel of the amicus curiae brief. If you want input on a trial, you must go to court, not the judge. The reason for this is obvious: nobody should be able to influence a judge off the record.
The first ammendment only protects the contents of speech, not the method. You may not use harassing methods of speech. You may not post fliers on my door. You may not stand outside of my door yelling your opinion loudly. Your right to free speech does not overturn my rights.
The Supreme Court are the only ones with the power to overturn laws. They do not have the power to create new laws. Your sad misunderstanding of the US constitution, and the history of the United States, seems to be copied verbatim from some sort of right wing talking point playbook, and has no relation to actual reality.
If you would like to prove you are not a brainwashed right wing ideologue, you are welcome to attempt to find evidence to support your outrageous claims. Find me an example of the courts making a law and I will retract my statements and apologize. But you won't, because outside of paranoid Republican fantasy, it has never happened.
My post WAS responsive. My response was, the Supreme Court overturning laws (and they are the only ones who can) because they are deemed unconstitutional is not the same thing as writing laws. One key difference being, you can not lobby the Supreme Court to overturn laws. I'm sorry, if you can't understand the distinction, or find it trivial, there isn't much more I can say except that you are misinformed, and suggest you go to the source for clarification: the US constitution itself.
Supreme Court judges can overturn laws that do not follow the Constitution. They can not create new laws, and, here is the important part: what anyone else thinks is immaterial. That's why judges are appointed and not elected. So they can rule on issues of constitutionality without being swayed by public opinion. That's why our founding fathers set things up that way.
Let me be clear: getting a bunch of people to send emails to someone is no different than littering their yard with fliers. It is harassment, not free speech. But even if it were, you can not influence an ongoing trial by communicating with a judge outside of the courtroom. In case you missed it the first time, that is what an amicus curiae brief is for. The difference being, an amicus brief is official and public, an email, letter, flier, or conversation outside the court is not. Do you not understand why one is permitted and the other is not?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, hey, not ripping you a new one, just making a fairly obvious joke.
Perhaps we should differentiate between explicit and implicit conspiracies. Generally in the popular conception of conspiracy, the conspirators actually conspire together. Meaning, they get together to discuss plans to achieve their ends, and then carry out those plans. That is an explicit conspiracy, and TheMeuge was hypothesizing that perhaps the interested parties here never needed to sit down and discuss plans together. Perhaps they were all acting individually, in an implicit conspiracy. In fact, this type of 'conspiracy' is far more common. Very few people are comfortable believing they are the bad guy. Explicit conspiracies require some kind of an acknowledgment from the conspirators that they are engaging in a conspiracy. Because implicit conspiracies require no active conspiring, people engaged in them don't even need to admit to themselves that they are doing so. The oppression of the lower classes by the owning class is an example of such an implicit conspiracy. Far from having to admit to themselves or each other that they are oppressing the lower classes, the owning class has the privilege of believing they are in fact helping them.
Well, I have to agree that 'it is what it is' (I hope that's what he meant by 'it it was it is') is a pretty clear and funny example of a logical tautology.
Yeah, I guess 'that itself' is redundant, too.
First, which statement of mine has a redundancy? I think you may be confusing me with dmacleaod808.
I even gave you a link to the definition. What's the first definition of tautology listed? A redundant use of words, right? ALL tautologies are essentially meaningless, which makes a 'meaningless tautology' a tautology. Sheesh.
My Dineh friends here in Albuquerque believe the theory of evolution and the big bang. Two are atheists and the rest are Christian. I wonder how accurate these polls really are? Nobody I know doubts these things.
Touche.
I like Carter. He's a good man. Plus, anyone who can fend off a rabid swamp rabbit using only a paddle is one tough hombre.
What tribe? One side of my family is from Oklahoma. But not originally...
I would guess your mix of family and friends are fairly well educated? Not a random sample then. There is a dangerous strain of anti-intellectualism loose in America these days. A belief that common sense beats book learning, too much of which will in turn kill common sense. It amounts to a pride in ignorance.
Interesting, if true. Do you have a source?
Thanks for that. :)
Republican sex is just like Democratic sex,
Mostly, yes. Of course it is, people being what we are.
but with Republicans theres less same-sex
Slightly less, perhaps. What there is, is more hidden, and more repressed, with a hell of a lot more self loathing.
and a desire for lower taxes.
Tax and spend, borrow and spend: the 'spend' part seems to be a constant these days.
More BDSM in Republican circles.
Interesting.
Now I'm all confused. I thought that one was 'wrapping the cigar.' Or was it called the 'is is?'
Between blinds, the one-eyed is king.
Unfortunately not. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is locked away in an insane asylum because he talks about things no one else can even conceive of.
I thought "Choking the Beast" was some sort of Republican sex act, like the "wide stance" or the "lesbian bondage club."
Wrong. They asked the questions and did not like the embarrassing answers America gave. Like our child mortality rate, our scientific literacy rate is not something to be proud of. The majority of American do not believe in the big bang or evolution. You may, but most do not, whereas in the rest of the first world, most people do believe in these things.
Where are you getting 'asshat within the White House' from? The National Science Foundation is not located in the White House. Why blame the President for this? This was not an editing error. The questions were asked, but the answers were deliberately omitted.
That's a good one too: the Supreme Court has ruled against all violations of the Constitution that have come before it. Because They Say So.
And telling the Massachusettes legislature what to do about gay marriage isn't making new laws. Again, because They Say So. And spun is easily fooled.
I give up on you, bro.
The Constitution demands that the Supreme Court rule against all violations of the Constitution. That is one of it's two major purposes.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional under Massachusetts law to allow marriage only to heterosexual couples. That is not making a law, that is striking down an unconstitutional law. That is what the state and federal Supreme Courts are for. Without such a check and balance system, the Constitution becomes meaningless and any state could, for example, pass a law allowing slavery again.
If you give up on an argument, you've lost the argument. That's pretty much contained in the definitions of 'to give up' and 'to lose.'
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to harass others with your speech. Freedom is much more complicated than "You aren't the boss of me and I'll do whatever I want!"
See my sig:
It's pretty clear nothing will change this sociopathic felon's attitude, so keeping him out of our hair for as long as possible seems a good backup plan. Are you seriously defending this guy? Do you know anything about him, or is this just a knee-jerk attack against 'The Man?'
The difference being, an amicus brief is official and public, an email, letter, flier, or conversation outside the court is not. Do you not understand why one is permitted and the other is not?
If electronic communication with a judge via email is not an official channel and not permitted, perhaps technical measures to enforce said policy should be in place, no? Otherwise, it comes down to "Whhhaaaaa, they're not supposed to do that".
Does it? Because it sure looks like it comes down to "You're going to jail for being a dick, Kevin" to me. That seems to be a pretty decent enforcement mechanism and a far cry from "Whhaaaa, they're not supposed to do that." It seems more like, "Bitch, sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up," to me. Extra jail time. Now THAT is just the bitch-slap this sociopath needs.
Please explain how 'overturn unconstitutional laws' is the same thing as 'create laws.'
The amicus brief is on the record, and judges aren't even required to read them. That is a lot different than lobbying.
Please explain how the Supreme Court has exceeded its Constitutional mandate. You are making extraordinary claims, and those require extraordinary proof. All you've given so far are unsourced assertions.
Saying "I'm laughing at you" does not help your argument.
I'm sorry, your question does not make sense.
The first ammendment applies to everyone. But it does not give you the right to attempt to influence a judge regarding an ongoing trial outside of the proper channel of the amicus curiae brief. If you want input on a trial, you must go to court, not the judge. The reason for this is obvious: nobody should be able to influence a judge off the record.
The first ammendment only protects the contents of speech, not the method. You may not use harassing methods of speech. You may not post fliers on my door. You may not stand outside of my door yelling your opinion loudly. Your right to free speech does not overturn my rights.
The Supreme Court are the only ones with the power to overturn laws. They do not have the power to create new laws. Your sad misunderstanding of the US constitution, and the history of the United States, seems to be copied verbatim from some sort of right wing talking point playbook, and has no relation to actual reality.
If you would like to prove you are not a brainwashed right wing ideologue, you are welcome to attempt to find evidence to support your outrageous claims. Find me an example of the courts making a law and I will retract my statements and apologize. But you won't, because outside of paranoid Republican fantasy, it has never happened.
My post WAS responsive. My response was, the Supreme Court overturning laws (and they are the only ones who can) because they are deemed unconstitutional is not the same thing as writing laws. One key difference being, you can not lobby the Supreme Court to overturn laws. I'm sorry, if you can't understand the distinction, or find it trivial, there isn't much more I can say except that you are misinformed, and suggest you go to the source for clarification: the US constitution itself.
Supreme Court judges can overturn laws that do not follow the Constitution. They can not create new laws, and, here is the important part: what anyone else thinks is immaterial. That's why judges are appointed and not elected. So they can rule on issues of constitutionality without being swayed by public opinion. That's why our founding fathers set things up that way.
Let me be clear: getting a bunch of people to send emails to someone is no different than littering their yard with fliers. It is harassment, not free speech. But even if it were, you can not influence an ongoing trial by communicating with a judge outside of the courtroom. In case you missed it the first time, that is what an amicus curiae brief is for. The difference being, an amicus brief is official and public, an email, letter, flier, or conversation outside the court is not. Do you not understand why one is permitted and the other is not?